Why Montreal Has Short Skyscrapers
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 01. 2020
- For a city of 4 million people mostly centered on an island Montreal has a very stumpy statue. Why do cities half of our size have buildings that dwarf ours? Is there something wrong with the soil? Is our economy still scaring off tower builders? Does our height problem lie with us?
Join me for a deep dive on an easy to spot stupid policy that burden us with long term fiscal and environmental debt.
Extra Content: / paigesaunders
Mastodon: masto.canadiancivil.com/@paige
Peertube: video.canadiancivil.com/a/paige
Get On The Fediverse! fedihost.co/
I don't know if you've noticed but downtown Montréal is really only marginally residential. It's mostly a business place and with the pandemic going on it's getting increasingly unused. It's starting to look like a lost space, really. People in Montréal don't want to live in huge glass tower. We have an architectural tradition of smaller compounds called plexes that can fit about 2 to 6 appartement, wich can achieve a much denser population than single-house neighborhoods and not much less than the more traditionnal north american way of stuffing a lot of people in higher buildings centered around car transportation. Montréal housing is really friendlier, nicer and greener than what you describe. You gotta sense of being in your own home, commonly have access to a little plot of land, there is tress all around and everything you need is typically at walking distance. Yes, its spread out a bit but it still very cool and human size.
In order to allow denser construction downtown, the piece of legislation you're after is not the height limit -- it's the floor-to-area ratio limits. The highest FAR allowed is 16 in the city. This means that were you to build higher buildings than 233m, the FAR would restrict the proportion of the lot you're allowed to build on top of. The outcome would be pencil towers, whose densification benefits are marginal. You could build denser downtown with the current height limits by simply increasing the allowed FAR -- but one of the reasons to keep it the current way is to avoid rampant speculation on land downtown, making rents more expensive and thus negating the affordability benefits brought about by the new supply of real estate. It's a complicated thing to balance.
This is a great comment, glad to have you watching. I haven't looked into floor to area ratios or lot coverage in detail yet. To me height is just the most fun and accessible on a long list of construction constraints. I think these constraints hinder some big picture goals for our city and wanted to get the conversation started. I might do a whole series if I'm at this long enough and people like them. Let me know if there are any other big roadblocks to density and development that you know of.
@@PaigeMTL Glad to see you reading this! I think one of the pieces of legislation that's the biggest hindrance to density in more suburban areas is parking minimums. People don't realize this, but parking is very expensive to build and to maintain (snow removal, ...). Parking minimums mandate amounts of off-street parking which can be much higher than the actual demand and contribute to drive up costs. It can also reduce the size of projects if the developer doesn't have the room on site to fit all the parking required. Underground parking spaces can cost up to 40k each to build and surface spots are about 5k.
AFAIK all boroughs have parking minimums except for Ville-Marie and the Plateau, and many others have the regulatory bar set far below the actual demand for parking, so it's not too bad in the central city. Where it is a big problem is in demerger cities and in the off-island suburbs, which is why you still see "sea-of-parking" development to this day.
@@Stand1ngStill parking minimums may indeed be the worst mistake made by 20th century planners. Either that or road widening at the expense of footpaths. Ever cringed through the footage of the demolition of Faubourg a M'lasse? My assumption was this getting repealed in Montreal as it is elsewhere, but I'll add it to the research list and put something out about it if not.
16 FAR is allready pretty high.
Paris is an inteeesting example : it's one the densest city while not having many super tall buildings. There must be a point of diminishing return at some height (like you may need to space out building firther appart so as to block too much of the natural light at ground level)
Lots of old European city centers are very dense, but they basically benefit from being built before the era we are in now.
Even in the relatively modern city of New York, over 40% of housing would not meet code if built today.
Buildings skyscrapers has become nessisary to achieve comparable density while meeting the thousands of regulations related to elevators, apartment sizes and coverage ratios. It does lead to the highest density neighborhoods that aren't slums, pretty sure Yorkville for example is denser than any district in Europe.
If I had "my way" I'd have both options on the go, we're in desperate need of housing and density is rarely a bad thing in any form. I just think we have a hard time realizing that we've largely cut off all the exits apart from sprawl on this one
Thanks for the additional info!
If one day you could figure and make a video on why Montréal roads are in such bad shape I'd love to watch it :)
Yeah, I actually don't really know the answer to that one. I suspect it's actually a really complex problem. If you want to vote and suggest issues, that's something we have on Patreon.
You might be interested in the Practical Engineering CZcams channel. The past few videos have been about roads czcams.com/video/PIK6I6Q58Ec/video.html
There are skyscrapers in Paris, but they are in the newer business district, west of the centre of old Paris. Intentional or not, this was a clever way to preserve the historic core of the city.
People think they hate tall buildings, but what they actually hate is boring architecture. Skyscrapers should implement features that reflect the historical architecture of the city, while still being true contemporary architecture.
I think this is a great video, and taller buildings could work downtown, while keeping areas like the plateau and old port free of high rises to keep the historical feel.
I actually also want to add that there are so many parkings lots in Old Montreal that to me feel like wasted space and actually take away from the the vibe of the neighborhood. Those lots could be used for housing that is the same height as the surrounding buildings too (5-8 storeys). Idk if you'll read this, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion on those parking lots in the Old Port.
You know what would be cool?
Twin towers in montreal
No I legit hate tall buildings lol. I find them oppressive and claustrophobia inducing regardless of their design
I disagree so strongly with your recommendations. Densification can happen without building high like Vancouver.
Exactly, I wouldn't want to turn Montreal into just another NA city where your only housing options are skyscrapers or car dependent suburbs. Keep the mid rise housing of Montreal alive
@@jdbd4818 Apparently a difference of 5 metres between Montreal and Vancouver's tallest. My point is more about Vancouver building lots of high rises versus Montreal focusing more on three storey walk-ups.
Gotta disagree :( I like tall buildings but Montreal doesn't need them. One of the most attractive things about the city is the fact that the best neighbourhoods are diffuse. The taller the buildings, the more you concentrate development in one area and reduce development in others. There might be some restrictions that might be worth eliminating but height above 200m probably isn't one of them.
still upvoted~
The 200m limit is not a problem in itself, the ridiculous zoning outside of the downtown core is.
