Future Canadian Skylines

[kool maudit]

Montreal has never known it, but it needs a monster. It needs a '70s Chicago goliath to make its scale snap together.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Montreal has never known it, but it needs a monster. It needs a '70s Chicago goliath to make its scale snap together.

I don't really think a supertall would compliment the skyline's built form or profile particularly well, especially since the bulk of tall construction in the city (and country even) tend to be residential towers with smaller floor plates. It would resemble a middle finger pointed towards the 401 or the National Assembly, whichever you choose.

That said, imagining the height limit were lifted for the sake of argument, I think a 230-260m tower with some heft and possibly terminating in a pinnacle or spire would fit the skyline nicely.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I don't really think a supertall would compliment the skyline's built form or profile particularly well, especially since the bulk of tall construction in the city (and country even) tend to be residential towers with smaller floor plates. It would resemble a middle finger pointed towards the 401 or the National Assembly, whichever you choose.

That said, imagining the height limit were lifted for the sake of argument, I think a 230-260m tower with some heft and possibly terminating in a pinnacle or spire would fit the skyline nicely.

I concur. A couple of 230-260m towers with striking architectural features on the crowns would tie the skyline together quite well while keeping the general height ceiling at ~200m.

A supertall would be nice but it would be too disproportionate. There would need to be multiple 250m-ish buildings to balance the skyline out, which I don't think is what Montreal wants to go for.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Montreal has never known it, but it needs a monster. It needs a '70s Chicago goliath to make its scale snap together.

Place Ville-Marie was kinda like that when it was built in the 60s, but that was another era.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Place Ville-Marie was kinda like that when it was built in the 60s, but that was another era.

I agree PVM was kind of like that in the 1960s not only due to it's height but also it's size. I believe it was the largest office tower in NA outside of NY in terms of square footage when it was built.

Still, it remains Canada's most iconic office tower and I don't see that every changing.

[Rico Rommheim]

RE: Mtl height limit.

In about a decade from now, downtown will have about about 20 towers between 210 and 200m tall. Only then will the height limit begin to be revisited. Before this happens though, I suspect one or two suburbs might just build a couple towers over 205m tall, a la Burnaby or Mississauga.

[TorontoDrew]

Looking good Montreal! Is Victoria Sur le Parc a little too tall and fat in that image though?

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Looking good Montreal! Is Victoria Sur le Parc a little too tall and fat in that image though?

VSP is probably a little to large in the image - given that it sits on lower ground than Le 1000 and is 10m taller than Tour de la Bourse. That said, of all the ~200m towers in the render, it's the closest to the "viewer" so it will likely appear slightly taller than the rest.

[canucklehead2]

Montreal needs to ditch the Mt. Royal height limit. It does nothing to help preserve the character of the city. It just leads to a bland wall of uniformly tall towers... I agree that even just 1 or 2 signature buildings that punctuate above would help...

[franktko]

I took the same POV using my models. You also see the impact of 455 RL. Forget the tower in the port at the right, it's wrong - the actual Tour du Grand Quai will be smaller.

[canucklehead2]

Originally Posted by franktko

I took the same POV using my models. You also see the impact of 455 RL. Forget the tower in the port at the right, it's wrong - the actual Tour du Grand Quai will be smaller.

Quick question since I noticed your icon is also my favourite Montreal skyscraper. What if anything was built on the site of its abandoned twin? I keep forgetting. I've never been to the city yet...

[franktko]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Quick question since I noticed your icon is also my favourite Montreal skyscraper. What if anything was built on the site of its abandoned twin? I keep forgetting. I've never been to the city yet...

A hotel which as been transformed into student housing since. There was not only talks about a twin but triplets!

[MisterMillionz]

Really nice to see Montreal getting some new tall buildings despite the table-top effect... These projects will make up 3/5 of the city's tallest!

[isaidso]

Agree although that table top looks contrived. It's not like one can see Mont Royal so the height restriction is all rather pointless. It doesn't accomplish what it's intended to do.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree although that table top looks contrived. It's not like one can see Mont Royal so the height restriction is all rather pointless. It doesn't accomplish what it's intended to do.

I think the height restriction has more to do with the fact that they don't want to have a skyline highter than Mont-Royal, that's it. The reasons behind it are pointless, we don't need to see the Mont-Royal from everywhere. The real reason is '' The height limit was chosen to preserve the predominance of Mount Royal in the urban landscape of Montreal. Mount Royal, which has become emblematic for the city, is at the heart of its territory and its personality.''

In short, they don't want the skyline to overpower Mount Royal.

[koops65]

A zoom-in and flyover of 292 Dundas W:

• Video Link

[IMG][/IMG]

[kool maudit]

If Montreal wanted to preserve some recognition of Mount Royal at its slopes and terraced plains, it would have needed to be 10-15 storeys.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

If Montreal wanted to preserve some recognition of Mount Royal at its slopes and terraced plains, it would have needed to be 10-15 storeys.

Agreed - the best way to preserve the mountain's predominance would have been to build a city along the lines of Washington D.C.

I understand that some of the intent is to preserve the mountain from some oblique angles and not just purely in elevation, but this battle is being lost on almost every front as any new highrise development obstructs these view planes.

Over its history, several overall height limits have come and gone in Montreal, so in 20 years (or 10 or 30 or whatever), there's no certainty that this height limit will still exist in its current form.

As the downtown fully builds out and vacant lots disappear, allowing greater height and density (I believe there is also a max density limit which I think is 12 or 14FSI) will be the best and possibly only way to preserve the existing built form that isn't strictly heritage designated.

[koops65]

A zoom-in to Halo on Yonge:

• Video Link

[IMG][/IMG]

[ericmacm]

Here's Kelowna, another future skyline project that I have been working on lately. Also, please excuse the disappearing/reappearing 1151 Water Street tower, it shows up for some shots and disappears for others: