wait until more go up and the next few years! Montreal's skyline will be wayyy up there in North America :P

Lovely developments, I like it when developers think big! :cheers:

Weird there is no mention of LA anywhere in Almost Human. I just skimmed through the first episode and there is no mention of the LAPD or LA on any buildings, police cars or uniforms. Even the wiki article says nothing about the city. I just assumed it takes place in an unnamed American city.

How would you rate Continuum? I watched the first few episodes but sort of lost interest.

Actually 120m is about the typical height for Vancouver condo towers. Of course there are a lot more and they are more densely packed there, but I don't think anyone would seriously contend Van is "not a skyscraper city" even though most if it is residential.

So if these all get built and a few more follow, it looks like Montreal is on the verge of a major transformation, not only in terms of built form but also in terms of perception - cities with significant downtown condo tower habitat are not that common, at least in a NA context.

Point well taken. Though I disagree that the JW are fine at street level - they're a typical inward-looking development unworthy of this century IMO.

Love the culture beat reference though!

True. I'm not sure where I got Los Angeles. Possibly from the CGI aerials.

Continuum isn't bad. The acting, writing, etc. could be better. I find the second season is better than the first.

The typical Vancouver tower is a lot less than 120 metres. It's closer to 90 metres or about 28 storeys.

Thanks. I'm going to give Continuum another shot.

By TO and Vancouver trumping us I meant back in the early 20th century. Consider that until the late 20's, The tallest buildings in the country were in Toronto, vancouver and Quebec City.

I couldn't agree more! I ran into those suburban developments recently on streetview and almost fainted. Whoever thought that was an appropriate type of development on the edge of downtown and two blocks from the city's busiest metro line should be immediately deported back to Phoenix.

That's too bad. Montreal does have lots of in fill potential in its downtown, but eventually Montreal will need to go taller if it continues to grow and prosper. That there's an issue with 120m is a bit shocking.

Montreal is still a big city by world standards, but the yard sticks keep moving all the time. I wonder if people around the world will consider Montreal a big city 40 years from now? Probably not.

I do like these designs, but the more I travel around the world the smaller Montreal feels. Many aren't comfortable with high density or tall buildings, but in the modern world both of these things are associated with 'big city'. In 1980 there was no disputing that Montreal felt like a big city. When I went back in 2000, it felt strangely 'small'.

At the rate the world's cities are developing, Montreal will end up feeling many notches down from the Chicagos and Melbournes of this world. The yard stick of what we associate with 'big city' moves all the time and Montreal isn't moving with that yard stick. Montrealers can do what they want, but size does matter.

And before people start going on about how different and Euro Montreal is, Paris, London, Milan, Moscow, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Frankfurt, etc. have all embraced height. Montreal is going in the opposite direction. Besides, there's little European about Montreal. It's north American to the core and always has been. Montrealers like to think of themselves as very European, but it's an attempt to distance oneself from anglo-America more than anything else.

I'm still puzzled by the fact that you're coming up with this at the very moment when Montreal experiences a revival in highrises construction. It feels a bit strange to me that you would decide that Montreal is now turning its back on skyscrapers just when we're building more than ever. Unless, of course, a 50 or 40 storeys condo tower doesn't qualify anymore for you.

If Montréal keeps building towers in the average range of 120 meters, I'm not too worry that it will look small in 20 years. In any case, we do have tons of land to fill in the downtown core and Montreal will look much bigger and denser if we wisely fill those spaces with quality mid and highrises than if we let them be and build only a few much taller buildings. Al that being said, I can honnestly understand how someone from Toronto would find that Montreal feels "smaller". It's not really because Montreal got smaller, but rather because Toronto grew so much in the last decade than the contrast is noticeable. This will not reverse, so you might as well get use to it. Montrealers sure did.

Also, Montrealers don't flatter themselves thinking that they are "oh so european". It's a cliche used repeatedly by travel journalists, mainly from the States. it's not our fault if they lack imagination.

You have a very subjective conveyance. Why do your feelings matter so much to the citybuilding process that aims for economic and environmental sustainability?

Everything is relative; so yes, by travelling around the world you may quickly realise that Montréal's highrise infrastructure is modest by comparison. And I say: so what? Why are having the tallest buildings in the world an asset?

I believe you might be viewing cities through the perspective of a penis measuring contest. Or maybe we should begin classifying SSP and UT members as some form of highrise-sexual.

These proposals and currently under construction highrise towers would suggest otherwise. Let's hope for more progress, for more of the island to see projects at these densities.