Also, a lot of lots downtown are zoned below 120m, they should get bumped to the limit
I'd agree, to me anywhere that is zoned tall should just be tall. What's the difference between 160 and 250 right? Neighborhoods are a bit different though.
@@PaigeMTL that's what I mean by ridiculous zoning. Right downtown, on bleury, the zoning is 16meters... its madness. And of course the coop neighbouring the lot is mad because the developer want to build 25m high.
www.change.org/p/ville-de-montréal-arrondissement-ville-marie-empêchons-la-construction-d-un-immeuble-de-25m-de-hauteur-aux-2105-à-2137-rue-de-bleury
16 meters, right in the downtown core is absolutely madness and it pisses me off, sorry for venting here lol
Personally, I can understand the 232.5m over sea level limit (because of the "mountain") but I think the 200m limit is stupid. Without it we could at least have 210-220m buildings, which is better than 200m already.
Don't think they have too
yes! the problem is the strict 120m limit, floor area ratio limits, and other bad zoning laws. the 200m limit is not really a problem
As someone from a mountainous country, I always chuckle when people refer to Mont-Royal as a mountain, it's just a big hill!
Funny, I actually make the joke "Mountain is a relative world" in this week's video
Calling Mont-Royal anything other than a mountain is verboten ;)
Well... we don't call it a mountain. We call it a "mont" as in "Mont-Royal" which is by definition a big hill
A six-story high neighborhood is more dense than a neighborhood of skyscrapers because of all the space you need when you want to build high. For example downtown Paris is more dense than Manhattan. Also new condos tend to cost higher than the price of the market, making the market price go higher and not lower, despite lowering the demand. For example Toronto and Vancouver have a lot of high skyscrapers downtown the price of anything there is 2-3 times more than Montreal. What we need is more low-rise, dense building that people can rent to make the demand fall and make the market price stop climbing.
I referenced the "Barcelona model" in the video which is an argument made for high density residential neighborhoods similar to Paris. This video is focused on the height restrictions of the CBD and not neighborhoods where mid-rises would be built. I went into that but had to cut it because my videos are probably too long already.
The thing is we can't build Parisian neighborhoods anymore and therefore I find that comparison unfair. Accessibility (Elevators), minimum size restrictions and parking requirements mean that large numbers of historic housing couldn't be built today. Even in Manhattan around 40% of current apartments no longer meet code.
The argument I'm making in this video is that we should look at the consequences of each of these regulations. Height restrictions are one example, but there are hundreds of laws hindering density and increasing housing costs. We're starting to repeal some such parking requirements, but there's a lot more to look at.
Also as an end note it's a common misconception that skyscrapers aren't dense. As an example Yorkville in NYC has a higher population density than any district in Europe. They're often not dense because they tend to be commercial and built in an era of stricter building regulations. They are however an expensive form of housing though and I'd love to see the island covered in the 6 story walkups you mention. They create the sort of livable plateau style neighborhood that fits well in Montreal.
You hit the nail on the head. There's quite a few disadvantages to skyscrapers, so we should definitely avoid them and instead develop a region more uniformly with mid-high density rather than going straight to skyscrapers.
I slightly disagree.
Manhattan has a higher population density then Paris.
Paris including the inner ring has a higher population compared to New York city.
Still in Paris buildings rarely surpass 7 or 10 stories compared to Manhattan.
So less building mass is needed.
The most sparsely populated quarters are the western and central office and administration-focused arrondissements. The city's population is densest in the northern and eastern arrondissements; the 11th arrondissement had a density of 40,672 inhabitants per square kilometre (105,340/sq mi) in 1999, and some of the same arrondissement's eastern quarters had densities close to 100,000/km2 (260,000/sq mi) in the same year.
In Paris residential and commercial usage is more mixed so the commute is slightly shorter and work places less concentrated despite the strong focus on Paris.
It's nice to come back and watch these after four years, holy shit! Still super compelling!
I'd rather the city didn't look the same to all the other modern cities of the world. What makes Montréal unique is it's european influence and old style. Alternatively do something like paris where the old part of the city remains as untouched as possible and where all the major skyscrapers in the financial centre are built in a specific area, perhaps not practical for Montréal but fruit for though
Downtown doesn't look like an old European city. This video is about a 200 meter high building in downtown being able to be taller so that we can increase the population without having to demolish the medium density neighborhoods you like.
Montreal already has a cbd with skyscrapers.
I think your point at 6:05 is completely off base. I don’t know a single person who wants to move to downtown, but choses the plateau as a 2nd option. Rather, the plateau is where people really want to live. high prices push them into the mile end / rosemont / the village. The plateau is the densest neighbourhood on the island, and building more skyscrapers DT won’t change that bc nobody wants to live there.
I just can’t imagine a family choosing to move to the plateau because downtown was too expensive. The subset of people who would actually want to live downtown is likely very small. There’s also low amenities downtown like schools and grocery stores.
Instead of advocating for more skyscrapers downtown (where all the land is owned by several multinational investment companies BTW), the focus should be on helping / allowing other boroughs to be more like the plateau, where stochastic infilling can raise densities significantly while minimally changing the vibe of a place.
“If you want to understand what's most important to a society, don't examine its art or literature, simply look at its biggest buildings.”
- Joseph Campbell
I’d edit that quote to not say tallest buildings but rather tallest point. It might be a cross on top of the mountain but it could just as easily be something more universal, or even just the mountain itself.
I think Montrealers are somewhat unique in NA in that most don’t value banks and hotel chains above people. Every borough of this city is directly connected to the mountain in one way or another, just look at the direction the streets are sloped and you’ll know where the mountain is.
I really want to increase our density, stop / reverse urban sprawl, and ensure everyone is housed (since it should be a right NOT an investment / asset / stock). I just don’t think focusing on downtown is the way to go when so much of the surrounding areas could be densified much more sustainably and for way more different types of people / lifestyles.
This was fascinating PLUS I was laughing like half the time. Thank you!
