Notes on downtown project
A new project is being planned for McGill College and Ste‑Catherine, to replace Place Montreal Trust. But the new building would further block the view of Mount Royal.
-
Kate
Reply
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Nicholas on Majority want law against insulting cops
- Tim S. on Majority want law against insulting cops
- Ian on PQ would block high-speed rail
- Ian on Residents fix potholes in MHM
- Ian on Majority want law against insulting cops
- bob on Majority want law against insulting cops
- Nicholas on Majority want law against insulting cops
Pages
Other levels of gov’t
Sideblog projects
Enviro Montreal is a Bluesky feed that follows local environment news. Also available on Mastodon.
Archives
Pages rescued from montreal.com
Meta
Ian 11:02 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
As long as it’s still visible through the giant mystical cock ring I think we’ll just have to make do with clowns.
DeWolf 11:40 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
I was there yesterday and wondering how it could possibly block the view of the mountain. It wouldn’t project out over McGill College.
Blork 12:14 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
This appears to be a classic case of the headline being largely disconnected from the story, and written in such a way as to attract attention. In other words: clickbait.
As DeWolf says, it won’t block any views of the mountain. The only thing it will block is the view of the Bell Media tower (the tall building just up the street from PMT) and to some extent the Manulife tower next to it. Too bad for tenants of the Bell building; I used to work on the 21st floor there, and my office was one of the ones within the blue glassy bulge of the south facade, and the views from there were fantastic. That’s where I captured the images in my “View Project” where I shot the same view of the Sun Life building every day over the course of a month, to record the changes in light during different times of day and different weather. (I regret that I was using a turn-of-the century digital camera and shitty processing software; maybe I should revisit those tiny and shitty JPEGs and see if I can improve them…) https://www.blork.org/blog/viewproject/
Anyway, yeah, no blockage of the mountain from that particular building, although the headline (and the story, although barely) does raise the question of the conflicting values of views and building scale vs. densification. Not really mentioned, but there is also the idea of compression and claustrophobia that can happen when there are too many tall buildings too tightly packed together. The article talks about the (forever wished for) transformation of McGill-College into some kind of open-air pedestrian utopia, but that new building might take away from that if it imposes too much on the space.
Michael 13:03 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
How on earth do people look at that ring and the first thing that comes to their mind is sexual in nature?
Ian 13:50 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
How on earth do people look at that ring and the first thing that comes to their mind is srtistic in nature?
😛
Joey 14:57 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
Les Amis de la Montaigne really seems out of touch here. We’re not talking about putting up a skyscraper on Parc Avenue – expanding an existing tall building in the middle of downtown to create more housing in the middle of a major housing crisis is extremely sensible.
Incidentally, someone I used to know was connected to some of the Amis at one time. He had suggested that they engage with downtown building owners to get them to donate their vertical building rights (i.e., their ability to make their buildings taller) to the Amis – the building owners would get a big tax credit and the Amis would, eventually, have a veto over any building expansion (at least upwards). I have no idea whether this idea would have been legal or feasible – establishing the value of the donations would be complicated but, IMO, not impossible. I suppose the Amis didn’t think it practical or necessary; they do have an inordinate amount of traction when it comes to establishing the terms of discussion around anything remotely connected to the mountain.
Not to throw shade or anything; the little I know of the org (various kids’ programs, etc.) is all solid and well-intentioned. I wonder, though, whether their viewpoint is representative of Montrealers as a whole. I think, generally speaking, we defer too much to the status quo ante when it comes to a lot of urbanism in Montreal in a way that is ultimately only beneficial to bureaucrats and contractors. In the case of the Big O, our devotion to the status quo – what @Ephraim rightly called “sunk cost fallacy” in another thread – is understandable. But the devotion that CCUs and borough permit-approvers hold to recreating 1920s Montreal is really hard to square with in the context of a housing shortage, inflation, and advances in building material technology.
Really the only thing that bums me out about this Mtl Trust project is the prospect of more years of work interfering with Ste Catherine. They’ll probably only get started once the city’s project is done.