Since North America isn't a whitewash of a single pattern of habitation, I don't understand what you mean when the city is "North American to the core." It's...in North America...so I can't disagree with what you're asserting, whatever that may be.

I don't believe that francophones hate anglophones so much as to avoid building highrises because they've noticed the anglophones have built some...

Montréal was once part of New France. Montréal is Old North America.

A skyline and a CBD leaves a lasting impression but, it's really the extent of the urbanized area that makes a city feel large. 120 metres is 40 storeys which is pretty darn tall too.

If 120 metres consistently rose across half the island, that would be quite awesome.

It's the population, not how much towers you have. In 40 years, Montréal will be around 7 million, it's big, the CMA will probably be larger in land area, and maybe we will have 300m towers, who knows. Mtl has always been smaller than New York, London, Paris etc... but people around the world are not stupid, they know it's smaller. There is a point where big doesn't = better. Canada is not competing, we don't have any 300m+ towers, but our cities are not small. Nobody can compete with New York, London, Shanghai,Tokyo etc...

future Canadian skyline, no 300m+ anywhere ?

To be fair FCP is a mere 2m short of 300. Also I realize the CN Tower isn't a skyscraper but it is still a inhabitable structure of 553 m. Don't think it gets enough credit around here.

1975.

RyeJay is right. First of all, Montreal doesn't "feel small", we still have two 200m towers and a cluster of towers taller than 140m... Especially with all the construction going on, Montreal's Downtown is just getting taller and denser year after year. Second of all, since when is height all that important? Berlin's (pop: 3,5 million) tallest building is 125 meters tall...
Third of all, it's ironic you say that when the city is experiencing it's biggest construction boom since the 90's.

Maybe if you're not from Montreal you shouldn't speculate about how it's population feels about height.

Just a reminder, we currently have 6 buildings under construction with 35 floors or more, including two 50-storey buildings...

Oh, who cares? It's isaidso's opinion and that won't change. If he sees Montreal getting smaller and smaller as each year passes then that's what he sees and that's fine.

Montreal is a relatively large North American city. Some people look down at it (Anglo-Canadian media, SSP Calgary forumers ;) ), others live in it and love it. That's all I needs to know.

I'd say those went up in the late 1980s and early 90s. Back then, Montreal was more desperate for residential development than it is now. I think it was probably all built when Jean Doré was mayor.

This area REALLY resembles parts of Longueuil (Saint-Hubert and Greenfield Park in particular). Friends never seem to understand why I hate that area.

People can deride the fact that we are building 120 metre towers downtown, but we've really come a long way from where we were, in the dark days of the 80s and 90s. Even 5-10 years ago, the norm for new tower heights downtown was under 100 metres (Crystal, Tours Lépines, Roc Fleuri, etc) ... I expect in 10 years, we'll be building more in the 150 metre range. As long as it's good quality, we'll take it.

Dude your constant downplay is tiresome. You dont like what you see, we get it. Why the need to always rain on our parade?

Personally, I don't really care how tall the buildings are at this point. As long as they're good quality, have decent street interaction, and fill ugly empty lots, then I'm happy.

What really makes me mad is when an existing building is demolished or re-developed for a new project when there are vacant spaces nearby crying out for development.

Thankfully, that doesn't happen often in Montreal these days, except for those two victorian greystones that the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts demolished for their new pavillon. A little sad.

http://spacing.ca/montreal/wp-conten...3/05/faceb.jpg
Source

Well, he's certainly entitled to his opinion and I, for one, is interested in what forumers from other cities think about Montreal. And like I said, Montreal does indeed feel smaller and smaller compare to Toronto. I don't think it's about to change.

Yes, but Montreal's construction boom is normal.

Vancouver has lots of highrises because the land area is smaller, and the city needs to densify in order to grow. Calgary's super boom comes from the tar sands industry, which is unique to Alberta. Toronto's growth is attributed to it's size and strong economy. Montreal can't be compared to these three cities because it doesn't have the same factors, given that the island is huge (50 kilometers from West to East end).

I personally think Montreal is doing great and I look up to the future.

% 100 agree

Why do you need to bait like that?

Can you find an example of where any Calgary forumer has mentioned anything untoward about Montreal in the last 16 months? I doubt it. Just remember, it's any time something good is mentioned about Calgary that so many of you Mtl guys feel the need to jump in to discredit it, without any factual basis... Not the other way around. I and everyone else here I know consistently compliment and or take note of all of the new projects going on for Mtl. It's a great thing seeing another city join the national boom.