Thanks, I'm a big fan. My sister lives in Van and when I started out I messaged her your vids and said "Wish we had this guy"
@@PaigeMTL Oh that's so cool and frig I'm honoured. And now they have you!! Looking forward to seeing more of your videos :).
just found you channel as im planning my move to montreal in the near future, amazing amazing content! hope to see much more in the future!
In terms of energy consumption, I found an article that says it's best to keep the height below 27 stories. Too much density makes the city not fun. there should be a sweet spot for density.
Fun fact, they guy behind Philadelphias ''gentlemans agreement'' about height limitation is Edmund Bacon (Father of actor Kevin Bacon) who is also the man responsible for Jane Jacobs eureka moment when he gave her a tour of a ridiculously lifeless master planned project he had built. One of urbanisms great villains.
I lived in Montreal for two years. In my opinion, Secteur Bridge-Bonaventure is a great location for taller skycrapers because it is far from Royal Mountain and taller buildings wouldn't block the eyesight from the lookout. This area is under planning and let us look at what changes it will bring to the city.
Montreal should go about this in a controlled manner kind of like what was mentioned in the video. Plan an area out to have these buildings if you don’t want it to be next to Mont-Royal. Or if you don’t care about the historical reason about Mount Royal but still want the view, then collaborate with a private company or investor to make a sort of “CN tower” in the sense that there is an observation tower on top and it has a unique shape which can differentiate the skyline from other cities. It doesn’t have to be like the CN tower and shouldn’t. It should be designed to fit Montreal and be useful instead of just a tourist destination. This way you still get a unique skyline, you get good views from the bottom aswell at above, and then let everything build around this new tallest building. This way it keeps in central and keeps the core vales but it replaced the mountain.
Good job Paige ! As a french speaking bord quebecer, I like to see your point of view ! Continue !
Love the quality of your videos man
I would say parking minimums are largely to blame for the lack of density in these sky scrapers. You'll see the parking taking a lot more horizonal real estate than the building itself, which is very inefficient. In the cases where the parking is underground, it's very expensive to build and creates a big price hike in rents or becomes paid parking spot models. In an urban environment with good public transportation there should be minimal need for parking, but because we've sprawled to car centric suburbs and the suburbans work in the city, we need to accommodate for their cars, not just for the roads, but for parking as well, which means lost real estate for parking lots. The REM is actually a good service to counter this, as it will reduce the amount of cars taken into the city, making parking dedicated real estate less needed and possibly up for grabs.
I found your page while looking into Montreal’s brutalist heritage so let me say I’m a fan of your content. But allow me to suggest some counter-arguments to you video essay.
1. Views: Fair enough, the views are blocked to some degree but there is more to a skyline than simple height. (think of the 1916 step-back zoning restriction in NYC). There is an esthetic value to Montreal’s skyline where the skyscrapers girdle the mountain and form a neat cluster without having these stray high-rises poking about willy-nilly. Of course this is an aesthetic argument, but a great deal of urban planning takes aesthetics into account and there is room to perceive Montreal’s skyline as a manicured English garden. When viewing Manhattan’s skyline from the East I find the cluster about Billionaires row to look unkempt situated where they are. Same goes for One Bloor in Toronto.
2. The density argument: Montreal’s rather modest skyscraper cohort is still limited to a very small area and there is ample room for more 200m buildings without resorting to the 200+m variety. Montreal has achieved incredibly high urban density (Surpassed only by Boston, SF and NYC in North America) without resorting to high-rises by maximizing mid-sized housing
3. Environmental argument: mid-sized multiplex housing is still largely made of timber, whereas skyscrapers are exclusively made from concrete and steel. The latter two account for 10% of carbon emissions globally, while the former is a carbon sink. Until CLT becomes more prevalent in building larger housing units, smaller plex units will always be more environmentally friendly.
4. Economics: Making housing cheaper is a fatuous argument. No high-rise buildings anywhere in North-America are being developed for mid-low cost. They are exclusively developed for the luxury market and have been shown to adversely affect urban pricing by driving property and rental values up while reducing availability for affordable lodgings.
5. Regulation drives up costs: Yes, this is true, but it also adds value. Without getting into the supply and demand argument because it’s irrelevant (skyscrapers unit costs affect the market like Rolls-Royces affect the car market. It is too small a segment to truly impact the overall housing mass), on a scale of too much regulation (like SF) to too little regulation (like a favela), we have to recognise that urban vitality requires parks, social housing and limits on industry near residential sectors. Regulation costs money but adds value to quality of life. Just like healthcare and education. These things cost money, but we’d rather have them than not.
6. Economics part 2: it is pretty well established now that in almost no city on the planet (with the notable exceptions of Hong Kong and New York) super tall buildings (exceeding 300m) are financially viable. If one considers construction from an engineering standpoint (foundations, wind load, occupancy management, etc) it is far morecost-effective to build two 150m buildings than one 300m building.
7. Taxes: Sprawl is not an important tax issue in this city. Montrealers are not “footing the bill” for the REM or other large infrastructure projects like the Turcotte of the Champlain. You cannot argue the value of dense property in the downtown core as a tax mechanism for financing these projects as they have variously been funded by PPP or by federal and provincial sources including pension funds and State investment banks. In fact, if we take the REM project as an example and look at their website you will see that the City of Montreal is not even paying a cent towards its construction.
P.S. Vancouver is not alone. Since 1961 the province has required that 1% of total costs for large construction project be invested in public works of art (La Politique d’intégration des arts à l’architecture et à l’environnement des bâtiments)
I doubt my comments will impact you negatively but just in case, I hope you take these as a complement and know that I have listened to your content.
This is another interesting fact I've learned today about my hometown. Thanks!
Hi Paige, Montrealer urban design/transit/lots of other things nerd here. I really like your videos and this one made me wonder, do you know of the Strong Towns movement?
I'm not affiliated with them or whatever, but they're very interesting! Actual concrete, applicable solutions for the problems that plague all modern cities.
Keep up with the good work!
I've heard of it but haven't read the book, it seems like they're trying to brand "prudent municipal government". Haven't they made a few predictions about unsustainable cities that haven't really panned out?
@@PaigeMTL Since their definition of 'unsustainable cities' is basically 'any form of development where the tax base doesn't pay for the infrastructure maintenance costs' (which is basically anything less dense than townhouse development), any city that hasn't gone bankrupt is kind of a prediction that hasn't panned out, yes.
