Canadian City Proposals - Page 620

Zeej · #**12381** Posted **May 21, 2019, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by itom 987

Nor does raising the height limit hinder, stifling Montreal's potential doesn't help Montreal.

Keep the height limit and you might get what is happing in Vancouver where one of the surrounding cities becomes open to taller buildings and ends up stealing attention away from Vancouver.

Montreal has entertained building taller towers before - albeit some time ago. Almost all of the proposals involved demolishing existing buildings in the core. One proposal comes to mind in the 70s where a 60 storey office tower was planned for the site occupied by Windsor Station.

As a skyscraper enthusiast, I'd still take Windsor Station. I think most Montrealers would agree. The backlash from this flirtation with going tall and modern has certainly informed our downtown zoning policies to some degree.

I really don't see how Montreal would be any "better" if its towers were 20 or 50 or 80 meters taller. It's potential stems more from its architectural creativity and dense yet spacious urbanity than from its ability to deliver larger blocks of office space or residential units. For that matter, downtown Montreal is one of the largest concentrations of office space in North America (top 10), and we managed to do that without supertalls.

vanman · #**12382** Posted **May 21, 2019, 4:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

In all fairness, Burnaby hasn't built taller than Vancouver yet. Nothing happens over night but when development is restricted in one jurisdiction it's inevitable over the long term (50+ years) that an adjacent jurisdiction where development its easier will steal growth and attention away.

Give this till 2070 and then ask the same question.

Burnaby is already building taller than Vancouver including the tallest in the metro.

Top 3 buildings in Vancouver u/c /site prep are 178m, 168m, 161m.

Top 3 buildings in Burnaby u/c /site prep are 215m, 187m, 187m.

Martin Mtl · #**12383** Posted **May 21, 2019, 5:34 PM**

L82 (Griffintown)

WhipperSnapper · #**12384** Posted **May 21, 2019, 6:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by itom 987

Nor does raising the height limit hinder, stifling Montreal's potential doesn't help Montreal.

Keep the height limit and you might get what is happing in Vancouver where one of the surrounding cities becomes open to taller buildings and ends up stealing attention away from Vancouver.

I can't see how taller heights in Burnaby are stealing attention from Vancouver outside of our insignificant community. I didn't realize Courbevoie and ‎Puteaux are such attention getters. In all my experience, the height factor is inconsequential to built form. Majority of people from away aren't going to romanticize about skyscraper cities like Houston, Dalles or, Atlanta.

The limits in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, etc. have reason to exist. We can debate whether that reason is justified but, we probably won't all come to a consensus between city building and skyline building.

Martin Mtl · #**12385** Posted **May 21, 2019, 7:24 PM**

Plateau54 (Le Plateau - UC)

isaidso · #**12386** Posted **May 21, 2019, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

Burnaby is already building taller than Vancouver including the tallest in the metro.

Top 3 buildings in Vancouver u/c /site prep are 178m, 168m, 161m.

Top 3 buildings in Burnaby u/c /site prep are 215m, 187m, 187m.

So you're in agreement with my post. The tallest in BC are in Vancouver. It's impossible for these Burnaby buildings to have stolen attention away from Vancouver as they don't currently exist.

WhipperSnapper · #**12387** Posted **May 21, 2019, 9:40 PM**

You guessed wrong. The under construction Brentwood towers exist in every sense.

csbvan · #**12388** Posted **May 21, 2019, 10:02 PM**

And the tallest tower in BC that is about to break ground in Burnaby, Two Gilmore Place, looks like this:

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news...al-tower-that-will-be-the-tallest-in-b-c

Serviceable? Sure. Is anybody going to talk about it outside of this forum? No. Will it draw attention away from shorter towers being built in Vancouver, like these? Of course not

https://www.vancourier.com/real-estate/t...ver-s-architectural-landscape-1.23189182

https://www.rew.ca/properties/R2345932/501-1550-alberni-street-vancouver-bc

TorontoDrew · #**12389** Posted **May 22, 2019, 1:48 PM**

120 Church Street has been resubmitted to city council with a thinner massing. The height remains the same.

45 floors 490ft / 149.5m

source: Urbantoronto.ca
Original

Updated Ignore the lo res render provided, the materials for the tower should be the same as the previous.

