Building height vs Mount Royal
This CBC piece talks as if the rule that buildings can’t be taller than Mount Royal is old and obsolete, but I know the rule has been reconfirmed by the city within the last few years.
This CBC piece talks as if the rule that buildings can’t be taller than Mount Royal is old and obsolete, but I know the rule has been reconfirmed by the city within the last few years.
Bill Binns 12:34 on 2018-12-26 Permalink
I had heard that this rule was meant to preserve views of the mountain from the city. If so, it has been a resounding failure. Even if I have it wrong and the rule was meant to preserve views of the city from the mountain it appears there were frequent exceptions made. The big round high rise that belongs to McGill on Pine and the 40 story Port Royal condo building on Sherbrooke come to mind.
Max 19:58 on 2018-12-26 Permalink
I’m more concerned about the south-looking sightlines from downtown these days. It seems every other month some piece of crap glass and concrete tower goes up in Griffintown ruining yet another vista onto the sud-ouest and the river.
Vazken 08:39 on 2018-12-27 Permalink
That article was click batey at best. I read the article then watched the video and I didn’t learn anything new. I had to look up myself if the law was still in the books (it is) and if any new planned buildings will be taller than the mountain (there aren’t)
JoeB 13:07 on 2021-04-11 Permalink
That pimple isn’t a mountain.
Also it was based on the religious belief that this “mountain” brought man closer to God.