Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonDowntown
I provided the following thoughts in the St. Bernard Place thread, but I believe it is better located here in the general Moncton forum...
Based on my research, for a city of Moncton's size, the ideal building height is in the 4–8 storey range, with occasional taller buildings (10–15 storeys) in the core if supported by demand and infrastructure. This “mid-rise urbanism” approach offers density without the drawbacks of very tall towers.
Pros and Cons of Taller Buildings include:
Pros
Efficient land use – Maximizes housing or office space on small parcels of land.
Urban density – Supports public transit, local retail, and walkability by concentrating people.
Skyline identity – Creates a visual landmark for the city.
Cons
Wind tunnels and downdrafts – Tall buildings can increase ground-level wind speeds, making streets less comfortable.
Shadowing – Block sunlight on nearby streets and properties, reducing livability and affecting plants/green spaces.
Infrastructure strain – Require more robust utilities, elevators, fire safety systems, and emergency planning.
High cost and risk – Large projects are expensive and complex, discouraging smaller local developers and concentrating ownership.
Benefits of Mid-Rise and Low-Rise Development
More incremental growth
Mid-rise projects (4–8 storeys) are financially feasible for a wider range of developers. This means more numerous, smaller projects rather than a few large towers, keeping development momentum steady.
Context-sensitive scale
Lower heights blend well with existing neighborhoods and preserve the city’s character.
Better street experience
They allow more sunlight, reduce wind impacts, and make streets feel more human-scaled and inviting.
Flexibility for future development
If land is fully consumed by a few huge towers, redevelopment opportunities can stall for decades. Smaller, lower projects leave parcels available for phased growth as demand increases.
Summary
Cities of Moncton size benefit from mid-rise density as the backbone of growth.
Too many very tall towers can harm street life, create wind/shadow issues, and “lock up” land in a few projects, limiting future opportunities.
Moderate heights encourage continuous, sustainable development and a healthy mix of local developers.
|
An important thing to be is setbacks and surrounding developments. Look at Dubai, it’s a very tall city, but it doesn’t feel very dense as it is basically a series of mega projects connected by highways. On the flip side, you have Rome or Paris, or DC with very dense walkable neighborhoods wide streets, but the setback from the road is very minimal. However they’re is basically no skyscrapers in the important parts of these cities.
In Moncton, the Junction Urban Village and the ‘Tomato building’ (its official name escapes me) as well as the 3rd sister off assumption, the Icon Riverview development and all of Thrives residential builds all have significant setbacks from the roads creating a disconnect.
It is possible to create these types of areas, Halifax had done a good job as this in the last decade or so. Even downtown Dieppe is very dense and has very little setbacks. This differs substantially to the Dieppe Blvd area with very large setbacks by it’s apartment buildings.
A 6 storey building were the sidewalk is right up against the building is going to have the same impact as an 8 storey building that’s built 15 feet from the edge of the road.
As for St. Bernard’s square, I don’t know that 18 storeys was the right call here, but I also certainly don’t think that 6 is the right call either. For Moncton to do this right, they should amend their downtown plan to include minimum height requirements on new builds in certain downtown locations, remove parking requirements and remove minimum setbacks as well. This will greatly improve the city going forward.