However, their main draw in my opinion is that their 'branding', as you call it, is a way to merge what generally left-leaning people like me want (dense, walkable, diverse and ecologically sustainable cities and towns) with methods that generally right-leaning people like and trust (fiscal sustainability, not eco-friendliness or social justice).
I just feel like a lot of people would react better to "kill suburbia because it makes no fiscal sense" than "kill suburbia because it forces you to use your disgusting SUV to go anywhere". I'm partial to that second one, though 😅
I'm just suspicious of how true it is, it borders on a "grand conspiracy" given how widely adopted the model is across the globe. I'm all for user-pays, but often the cost of things is picked up by different levels of the government and that may be the best way to build and economy. Like those of us living in the city have our transit fees subsidized, people in the suburbs get bridges built for them etc. Has someone done a study of the net tax paid and net tax cost for suburban vs urban people? I have a suspicion that big picture it won't look like a game-changer.
Regardless, I think density should be the "GDP" of municipal government. I can't see any good reason that we restrict construction to 2 floors anywhere. If people want to live on a farm, they're going to have to do it without loading up the nearest city with a low-density burden.
@@PaigeMTL That's a good point, even though I wouldn't be surprised if funding incentives and "well that's just how things are done" ended up having a result that looks like a conspiracy.
Still, economic arguments for density are always useful, in my experience. I totally agree that density should be THE goal in cities (and towns too), but many people balk at the term, so pushing fiscal responsibility to get the same-ish results can help get more people onboard.
I really enjoyed watching this. Greetings from Everett, Washington. U.S.A.
Simply put a cross on top of every building taller than 233 meters :)
How tall would you want the tallest building to be if the restriction is lifted?
I don't really think there should be any limits in the downtown core. It's the one area that the city that we could really go for it.
Based on other cities we'd probably have a few 250m buildings and maybe an iconic supertall by now.
Could be worse. Phoenix's skyscrapers are dwarfs compared to Montreal's, and both cities proper and their metro areas have equal populations.
After a certain height, adding more floors doesnt make the construction cost per unit cheaper. It does the opposite. Every added floors lead to more structural and construction challenges, so it cost more. The most efficient height/cost can vary depending on the environment where it's planned to be build. Dense doesnt mean tall. In Montreal, even in it core, there's still plenty of under used space that can be developped. For sure a very tall skyscaper is nice, spectacular, monumental, it depicts the success of a society, but its not necessarly efficient. We should build taller buildings to help limit sprawling, but not necessarly taller skyscrapers.
That calculation is one that property developers do, and it changes over time, we don't need to give them a number
@@PaigeMTL Adding extra stories from the 50 stories limit wont do more to make housing more affordable. It will just profit developers who sell high-end luxury units. Naturally at that height the only way to make profit is with high-end luxury units. Nothing agaisnt luxury, it just wont make a significant impact on housing availability and even less an impact on affordability. Plenty of regulations limits affordability, a 200m limit ain't one, a 16m limit is one. Interesting debate! :)
Yes it will. If those 200 rich people don't live in their downtown condo, where do they buy? What neighborhood has it's prices driven up?Everyone benefits from everyone having a home that fits their budget. Because the first people to get squeezed out will not be the rich person, it's the person at the very bottom of the ladder.
The housing market is one of a million substitutes, but they are only substitutes for the rich. In a world with 2 cars, one a Honda and one a Ferrari, who do you think won't be driving when you ban Ferraris?
We need to build more units, political ideologies will not save us from economic reality. Solving this crisis is going to require many things to be done at once. Some might appeal to you, some might not, but this isn't a "one solution" situation. If it works, it works, and more residential units downtown works even if they aren't directly for poor people.
But if I remember correctly that perfect efficiency ratio happens higher than our current limit here in Mtl. The most efficient height is probably closer to 250m.
Right now there's a lot of buildings in construction AT the max legal limit and some proposals that try to ask for permission to build even higher. Also did you notice how thick buildings are here?
I think that's a proof that the current height limits are under the ideal efficiency ratio.
The Barry transition was perfect haha
YAY! Someone finally noticed.
The city's buildings are already tall enough. Some places needn't become phonily giddy. your average 'nobody' is unlikely to ever ascend beyond some 30th floor. Besides, clustered highrises usually thin sheltered densities anyhow.
"I'm prepared to pay for a 100th floor penthouse" - Rich executive
"I'll build that tall building" - Property developer
"The cities buildings are tall enough" - Random person
Well, that's 100 more units off the market and that executive isn't going to be the ones squeezed off the property ladder. Good job random person!
I remember: You trumpet super slims when that there party balloon of yours was punctured some time ago already by folks lampooning them foul erections..something awfully familiar too about their narrowness, _eh_
Never has this been more applicable in all of Canada. Well done.
Born and raised in Montreal, always been a law not to build higher than the Mount-Royal. That's it. It's not a need to build very high skyscrapers. It's more of a competition between cities.
There are more negatives than positives in building upwards. Already when you go downtown, Montreal in the winter the wind effect between buildings is terrible. The higher you build them the stronger the wind effect on the ground. The wind shill between some of the building can drastically increase the negative temperature that body feels and in the summer they don't allow the sun in only between 12 noon and 2 pm.
It might be that Montreal does not allow taller then 233, but Laval, Longueil and perhaps even places like Kirkland might decide to allow taller buildings. There's already a small core of taller building around the Longueil metro station, and there's a number of large scale new development being planned outside of the Montreal city center. Assuming that those places succeed in establishing themselves as hubs, going taller is the next logical step. The 10-30 Complex in Brossard is one of those places I would not be surprised to see razed to the ground. With the new REM station, it's prime real estate. The land will literally be worth more then the buildings on it.
I thought the height restriction had to do with the rotating spotlights on top of Place Ville-Marie.
you dont need to build skyscraper if you want to stop urban sprawl tho
One of the useful things of height limits is that the city can use them to force developers to include cheaper-than-market housing. So they'll allow a building of, say 8 floors in an area restricted to 4 IF the developer will include usually a mixture of subsidized or co-op housing that have 3-bedroom apartments so that families can still live downtown.
