lets dream a bit ??? 200m tower in mtl

G.S MTL · #1 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 1:25 PM**

hehehe as some of you maybe know. i love designing my own towers lol its fun!....so i decided to do one and add it in montreals skyline! take a look\

night shots.....

now at 300m?

here is the drawing.

i already have FIRST CANADIAN PLAZA on my diagram but this one is different.

francely57 · #2 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 2:09 PM**

Nice! Where's the exact location? the small empty lot at University/Cathcart?

(waiting for someone to reply "...et on voit toujours la montagne!")

Montreal (438) · #3 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 2:40 PM**

It looks great.

TheMeltyMan · #4 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 6:24 PM**

Its time to get rid of that ancient height restriction. That 300m adds so much to the skyline. It really brings it all together.

Gregbx · #5 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 6:58 PM**

I like it better at 200 m though, it really fits the skyline. 300m looks rather disproportionate to me compared to the other buildings. Nice design however, great job GS!!

francely57 · #6 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregbx

I like it better at 200 m though, it really fits the skyline. 300m looks rather disproportionate to me compared to the other buildings. Nice design however, great job GS!!

I think the best would be that 300 m version, with a 250 m companion on Cataclaw's spot (Gare Centrale). Then nothing would be disproportionate.

TheMeltyMan · #7 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 8:28 PM**

I like classic model skyline like what Philly has. The triangular grade makes cities look like their core has a core and that the density is progressive to a point. A 300m building like that could easily give Montreal that quintessential shape for a city.

Canadian Mind · #8 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 8:32 PM**

eh, I think 300 meters is a bit much. 250-275 meters perhaps?

kool maudit · #9 Posted **Sep 22, 2007, 9:05 PM**

we really need a taller tower. our current skyline looks a bit anemic, like some depressing bomb-rebuild from middle europe, whose buildings are decided by a committee in bruxelles.

JCC · #10 Posted **Sep 23, 2007, 2:02 PM**

I had somewhat of an idea about this height restriction business.

What if there was a limited number of permits given for 250m constructions? Let say, a permit is issued once every 5 years and is auctionned to the highest bidder. That would mean at most 20 towers over the span of 100 years, which seems reasonnable. The money raised could go, for example, towards social housing, which would make the whole thing more acceptable.

Just a thought...

francely57 · #11 Posted **Sep 23, 2007, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

I had somewhat of an idea about this height restriction business.

What if there was a limited number of permits given for 250m constructions? Let say, a permit is issued once every 5 years and is auctionned to the highest bidder. That would mean at most 20 towers over the span of 100 years, which seems reasonnable. The money raised could go, for example, towards social housing, which would make the whole thing more acceptable.

Just a thought...

A 250 m construction every 5 years?
...maybe if we find a huge amount of oil/gold/diamond in Nunavik (Northern Quebec), that would make a "Calgary East" kind of development. (Before anyone gets emotional, I'm just talking about tall constructions, NOT comparing Calgary to Montreal!

)

habsfan · #12 Posted **Sep 23, 2007, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMeltyMan

I like classic model skyline like what Philly has. The triangular grade makes cities look like their core has a core and that the density is progressive to a point. A 300m building like that could easily give Montreal that quintessential shape for a city.

I agree. however in this case i think a 250-260 meter tower would do the job just fine!

By the way, Nice design, G.S.. Good job!

G.S MTL · #13 Posted **Sep 23, 2007, 5:58 PM**

thanks guys!!!

JCC · #14 Posted **Sep 23, 2007, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by francely57

A 250 m construction every 5 years?
...maybe if we find a huge amount of oil/gold/diamond in Nunavik (Northern Quebec), that would make a "Calgary East" kind of development. (Before anyone gets emotional, I'm just talking about tall constructions, NOT comparing Calgary to Montreal!

)

No, you'd just buy a right to build, an exception to the rule. Developers would not have to exercise that right or even to buy the permit.

steve81 · #15 Posted **Sep 23, 2007, 7:38 PM**

I don't understand all the fuss about the height restrictions. It's not like anyone is building a tower that's approaching the limit right now. Even if they were to abolish the limit, it would not mean a tower taller than 205 meters would be built.

habsfan · #16 Posted **Sep 24, 2007, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve81

I don't understand all the fuss about the height restrictions. It's not like anyone is building a tower that's approaching the limit right now. Even if they were to abolish the limit, it would not mean a tower taller than 205 meters would be built.

You are right. Even if the limit were to be abolished, it wouldn't mean a new 205+ meter tower would go up, but when the market will be tighter, it could push a developper to build the "new tallest" with alot of fanfare and hoopla!