Hey guys, don't take isaidso's comments personally, his pro-height comments are what I like best about that guy, he also bashes Toronto's height timidity on the UT Toronto forums the same way. Like me he also wants Canada sprinkled with mini-Manhattans or London sized cities and pushes hard to strive for that sentiment. We need pro-development/height guys like that to balance out all the damn NIMBY's :P

I still don't get how that could have happened. I am still scratching my head over that. Montreal has lost many oldies in 2013, and bumbaru was as conspicuous as a fart in the wind.

Ok fine the new building will be dope, and I'm glad the Museum of fine arts is growing like crazy, but these went down without a wimper from the heritage freaks, and without our famous public consultations, which will gladly cock-block a 34 storey towersin the middle of downtown, and will probably give CF a hard time over its small towers south of st-Antoine street, but inexplicably never materialize to discuss the future of these century old mansions.

Montreal's greatness has not, is not, nor will ever be, defined by how tall its buildings are.


People that think otherwise really need to get out and see the world a bit before passing judgment over 1 of three dimensions in the normal physical world.

Seconded. :tup:

Don't ever change. Seriously. :cheers: :)

Mansions is a big word. There are still thousands of greystones like that all over town and the museum can hardly grow elsewhere, so I guess Heritage Montreal decided to choose its battle. The future pavillon 5 will look amazing though, so it makes the sacrifice less painful.

I have to agree with you the fact that Mtl feels smaller the moment you go abroad; that's just because it really is not that big. When I leave Mumbai, NY or Tokyo and land in Montreal... I'm always shocked: where's everyone?
But the same can be said about any city in this country. Even Toronto is small compared to Bangkok or Seoul. But Montreal is still an amazing place regardless of it's lack of size *fetish*... After all, it's regarded has one of the most remarkable cities in North America and it is absolutely charming and beautiful with lots to offer particularly in terms of culture. Tall buildings certainly don't make cities become great and fun to live in.

Most cities in North America (minus NYC) will feel small compared to big Asian cities. That's a no brainer. No need to single out Montreal for that. Every city is a victim of that statement. I personally love Montreal and everything the city has to offer. The vibe, energy, street scape, culture, all surpass any other city in Canada IMO. Go take a stroll downtown Calgary or Edmonton, or Winnipeg, and then do the same in Montreal. It's totally different. Montreal has a soul, the city has a heart beat, whereas the others simply do not. (That's my opinion, don't flip). Montreal has that Euro meets USA vibe infused with French culture (no other NA city can offer that), plus throw in the older buildings and streets, a happening night life, festival after festival, so many cool things to do. It's the only city in this country where you can spend a solid 5 days on foot and never get bored. You don't need a car. There are so many things to do on foot/bike/subway, that being a tourist is awesome. You really get to connect with the city. That's part of that X factor.

So no need to rip Montreal, it may not have big skyscrapers compared to Calgary and Toronto but it doesn't need them. It kicks those two cities asses to hell and back in every other way. Sorry to blunt, but that's the truth.

^ Like you said, that's just your opinion, which is not the same as "the truth". ;)

Personally I find Toronto easily matches Montreal in terms of vibrancy, festivals, things to do, walkability, etc.

To say Montreal has a soul whereas other Canadian cities do not is pretty ignorant I would say. It has a more boisterous, well aged soul, but isn't the exception. I think every Canadian city has it's own vibe/ soul. To say otherwise is simply wrong. Visit Halifax and tell me it doesn't have a pulse. Toronto? Are you kidding?! Vancouver, Victoria, even Saskatoon and dare I say Calgary all have a different energy about them. Don't feel miffed other cities, I'm just mentioning ones I've been to that have struck me.

Bland, boring cities need skyscrapers more than vibrant, fun cities. I would think the opposite is true considering studies shows skyscraper neighbourhoods being quieter than urban medium rise.

What exactly is this European flar as I don't see it. To me, Montreal is very much another version of Northeastern US Cities. It has its own personality like the others but, the similarities are still very pronounced. I see very little in common with 2014 France including the dialect.

Even if Montréal had 2 supertalls, the city would still be the same. ''She'' would not be better. the latest news here, at street level, Sainte-Catherine to become pedestrian all year long. Coderre likes the idea.

No need to make it pedestrian 24hrs a day 365 days a year, this ain't Hong Kong.


But I do like the other ideas, Widening the sidewalks, heating these sidewalks in the winter and putting a tram in the middle of the street.