And although I agree height restrictions are not good for a city, I also really like Montréal's lowrise profile in its inner neighbourhoods, so I would still like to see height restrictions, perhaps more flexible, so that the Plateau doesn't become Griffintown, for example.
But forcing developers to build units at a loss/low margin means they put those costs into the other units. So instead of having housing that is affordable for someone in the lower middle class, those people now require the subsidy. To mentally picture the effect of constraining supply with regulation. Imagine if there were suddenly 100k vacant units in Montreal how much power renters and buyers would be. Housing would be so cheap that the government would rarely need to subsidize rent.
@@PaigeMTL Yes, but with such a glut, would it remain profitable for developers to build? The system of subsidies and zoning isn't perfect, but it is better at creating mixed neighbourhoods from the getgo, rather than having crowded Victorian slums in one area and glitzy towers in another.
Finally someone said it! Everyone says it... We must build in density and stop urban sprawling. Have you done a video about urban sprawling? It's one of my worst fear for Montreal.
I think I come back to it pretty regularly, it's in the transit series for sure. I'm generally all about density, land based taxation etc.
@@PaigeMTL I'm gonna watch more video then!
i’m just not sure “downtown” is the place to do it. i would NOT like to live at René Lévesque and Peel. I’d rather live on the periphery, near UQAM or in the Ghetto or just west of Concordia. there’s more amenities for actual residents like grocery stores and schools, and that’s where id rather see infilling take place.
"Taller buildings will make living downtown more affordable"
Toronto has entered the chat...
For me from Eastern Europe they look gigantic lol
Your absolutely right, this limit is stupid.
Hi, I don't know if you're still actively responding to comments on this video, but how can we (as numtots/skyscraper enthusiasts) ask the city government to revisit the law and study the question? It could even be for one small part of city. Is there petitions? Public consultations?
Numtots, didn't know that was a thing and wow, that me. I've thought about doing a video on how bizarrely underused the public question time is at the city hall by normal people. It's kind of funny that once a month you can go into a room and force all the municipal politicians to hear what you have to say for a few minutes. There are so many wingnuts that use the system that it plays out like an episode of parks & rec, month after month it's the same people like a cast of characters in a sitcom. It's funny, but also, obviously not working.
However when a normal person shows up and asks for something like, better signage at an intersection where someone got hurt, you can see the politicians sit up. I think you could really push some things if people were willing to put in the afternoon to get inline. Ultimately though, I think we need to get some e-democracy into the system, which is kind of my long term strategy for this whole channel. When you see those meetings it's pretty obvious that we're doing democracy via fax machine and need to figure out how to make democracy work for people who (say) have a job or family.
there's even a Montreal version, BMAOT (bilingual memes pour azur-oriented teens)
@@Vashmata I'm in BMAOT :)
@@PaigeMTL I doubt I could have a lot of influence on the 1992 Urbanism plan by showing up to the public question time :/ What about lobbyism? Is it maybe possible to join developers, promoters and investors in the fight?
0:31 that's pronounced de la "goo shit yeah r"
Hi good video explaining your point, but i do not think that it will magically save housing prices a better alternative to rising housing prices is to build more government housing, like Vienna or Singapure, this will also lead to more supply and it will/has to be affordable, while new housing in expensive towers is usually luxury apartments(New York), I also think the height restriction is there to have a more visually pleasing City.
Increasing supply to the level that there is vacancy will reduce prices regardless of the ideological source and regardless of the type of housing. It's not magic, it's the most fundamental law of economics.
@@PaigeMTL yes that is true, but if you look at population density maps of montreal you can see that the highest ones arent in downtown so towers dont always mean high density, so maybe make the downtown more like the more dense (in population) neighborhoods in Montreal. Also there is a lot of single family housing in Montreal that could get upzoned first to apartments which would increase the housingsupply much more than towers in the downtown.
@@Infrastructureexplained that's because downtown contains so much commercial, people cherrypick the same point about lower Manhattan and avoid pointing out that the densest neighborhood on the continent is in upper Manhattan. But that is expensive to build so ideally you have high density walk up housing like Barcelona or Paris which would create a nicer vibe, however our bylaws here wouldn't allow you to build that in Montreal either, so back to the point of this video. Illustrating why we can't build housing because there are lots of restrictions, one fun and easy one to illustrate the point is capping the height of buildings downtown that are already 100s of meters tall at 200 meters. It makes housing more expensive, the height of a cross on a hill isn't good government policy.
@@PaigeMTL yes exactly my point remove the bylaws that prevent this high density walkable housing
but my point still stands that the towers are not filled with housing right now, so why would they be after the height restrictions are eradicated.
Obviously it shouldnt be determined by the height of the cross on any mountain, but there should be the restrictions to build a beautiful skyline, they are grouped together, because of a reason, to make a better skyline that is uniform and isnt destroyed, by one or two buildings that are twice as tall as the rest. The cross is just another way to justify it in a political reason for the religous parts of the city. And believe me you dont want a single or two outstanding towers that tower(pun not intended) above the city, we have two in my city at completely different viewpoints and they look both terrible.
So yes if the restrictions in Montreal forbid walkable and dense housing then you have to change that real fast because that just stupid, please vote for someone who changes that. Montreal has so much potential and it would be a shame to not use it.
@@PaigeMTL "the height of a cross on a hill isn't good government policy" - could the solution be building a cross on the tallest building? ;)
Build the taller buildings on the south shore instead.
No building can be higher than Mount Royal.
😂Too Bad 4U. Montreal is Awesome As Is. Love weird quirky 🇨🇦 French Quebec- throw back nod to Olympic Park - Apartments, the Stadium 🏟 yes keep it Not making sense 👍👍
If the height restriction was such a limiting factor wouldn't we be seeing even more of the newer buildings coming right up to the limit? I see the fact that most new projects are built well below the allowed height limit as a sign that this might not be the major constraint that's limiting the supply of housing.
There are at least 3 projects hitting the limit, something that hasn't happened in decades. I'm not saying it's a major constraint, 200 meter plus housing is expensive. I'm saying it's an example of a constraint that makes housing expensive. When a 1000 policies like this are put on every housing project, we get expensive housing.
