I dislike this tower of prefab panels. It would be bland but tolerable except for the 37 stories of blank wall on its eastern side. It’s a blight the city should not have permitted. The only improvement that comes to mind (besides demolition) is to paint that entire façade white to catch the morning sun. Enticy residents next door might appreciate the gesture.
1 « J'aime »
The city didn’t necessarily permit it, they required it. Unless facing the street, you cannot have windows directly on your lot limit. That is the law. The city would have approved windows if the developer proposed a setback, but the tower is too thin to do that.
I personally think the tower is alright, the fenestration is generous and it matches well with the original building. I would have loved for this to have a red brick finish, that would have been great.
2 « J'aime »
They could have put fake windows with the concrete wall behind to replicate the other facades, but since that’s expensive, if it’s not required, the developer will go with the cheaper option, but we have to note that the developer could have go with a flat wall, but he didn’t, at lease there is a pattern that reproduce the feeling of the other facades.
2 « J'aime »
I had no idea about such a law. Thanks for explaining. I hope the city explores some kind of change in its design guidelines to avoid in future projects what must have been an unintended consequence here. And I do agree, red brick would have been so much better. As Dom723 mentioned, the developer at least included an embossed pattern of the fenestration that covers the other sides of tower. A sheer, flat surface would have been even worse. The only solution for the developer would have been to build almost directly over the existing Hotel Maritime stucture; a possibility but much more expensive. Can’t have everything!
It’s a fire safety issue, I will explain. By law in a residential context, all rooms that are living spaces must have a window that can serve as a fire escape. Rooms that are not considered living spaces are bathrooms and closets.
Imagine if the city permitted windows on the lot limit, the developers of Apartements Dorchester would probably put living spaces there. In the future, there is a possibility that the owner of the adjacent lot (Enticy Condos) could redevelop the land up to the lot limit. If they were to do that, all of the rooms that were built with windows on the lot line of Apartement Dorchester would be blocked, making the rooms illegal.
So to avoid this, the city requires a setback of around 2 meters from the lot line to have windows. Some cities, like New York, allow you to build to the lot line, but you have to block the windows if development happens next door. Another solution is to purchase the air rights of the building next door, so the adjacent building can never be built up.
3 « J'aime »
To add to this, it’s 1,5m and it’s in the Civil Code so no change for that to change
1 « J'aime »
Le 19 septembre
Montreal_Skyline_in_September_19 by Foofoo MacShoe, on Flickr
Montreal_Skyline_in_September_18 by Foofoo MacShoe, on Flickr
11 « J'aime »
2 « J'aime »
Il existe des solutions pour éviter la monotonie de ce type de mur, j’ai le Monville en tête avec les lignes blanches. Sinon, j’aime bien les trois autres côtés, ils me font penser au 432 Park avenue à New York.
432 Park Ave c’est toute une autre league 
J’vous paie une bierre le jour qu’une tour comme ça sera construit à Montréal.
2 « J'aime »
Humm j’espère qu’on ne verra pas la boîte carrée de machinerie laide par dessus le toit après la finition des travaux… il faudrait avoir un rempart déco pour cacher cela, right ? BLTA architectes please make sure LOL. En gros très belle volumétrie qui comble la partie Ouest du centre-ville, et c’est classique comme look. Bonne addition surtout sur la façade Ouest à mon humble avis.
La couronne double-étage s’en vient, right ?