Some French friends of mine now living in Canada (academics, currently in Winnipeg) spent six months in Montreal, six months in Toronto and two years in Hamilton.

They loved Montreal, and said it "had a soul." About Toronto, they explicitly said that it was "a city without a soul." And Hamilton? It was a mongrel that was often difficult to love, but it would be mean to be unkind to it. They feel that Winnipeg is inward and provincial, but they've been there for a while now, so they must like it enough.

This having or not having "a soul" is the sort of handy descriptor that people easily latch onto when comparing Montreal to other cities in Canada. And I can see why. Montreal can really grab you, and other places begin to feel unsubstantial by comparison. While I obviously don't agree with them about Toronto, they couldn't be convinced by me of its charms. Oh well.

Curiously, the subject of skyscrapers never came up with them. As if they were unimportant. Hard to believe, I know...

toronto is visibly larger than montreal, but neither are "large cities" in the global sense of the word. neither are probably particularly soulful, either, if you're just getting off the plane (even though montreal's vast, conflicted and tragic soul is a thing from which i still draw sustenance after two years abroad). montreal and toronto are akin to hamburg and rome and vienna and maybe, in toronto's case, milan. they're not paris and london.

(in my view, as well, their respective "souls" have a lot to do with their heartbreaking shortfalls. post-colonial or something. )

My opinion has merit. Every single person I've spoken to this about agrees with me or can see where I'm coming from. Montreal has an allure to it that is indescribable. Of course any city can be argued that there is a soul to it. But Montreal is different. Comparing it to a regular NE US city is actually laughable. I went to Montreal for the first time three years ago with no bias, no expectation, and came home in total shock. I go back all the time now and can honestly say that city has something that no city on this continent can relate to. It's not backed up by facts and big buildings or population , but rather a feeling I get everytime I'm there. It's like a spell and I know I'm not alone with these opinions, I hear it all the time.

And it;s funny because this last summer I was on Toronto island waiting for the ferry and was over hearing a big group of tourist's conversation. They were asking others of the best things to do while in Toronto, sharing stories, and comparing where each of them had been. And what every single person agreed was that from a tourist perspective, Montreal is not only more convenient, but offers more to do on foot and more to see (diversity of architecture, a more vibrant history, things are closer together, and all on the subway line or within Bixi biking distance, etc). These were people from Asia, South America, the US, and Europe. So this is common opinion, not just mine.

So we're back to discussing Montreal's je ne sais quoi-ness again, huh? Can we just skip to the part where we all agree that smoked meat sandwiches are way better and more iconic than pemeal bacon?

After living in the UK for the past 2 years and travelling across Europe, I can honestly say that the city of Toronto has no appeal whatsoever to me. It truly is a city without a soul. Most people from Europe I spoke with found it quite boring and a bit tacky. It is certainly an important city financially and politically for Canada, but it is not a great city on the world stage. If tall towers made cities great, Toronto would be great. A great city has a flare and appeal on it's own - it's great because of what it is. A great city has a strong history, memorable buildings, great museums, and almost a sex appeal. Toronto doesn't really have this. Montreal does. Quebec City certainly does.

Remember, Toronto was a farming town. It was only made into the premier banking financial and money city in Canada because Montreal didn't want the title.

If Montreal had played by the rules, Toronto would be like Kitchener today, and no one would even know where it was, another hick town in norwheresville, Ontario. Then everyone would be happy, and then you could ask Americans, Europeans, and Asians what they think of Kitchener, St. Catharines, or Windsor, then they could HONESTLY tell you it's "soulless" , "boring" or they've never heard of the place before....lol!

I like Montreal a whole bunch, but I must be blind to its magical, mystical, transdimensional qualities that everyone else is seemingly always jerking off about. It's "just" a city.

The whole x place having "soul" or not thing strikes me as a lazy cop out to avoid admitting personal bias (or alternatively, perhaps a lack of understanding as to where these emotions are coming from). That sort of personal attachment or lack thereof something isn't inherent to the place itself - it's an emotion. There's nothing wrong with that. We all like certain things and dislike certain other things and have various emotions corresponding to other things, with little identifiable cause as to why that's the case. Some try to justify it - such as by saying the thing that they like has "soul" while that which they don't is of course, soulless - but ultimately there's little logic or objectivity in a feeling. That's just not how they work.

Have you ever been outside of North America? If you have, you will know what we are talking about. If not, you should travel and you will understand.