I don't think the height limit is a stupid idea, though I do agree that we need to densify the city. There should be an incentive to build higher in the different neighborhoods around downtown, but I do not agree that building to, let's say, 300 or 400 meters on René-Lévesque will bring the rent down on the periphery.
Also, maybe you don't realise, but Montréal skyline, especially Mont Royal, is visible from reaaaaaally far, cause the St-Laurent lowlands are so flat. It's visible from the town I grew up, about 50km north-east of Montréal, just standing straight in the middle of the field. You can see it from St-Jérôme. As it is right now, it blends well with the mountain, and it just about disappear. I don't know if everyone outside of Montréal will agree with the change. Sure, it's not them living with the skyscraper 50 or 60 km away, but they can still see it, and will have to everyday onward.
The two things (density downtown, density in the burbs) are not mutually exclusive. A culture of density is something we don't have across the board. Every neighborhood has its own flavor of this restriction. This video is simply illustrating a dynamic with a fun example.
I heard that height was determined by 2 factors, one the Mont-Royal act as a water castle for downtown and 2 so the mountain remains the city center piece. Personally I hate skyscrapers they are ugly and many European city don't build them.
I don't think that's the case, the McTavish reservoir sits quite far below the summit and many cities aren't built around mountains
Alright hear me out: I like this policy for a few reasons. While it doesn't prevent the obstruction of the view from Mont-Royal, what it does do is make it such that when we are at the observatory, we are never looking up at the city, but rather down. I think that feeling is really nice ngl. As for it discouraging density, based on zoning laws I'm sure this is the case, however imagine if there weren't restrictions on the area we could build skyscrapers like you mention in the video! I'm thinking the ability to spread the "downtown" all over the city. If there is less room to go up, then logically shouldn't developers just build out? Wouldn't this, without acccompanying laws on what areas skyscrapers can be in, just make more demand for shorter skyscrapers? (idk this is just speculation). In any case, I would rather see a more spread out downtown rather than a few very tall buildings right in the centre
P.S. also, as a compromise, I think it's obvious that buildings closer to sea level, i.e. not surpassing the mountain, should be exempted from the height restriction so as to allow higher buildings while never going above the mountain.
Montreal is actually pretty cheap for its size and appeal still prices for good neighborhoods are steap.
Those really tall buildings are (and new ones would be…) office towers, not residential? Increased heights for those wouldn’t help housing prices?
As a visitor to montreal (arrived by train from US, across Victoria Bridge) what really stood out was the extensive rail yards and low rent commercial area (east of…or “montreal” south of…?) griffintown, lot of strangely under-utilised space only a km or so from Downtown. Surely that’s prime for urban residential? Get the rail yards out of the city (which would also free up rail corridors for commuter rail?)
Similarly (and I’ve read some port operations were elbowed away from downtown area in the 70s..), the port areas along the hochelaga shoreline must surely be due to be moved away (purpose build port further down river?), freeing up that riverside for parks, residential, repurposing rail corridors for commuters, and “reconnecting” inner-east residents to the river.
Regulations on the maximum building hight has an pretty interesting part of the story around the race for the skyscraper between Chicago and New York.
Chicago used to have a hight restriction for some time while in New York the did the iconic stepbacks in the 1916 zoning resolution.
Many areas of downtown Montreal aren't build up to the limit they have a lot room to spare.
Still skyscrapers get inefficient passing anything over 60 floors.
Soo true
Some parts are a little over simplified in this video.
Affordable housing units and parking and housing for disabled people are measurements for inclusion and accessibility.
Yes they have a cost but nothing is free as you said. Still those has to be provided when you want that people working downtown don't have commute a lot when they have to operate 7 hours a day. It is important that nurses and Paramedics live close to were they live.
Those groups don't have a fair chance for a market unit anyway.
I’m a Montrealer and the height restriction make me so angry lol. Just like build a building taller than the mountain slightly to the right or left of its highest point. So it doesn’t block its view from the river: also its dumb and I’m a civil engineer and irrationally frustrated with it. But I gotta be honest some of the theories addressed here just aren’t accurate in practice using Montreal as an example. Montreal is stil one of the most affordable big cities on the continent, and Montreal is one of the most dense on the continent.
Can't have 1% vacancy rates for long without that changing
Boi, I wonder how the plague will change that. It could be temporary or it could be a technological wake-up call for companies moving forward. My partner and some of my friends are now working from home. Companies in the coming future will have to evaluate, if it is better to invest in building (or renting within) a skyscraper. When they could simply acquire enough space to house a few servers and have access to fiber internet. It would save millions in the long term. With the normalization of working from home, it would be archaic to push towards a traditional headquarter. Current office management companies like Kevric and Sandalwood can learn from the pandemic crisis to remodel themselves to fit buildings they already own to match this post-covid, social distancing, reality. But if precaution prevails that will also be a temporary solution.
On the residential side of things. I work security in a tower downtown, the residents that could flee are gone and those who stay are those who can't afford to leave. There's continuous tension, no one wants to be downtown anymore. An unusual side effect of the lockdown for the residents is the sudden awareness of our presence. The security team has been present in the tower since its beginning, but only now have the residents realized that they are being observed. I think that perhaps this is why people left. They don't want to have their ins and outs monitored, their visitors noted on some report, cameras and magnetic passes recording their movements. What was a highlighted feature for its benefits on a real estate listing is now something of a superfluous stress.
I wonder if they all wish they had a home in Laval by now. All this without mentioning the utter panic at the start of the lockdown; When residents were suspicious of the ventilation system and were installing makeshift air purifiers.
The urban future is uncertain. I loved the cityscape of the movie ''Her'', dense and tall. Unless they are all LEED platinum it could be a nightmare. Alternatively maybe the future will lead toward tiny houses. Mostly self-sufficient eco-tiny houses, a few kilometres appart from each other. Exploding the urban and suburban sprawl, forcing density to dwindle. People who will choose that life style will feel great, thinking themselves great eco-warrior-survivalist; While being as damaging to the environment as anyone else due to their presence in an otherwise pristine environment.
Solution: Build underground. Let's become the first generation morlocks, we always wanted to be.
And eat laval.