Michael 15:09 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
Amis de montagne seem like a bunch of juvenile kids throwing their opinion into adult affairs.
We need more housing built. End of story. How much light we get while walking on ste catherine and looking at the mountain is the least of our concerns right now.
Kate 16:53 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
Les Amis is doing good work and holding the line against development on the mountain.
Michael, reading words like that from someone like you has made me go give a donation to Les Amis.
EmilyG 17:17 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
For what it’s worth, I have a friend who also calls it the cock ring.
Michael 18:32 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
My first thought looking at it was one large olympic ring.
People calling it a cock ring is more to do with their own personal habits.
MarcG 18:41 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
Alternate theory: They have a sense of humour.
DeWolf 19:14 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
Les Amis are doing good work but they’re completely off the mark here. The idea that we shouldn’t be densifying our already-dense downtown with more housing because it’s near the mountain is ludicrous. If they’re opposed to skyscrapers near Mount Royal, well, sorry, that ship has sailed. This building isn’t even nearly as tall as the buildings around it.
And, once again, it doesn’t block the view of Mount Royal in any way.
carswell 19:27 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
The designer, Claude Cormier, was also an out gay man and an artist. I’m sure he was well aware of all the ring’s allusions, including sexual and cultural ones, as well as of its shape, a bit of round — albeit a big one — in a sea of right angles. And, yes, he also had a sense of humour.
carswell 19:40 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
Though in favour of the height limit on buildings around most of the mountain, I’ve never understood why it’s set at 745 feet/233 metres, the height of the mountain. Buildings that tall effectively block the view from the summit and would fence it in and those even smaller block the view of the mountain from the street even blocks away. A better solution might be to have a lower limit in unbuilt-up areas that would block the view from the mountain to the river and beyond and in established low-height residential neighbourhoods like the ghetto, Plateau, Mile-End and Outremont. At the same time, pockets of downtown or elsewhere, of which the mountain affords limited views, could be allowed to go higher.
DeWolf 19:57 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
That’s an entirely reasonable approach. We should be taking cues from Vancouver and preserving specific view corridors, not setting a blanket height limit that doesn’t make any sense.
Bringing the conversation back to the project at hand, I have no problem with the volume, but I do think it’s the shame that Ivanhoé Cambridge seems intent on completely remaking the façade of Place Montreal Trust. It’s a very nice post-modern structure made with high-quality materials. Add a new building on top, sure, but why mess with the original structure designed by a Canadian architect who did a lot of good work?
MarcG 20:50 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
PS: Kink-shaming in 2024, wouldn’t believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes.
carswell 21:44 on 2024-02-05 Permalink
A bit of round in a sea of right angles = a lifesaver.
Also, let’s not forget that Cormier designed the pink (later rainbow) balls over Ste-Catherine in the gay village. Pink balls. Nothing sexual about that except that they’re what 90% of the area’s bar clientele and many of its residents were there for.
Poutine Pundit 01:42 on 2024-02-06 Permalink
The only view it appears to block is the view on the pink granite postmodern monstrosity that is the Bell Media Tower. No complaints there. The new proposed building isn’t exciting, but at least it doesn’t have a gaudy 80s colour scheme.
DeWolf 11:36 on 2024-02-06 Permalink
Also worth noting that the image being shared isn’t an architectural rendering, it’s a volumetric study. There’s nothing that has actually been designed for this spot (and no actual proposal). Ivanhoé Cambridge is just getting the necessary zoning permissions for an eventual project.
Frankly they should have just had a rendering of a white box, because then we wouldn’t be getting comments about how awful/bland/ugly the nonexistent proposed building is.
Uatu 18:26 on 2024-02-06 Permalink
I guess I’m a nerd because I immediately thought of a Stargate
Ian 19:56 on 2024-02-06 Permalink
It truly is the Stargate of cock rings and the cock ring of Stargates.
Céline P 23:51 on 2024-02-06 Permalink
I have a piece of Place Montréal Trust’s pink granite in my kitchen.