Future Canadian Skylines - Page 193

Chadillaccc · #**3841** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 6:03 AM**

I'm pretty sure we've not seen this one just yet

For some reason it still includes 3 Eau Claire, and it's missing the massive 7-tower West Eau Claire project, other than that it's looking great.

http://calgarybuzz.com/2015/12/calga...ill-look-2024/

Edit: shit, nvm it looks like it was posted last year. Whatever I guess...

Black Star · #**3842** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 6:13 AM**

That looks amazing.

TorontoDrew · #**3843** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 4:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Edit: shit, nvm it looks like it was posted last year. Whatever I guess...

So a back to the future render.

Mrs Sauga · #**3844** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 5:49 PM**

That looks amazing

caltrane74 · #**3845** Posted **Jan 18, 2016, 6:44 PM**

Still, it looks good. And Calgary's skyline is gonna be massive.

GreaterMontréal · #**3846** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 8:56 PM**

Coldrsx · #**3847** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 9:37 PM**

About time Montreal kicks it up un notch.

mistercorporate · #**3848** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 10:07 PM**

Damn, Canadian skylines getting smexy! Me likes!

Black Star · #**3849** Posted **Jan 20, 2016, 10:46 PM**

Montreal has always been sexy. But now its getting girth.

hipster duck · #**3850** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 2:15 AM**

How serious is that Mount Royal height limit in Montreal? I ask because most cities that had a height limit (e.g. Philly, San Francisco) eventually succumbed to development pressure, and for the first time, Montreal actually has that kind of pressure.

And what is the rationale for the Mount Royal height limit? You can't actually see over the tallest skyscrapers from the famous viewpoint at the Chalet. And, simultaneously, you can't see the mountain behind the skyscrapers from the south shore. What actually matters is the position of highrises relative to view corridors, rather than absolute heights.

GreaterMontréal · #**3851** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 3:13 AM**

del.

Rico Rommheim · #**3852** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 5:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

How serious is that Mount Royal height limit in Montreal? I ask because most cities that had a height limit (e.g. Philly, San Francisco) eventually succumbed to development pressure, and for the first time, Montreal actually has that kind of pressure.

I'll put it this way, the current height limit is around 205-210m. During this extraordinary construction boom, not a single proposal has even reached the height limit, let alone expressed the need to surpass it.

L'Avenue, at 183m comes the closest. Cadillac Fairview's future project south of the Bell centre will not exceed 180m. So, that pretty much explains why even scraping the height limit wouldn't suddenly birth New-York style skyscrapers all over town. The demand isn't there.

franktko · #**3853** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

How serious is that Mount Royal height limit in Montreal? I ask because most cities that had a height limit (e.g. Philly, San Francisco) eventually succumbed to development pressure, and for the first time, Montreal actually has that kind of pressure.

And what is the rationale for the Mount Royal height limit? You can't actually see over the tallest skyscrapers from the famous viewpoint at the Chalet. And, simultaneously, you can't see the mountain behind the skyscrapers from the south shore. What actually matters is the position of highrises relative to view corridors, rather than absolute heights.

That limit is not going anywhere. There is not even a breath of discussions going on about removing it. The only people talking about scrapping this limit are us good folks in these forums

hipster duck · #**3854** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 5:38 PM**

^Yeah, I figured. Who knows, though? In Toronto, the boom went on for about 12 years before somebody proposed something taller than FCP. It's hard to break the height barrier, but the minute somebody does a bunch of others follow right behind them.

But am I correct in wondering why that height limit exists? It doesn't really seem to serve its purpose whether you are up on the mountain or trying to see the mountain.

Martin Mtl · #**3855** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

How serious is that Mount Royal height limit in Montreal? I ask because most cities that had a height limit (e.g. Philly, San Francisco) eventually succumbed to development pressure, and for the first time, Montreal actually has that kind of pressure.

And what is the rationale for the Mount Royal height limit? You can't actually see over the tallest skyscrapers from the famous viewpoint at the Chalet. And, simultaneously, you can't see the mountain behind the skyscrapers from the south shore. What actually matters is the position of highrises relative to view corridors, rather than absolute heights.

The thing is, there is absolutely no pressure whatsoever to get rid of the height limit; I don't know where you got that impression, but it's not there. There is enough space in downtown to keep building 40/50 stories buildings toping under 200 meters for generations to come. So the height limit is here to stay for a long time.

TorontoDrew · #**3856** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 5:54 PM**

I don't really see the point of the Montreal height limit. They can't build taller then Mount Royal but they can build the same height. How is that supposed to maintain it's predominance in the skyline? It will just eventually be blocked by a table top plateau of buildings.

GreaterMontréal · #**3857** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I don't really see the point of the Montreal height limit. They can't build taller then Mount Royal but they can build the same height. How is that supposed to maintain it's predominance in the skyline? It will just eventually be blocked by a table top plateau of buildings.

building height
http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/port...auteurs_25.pdf
http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/port...S_HAUTEURS.PDF

center's skyline
http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/port...SILHOUETTE.PDF

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/p..._schema=PORTAL

vanatox · #**3858** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 6:32 PM**

The links provided by Greater explain well why the height limits are there. Those limit exist so that two peaks exist: Mont-Royal and a man-made peak made of buildings. No peak should overshadow the other one (well actually the man-made peak should not overshadow the natural one...).

HomeInMyShoes · #**3859** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 6:47 PM**

^The man made one will overshadow the mountain when the density of buildings extends to an area larger than the mountain. I do agree that it is nice to climb up the mountain in Montreal and be at the level of the tallest buildings. Will that always stay? I don't know, but i like the feeling in Montreal and love the skyline as it is. It is nice to see it fill in a little, but I worry about a table-top happening. What is nice in Montreal right now is the landmark nature of the tallest structures and the space they have. It will be interesting over the next ten year's if I still like the skyline as much and what my reasons will be.

GreaterMontréal · #**3860** Posted **Jan 21, 2016, 7:13 PM**

Le Mont-Royal is a ''table-top''