I think it'll be very interesting to live in a world where demand for commercial office space has been cut in half. The conversion of the space to residential could be a huge part of solving the housing crisis. Who knows if it'll happen, I will make one prediction though. If it occurs people will fondly remember the days when companies paid for their workspace and complain that these days they offload those costs onto employees and that we "never leave work" anymore, even physically. They won't remember how many people wanted to work from home which allowed that change to occur.
This video has good intentions of densification but comes off as very out of touch for people that live on the island. It's very clear by now that supertalls are not the solution to densification and even less to the housing crisis.
Washington DC has a height limit (approximately 12 storeys) that greatly enhances the pleasure of being in the city: wider vistas and exposure to sunlight for all buildings. However, the surrounding suburbs allow skyscrapers, similar to La Défense outside Paris. As a result, greater DC has multiple downtowns. On a regional basis, height and density are more interesting for Longueil or Laval, all things considered. There's no particular reason, especially post-covid with commuting patterns changed, that height and density need to be concentrated in downtown Montreal. Mt Royal is a tremendous asset to the city, and views to it should be protected. It's always a thrill to be somewhere in the Montreal region and suddenly catch a glimpse of the mountain; almost never a thrill to catch a glimpse of one of its skyscrapers.
Montreal seems particularly dedicated, esp in recent years, to building incredibly mediocre tall buildings. The height limit helps to ensure that these mediocrities, which belie Montreal's designation as a UNESCO City of Design, remain less visually prominent.
DC Central is as dead as a dolphin on a dock. I love the federalist and neo-classical architecture, but I wouldn't point to the grand buildings and wide empty boulevards of a planned capital city as a desirable outcome for anyone but architecture nuts like myself.
I think the park is a tremendous assets, but the tip of the hill being visible on a clear day from a distance is really not that important. Even Mt Saint-Hilaire, the closest lump to Montreal is almost twice as high. At 200 meters all the architecture will already be covered up, and the hill will not be visible. So why have the blanket ban? Why not allow taller buildings, if they are exceptional, if they are likely to become landmarks in their own right?
@@PaigeMTL Because Montreal has not been very good at building landmark, high-quality tall buildings for the past 20 years.
Central DC is dead for the same reason many city centers are: global real estate investors destroying non-chain retail. As lively as 2019 downtown Montreal was, it was but a shell of 1990s downtown Montreal, which rivaled Manhattan in its commercial diversity.
The point is that highrise districts no longer have to be relegated to one CBD. And in Montreal, there's a particularly human scale to its balance of low rise and high rise buildings that are not too high that should be carefully preserved.
I think it would be a great lost to build higher skyscrapers. The mont Royal is a very big part of Montréal. Drowning it in a jungle of skycrapers isn't the solution to reduce carbon.
Your way of seeing it is that we should have the most people livig in the smaller area. But there are other things to consider. I really love skycrapers but I wouldn't want to live in a city where the view from the road is shitty.
We sould definitely stop spreading, you are right. But we can densify all of the suburbs instead of destroying a beauty of the city. If all the single family suburbs would densify to 3 or 4 stories building, we would have way too much space for the demand. We don't need to have the downtown really crowded and the suburbs really low densified.
Also I think a skycraper can be really beautiful even at only 200m. Also I can hope that the few pieces of land where you can build 200m+ will force owners to develop more beautiful skycraper.
You raised good questions about the limitations, some of them are really too much, but I think that the height restriction isn't one of them.
Also, you didn't talk about the mount effect. The height restriction made the downtown look like a mount and it is very beautiful.
Finally, I don't want to be rude or anything, you seem like a nice and cultivated guy but please make the effort to learn french if you live in Montréal and Québec.
Edit : Forget what I said at the end, you're definitely putting in a lot of efforts.
You can't build 4 story buildings in suburbia. It's literally the same category of policy with a lower number. The kicker is when you watch the meetings asking for variances for this I've literally seen locals show up and say "It ruins the view from the road". NIMBY is NIMBY, it's all about "other people" being the ones who need to change.
This video isn't about 20 blocks of land downtown having a few meters more height to them. Nor is this a video displaying a person who hasn't put effort into learning French. Although it is pretty funny to me that you think I could make hours of videos on Quebec government policy without putting a shitload of effort into my French.
@@PaigeMTL yeah I know nimbys are the cancer of cities but I still think that skyscrapers shouldnt' be taller than mont-Royal.
I used the example of 4 stories building all over suburbs to consolidate my argument that densification can happen other places than downtown. For example, Longueuil, near the terminus of the lign #4 of the metro would be a perfect place to build a high density area. The limit could also be higher there because the mount is far and it wouldn't block any view. (Sadly it won't happen because of Devimco).
The height restriction isn't stupid, it is meant to keep one of the most powerful symbol of the city in view at every time (even if it is kind of blocked downtown).
And I'm sorry I thought you didn't really care about learning to speak french because of some comments. I'm looking forward to see one of your video in french!
You make it sound like 200m is short tho …. Lol yup its still pretty tall
Because a à rediculous law that no building will be higher than Mount Royal ! 😂
Germany has a proportional representation voting system and stable government. So take a look.
The Skyscrapers downtown are mostly office buildings, and those who are residential buildings are for the ultra-rich. Densification should be focused on the more affordable neighbourhoods with medium sized buildings.
That's not how increasing housing supply works
@@PaigeMTL Pray tell, how does it work? Because I don't see how building an expensive skyscraper that will be sold to speculators will do anything to increase the supply of affordable housing.
Very good point of view, logic and intelligent but missing a lot the cultural aspect. Montréal is not logic anyway.
Something to note that any building above 7 stories becomes less and less environmentally friendly due to construction methods and facilities required to support such tall buildings.
Yeah, no. I agree the rule is arbitrary, but the reality is that 233 meters is tall enough. In fact, we should probably almost always build way under that. Skyscrapers are stupid. They actually kind of fail at their intended purpose, which is to build denser and cheaper. Past a certain height, buildings need such a vast imprint on the ground and have so much wasted space in their common areas and their internal mechanics that they do not offer any benefit compared to 8-20 story buildings. If you look at neighbourhood densities, really dense condo tower generally don't have more than twice the density of neighbourhoods of 3-4 stories appartments blocks and town houses.