Martin Mtl · #**12390** Posted **May 22, 2019, 2:21 PM**

/\ I like that. It is always a relief to see a Toronto project without wrap-around balconies. I hope it will become a trend.

TorontoDrew · #**12391** Posted **May 22, 2019, 2:24 PM**

I'm a fan of wrap around balconies like Casa or several others they make for very clean looking towers, I also like indented balconies. It's the messy protruding ones on most I hate.

MonkeyRonin · #**12392** Posted **May 22, 2019, 5:59 PM**

2 Tecumseth. Redesign of an earlier project - not really visible in the renders here, but the taller tower is 30 stories and 108.5m:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/05/plans-revised-mixed-use-2-tecumseth-development

191 Parliament office building:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/05/191-parliament-office-tower-hits-market-parliament-co

89 Avenue Rd, an unfortunate redesign of a much nicer aA-designed tower from the previous Freed proposal:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/05/89-avenue-road-proposal-revived-new-design

Reunion Crossing - replaces a long-standing vacant lot at St. Clair & Old Weston:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/05/diamond-kilmer-kicks-marketing-reunion-crossing

Mrs Sauga · #**12393** Posted **May 22, 2019, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

/\ I like that. It is always a relief to see a Toronto project without wrap-around balconies. I hope it will become a trend.

No balconies is obviously the nicest, but if they have to have balconies I prefer indented. But if they have to protruding, then wrap around is by far nicer than not wrap around.

Nouvellecosse · #**12394** Posted **May 22, 2019, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

120 Church Street has been resubmitted to city council with a thinner massing. The height remains the same.

My god even with all the development we've had over the past decade there are STILL surface parking lots on major streets downtown.

I can't even contemplate what things would've been like without the boom.

GeneralLea · #**12395** Posted **May 22, 2019, 8:09 PM**

Oh come on. There's a great bar and karaoke place right at 120 Church, I love going there. I wish this development would've been for that surface lot instead.

MonkeyRonin · #**12396** Posted **May 22, 2019, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

My god even with all the development we've had over the past decade there are STILL surface parking lots on major streets downtown.

I can't even contemplate what things would've been like without the boom.

Well you can take a look for yourself: http://map.toronto.ca/maps/map.jsp?app=TorontoMaps_v2

(Just switch to "Aerial 2005" in the top-right corner)

Things were bad, though not nearly as bad as most other places in North America. All the same, the construction boom hasn't really been eating up parking lots as fast you might expect - a lot of new development is just as likely to be replacing underbuilt lots or existing structures (unfortunately, in many cases).

Nouvellecosse · #**12397** Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:00 PM**

The same thing happens in Halifax which I always find highly annoying. Developments come along and replace existing buildings - some of which are historic and worth preserving - all the while surface lots sit idle up the street or around the corner.

Martin Mtl · #**12398** Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:19 PM**

In Montreal it's pretty much the opposite. Almost every new developments in this boom was build on surface parking lots or vacant lots; very few existing buildings replacement. The city made a lot of efforts to encourage that, in addition to stop completely the "opening" of new surface parking lots. There is very few surface parkings lots remaining, except south of the Bell center and Place Bonnaventure. It's immensely satisfying.

Mrs Sauga · #**12399** Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:24 PM**

Yeah i don't see many lots in MTL aerials.

Toronto still has a ton of space to build. The east side especially. We also don't have any geographic restraints either.

MonkeyRonin · #**12400** Posted **May 22, 2019, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

In Montreal it's pretty much the opposite. Almost every new developments in this boom was build on surface parking lots or vacant lots; very few existing buildings replacement. The city made a lot of efforts to encourage that, in addition to stop completely the "opening" of new surface parking lots. There is very few surface parkings lots remaining, except south of the Bell center and Place Bonnaventure. It's immensely satisfying.

The start of the boom in Toronto also saw the redevelopment of mostly parking lots. Eventually though, where there's money to be made owners of buildings will want in too.

After 15 years of construction nonetheless, most of the downtown parking lots here are now gone (including all in the CBD), but a few stubborn hangers-on have still persisted against all odds.