They also fail at being cheap because of the increased cost for building the structure and increasing amount of building mechanic. The more floors you have, the more energy you have to spend for pumping water and sewage as well as the more space you need for elevators.
This height limit should stand. The real solution to this problem is to have job nexuses spread out more evenly throughout the region, so you have more people living in a downtown, instead of having everyone converge to a single point into a single downtown.
So all we’d need to do is find a building in Toronto with the same footprint but more units right?
Fewer units, not less units,,,,otherwise good vid
, not ,,,, otherwise good comment
@0.44 Hahaha
Hey how long have you been living in Montreal?
4 years
@@PaigeMTL ok good so when do you start doing bilingual Videos? Your criticism for the region of Montreal and the province of Quebec that warmly welcome you need to get a signal you want to integrate yourself faster now that your there for more than 4 years. Imagine a Quebecer in Hamilton ON after 4 years only speaking French. Impossible. I like your videos so far but I like when people demonstrate their integration to the new culture and region they moved in. Don't take negatively, but as a new challenge for you after 4 years... If you still wait you'll never do it. Have some francophone friends who only Thal to you in French can Help.
Bonne chance Paige 😁
If you want to make that happen, I have a French language video planned when I get to 10k subs. That's the point where to grow I have to expand my linguistic niche. For now though, it's enough of a challenge being a one man TV studio in my native language.
@@PaigeMTL have you ever thought of you move to Germany or China you couldn't do the same... You d have to integrate yourselfsnd learn the local language. It's easy because in Montreal people are bilingual.. I think it's a matter of integration and not a one man show issue. There shouldn't be any association with the number of subscribers to your CZcams account when you wanna understand the local culture and history and feel integrated. That's why Canada and Quebec have an issue and don't understand each other. It's normal Quebecers learn and speak English when there are 1 anglophone in a meeting where there are 20 francophones. And it happens often. it's too often a one way dialogue. Welcome to Quebec. Hope you'll succeed in all your projects. Bonne journée 😋
This is my hobby, I don't tell you what books to read or painting to create.
At 10k subs, this is no longer my hobby, and that's when you shift from being a person on the internet with an opinion to a customer I want to please. Until then though, just enjoy the videos while I keep practicing my French (en prive merci)
Il est temps de se débarrasser de ce règlement
All those skyscrapers around False Creek never made Vancouver more affordable. Medium-density residential zoning throughout the city, and especially in the inner suburbs, is way more important than an arbitrary height limit. Who's living in those downtown towers anyways? 1000 de la Gauchetière is an office building, and so is PVM. There's condos, but those are often used for speculation. They aren't an affordable housing solution. Montreal is more affordable than Vancouver or Toronto because it has significantly more rental stock, and that's due to its medium density housing, not due to the highrise condos.
More specifically, I'm not convinced that everyone WANTS to live downtown. I certainly don't, and among all of my friends there's only one who actively sought that out for himself. People want to live in medium-density, walkable neighbourhoods like the Plateau, NDG and la Petite-Patrie. So I think the better solution would be to have more places like that, all around the region. The REM could potentially be a big driver of that, but that will require a change in the mentality or the regulations concerning what is or isn't a suburb. With the REM, we've now got more and more commuter suburbs like Deux-Montagnes which will have their scheduled train service replaced by regular, all-day service. Why can't Deux-Montagnes look more like Ahuntsic, or at least Cartierville?
Montreal should start building skyscrapers and forget a ridiculous law.
Personally I feel like we should push for more mid rise building, Montreal is already known for being one of the best city for not having a "missing middle" in North America so why not continue this trend.
Density doesn't just need to only be gigantic buildings because that's the problem with every other amarican city. You get the classic super dense down town that falls apart as soon as you leave, no inbetween housing.
Should we ban big condo buildings? No obviously there's a place for that. I just think that we shouldn't be pushing for this as much as you are, what we need is more dense but also human level design like the bigger European cities.
These lots are zoned for 200 meters
When pushed on higher limits, mayor Plante shot back something along the lines of "we won't let private promoters take away the view from Mount Royal" and "there are other ways to densify other than by height, you can maximize the square footage inside the building"... result? We end up with fugly blocky mid rise buildings. We "preserve the view from mount royal" and we condemn along the way the city to blocky architecture made with cheap materials. To me, Plante's administration waddles in the realm of ideology where private enterprise is the ultimate foe. I'm sure Montreal urban planners all have a copy of Das Kapital in their offices.
i *WISH* montreal urban planners were socialists, but idk what reality you're living in where you think that's the case lol
We need to abolish this height restriction
I don't agree with you. It is in fact the desire to have a place as close as possible to the center. There are so many buildings a little off the center that are very low compared to the height limit.
I want to propose something different allowing more small multiple family housing on single family lots. By this filling the missing middle.
You want to put a small multiple family housing on a lot downtown surrounded by 200m skyscrapers?
What Philly did to you?🤭🤭🤣🤣 Unhappy ad insecure people!
I wonder if these regulations aren't changing because it would bring rent prices down and reduce landlords incomes? Considering Montreal's housing market is highly favorable to landlords it would make sense that they're the ones pushing to keep those restrictions in place as removing them would hurt their bottom line.
I'd be interested to know mayor Plantes opinion on this.
Maybe you can go ask her at a next city council? :^)
It's property owners who do well from this regardless of if they rent. Essentially regulatory hurdles favor incumbents, so incumbents push for the status quo. This happens with the NIMBYs who don't want to bear any externalities from a development next door that ruins their view.
Property owners and property developers do battle on this on with the public lining up on both sides. I chose this topic because unlike heritage building demolition, adding 20 more floors to a development seems like an easy decision.
I figure some politicians see these videos.
Have you considered learning french? You need to step up your game....
Oh yes, I've been battling with the language for years. It's not my forte. Oh my god, I just realized that forte is the word strong! See the problem I'm dealing with here?
@@PaigeMTL im pretty sure that forte is not french in that context bro
@@judepeppers1206 it absolutely is
@@joyontheleft I mean you could debate it, but its old french or italian, you wouldnt do a french sentence like "Ce n'est pas mon forté"