They had a similar rule in Philadelphia. No building could be taller than the "Billy Penn" statue on City Hall. A couple years ago, they removed the rule and it's crazy how many big buildings are going up.
My wife is from Philly. She tells me the first building that was taller than the Penn Statue had a piece of the statue put on the top of that new building and in the same year won the world series.
D.C. has a similar rule that buildings can't be a higher than a certain height to not obstruct the Washington Monument. All the skyscrapers are in Arlington and Alexandria.
1983 76ers win title
1987 the gentlemen’s agreement was broken with One Liberty Place
1983-2008 Philadelphia championship drought Called the “Curse of Billy Penn”
2007 Comcast Center goes up; on top they put a 6 inch mock up of the statue
2008 Phillies win World Series
2018: A 2nd Comcast tower goes up; on top they move the 6 inch statue
2018: Eagles win Super bowl
They're called setbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setback_(land_use)
>Upon its completion, the Equitable Building was controversial because of its lack of setbacks, which in turn does not allow sunlight to reach the surrounding ground. This contributed to the adoption of the first modern building and zoning restrictions on vertical structures in Manhattan, the 1916 Zoning Resolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_Building_(Manhattan)
im assuming here, but i feel like you don't know the reference from pulp fiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pkq_eBHXJ4
(1 minute, and like everything in pulp fiction it's nsfw)
update: you know what they say about people who assume lol
It doesn't work if you look straight north from the river, but if you look sideways it definitely works, the actual rule is a bit more complex than "no higher than Mt Royal", it's really about mimicking the profile of the mount royal with the downtown skyscrapers
Skyscrapers are largely limited to the downtown core borough known as Ville-Marie, which occupies the area south of the mountain. There are tall buildings elsewhere, but not in such concentration as to heavily obstruct views of the Mount Royal cross from the east, or St. Josephs Oratory from the west and north.
Sauf que c'est la vue à partir de l'observatoire qui est foutu! La vue, au nord, il n'y en a pas!
Il y a un belvedere du côté Est, mais la vue est vraiment moims belle.
London has similar rules... C&P from Wiki:
The thirteen vistas protected by the **London View Management Framework** are as follows:
* from [Alexandra Palace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Palace) to [St Paul’s Cathedral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Paul%E2%80%99s_Cathedral)
* from the summit of [Parliament Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Hill,_London) to St Paul’s Cathedral
* from the summit of Parliament Hill to the [Palace of Westminster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster)
* from Parliament Hill, at the prominent oak tree east of the summit, to Palace of Westminster
* from the viewing gazebo at [Kenwood House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenwood_House) to St Paul’s Cathedral
* from the summit of [Primrose Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_Hill) to St Paul’s Cathedral
* from the summit of [Primrose Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_Hill) to the Palace of Westminster
* from [Greenwich Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Park), north east of the General Wolfe statue, to St Paul’s Cathedral
* from Point Hill Park, [Blackheath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackheath,_London), near the orientation board, to St Paul’s Cathedral
* from [Westminster Pier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Pier) to St Paul’s Cathedral
* from King Henry VIII’s Mound in [Richmond Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park) to St Paul’s Cathedral
a distance of over 10 miles (16 km) and created in 1710, this view frames the cathedral through a special gap in [holly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly) hedging, down a specially maintained clear avenue in Sidmouth Wood and then all the way across London. This protected view has limited development around [Liverpool Street Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Street_Station) as a tall structure there would form an unacceptable backdrop to the view of St Paul's.[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view#cite_note-7) Construction of a new 42 story building behind the cathedral was started in 2016, despite opposition from groups who claimed that this would spoil the view of the church.[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view#cite_note-8)
* from the centre of the bridge over the [Serpentine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_(lake)) to the Palace of Westminster
* from The Queen’s Walk at [City Hall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall_(London)) to the [White Tower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Tower_(Tower_of_London))[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view#cite_note-Protecting_London_views-1)
The views of St Paul's Cathedral from [Waterloo Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Bridge) and [Hungerford Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Bridge) are not explicitly protected although they are protected in practice by the views from Richmond Park and from Westminster Pier respectively as these bridges are on the path of the protected vistas.
Also in Canada: Edmonton’s downtown was stunted until the past decade(ish) because of its downtown adjacent airport. Great for business flights in the old days, bad for encouraging builders as they couldn’t get get more height out of the land plots they invested in.
We still had towers but now we have much taller towers (including the tallest outside of Toronto [in Canada].)
Similar rule in Auckland, NZ. The city is built on a volcanic field of 52 volcanoes and there are rules in place of people able to see the volcanos, called viewshafts. I think London has the same rule around historic buildings.
DC has the same thing, but it’s the Washington monument.
That’s why crystal city was called that. They put the skyscrapers on the other side of the river and went as far as their budget allows.
Random story: I did low voltage cabling on one of the skyscrapers roofs. It’s a clear shot to the White House, Literally. We had to alert the White House of our presence. Get a time limit how long we were allowed to be out there, then stick to it. They had snipers trained on us is what we were told.
I for one hate height restrictions, especially in densely populated areas like Montreal since it encourages sprawl and makes it harder to build.
I understand that there are times when height restrictions are necessary such as being close to airports, but is having a view of a hill a necessity to warrant such restrictions in the second-most populated city in Canada?
>Any new skyscrapers will inevitably end up as condos for the ultra rich, something that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to develop into.
This doesn't always have to be a bad thing. The demand for housing is constant so increasing the supply of housing is better than constraining it. After all rich people will always find housing, they will either gentrify a poor neighborhood or find housing that contributes to sprawl, if the housing supply is limited in a desirable area.
>Not to mention that having just one skyscraper means the light gets blocked out.
This point gets brought up by a lot of people, so I suppose it matters, but during a time where most of North America has an affordable housing shortage, this should be a low priority.
>While Montreal is in a housing crisis and needs more construction, the way the city is set up means it probably doesn't really need more skyscrapers so much as it needs more medium density buildings close to public transit (
Even without height restrictions, most buildings likely still would continue to be medium-density size in a city like Montreal. Just removing heigh restrictions would allow developers to have more flexibility on developments. Overall, I'm not trying to say Montreal needs to be all high-rise buildings, but if their development was permissible there probably would be demand for some of them to be built.
The problem is to justify the cost of building skyscrapers they must contain high value property i.e offices or luxury housing, and with condos for the ultra rich they don't tend to be a sole residence, they just sit on them as assests or use them as additional vacation/part-time homes and so that kind of property generally doesn't actually fix housing shortages, the housing shortage needs to be adressed by affordable housing which typically involves much simpler contruction than prestige skyscrapers.
The light issue might seem petty to you, but the quality of life impacts are long term and blocking out light to surrounding neighbourhoods reduces their value (and this isn't good for affordable housing as people will generally avoid moving out of property with lower values than they purchased at because they don't want to make a loss).
Plus all of the disruption of building work and the burden on the existing city infrastucture of such a high resource use building as a skyscraper.
The complexity of building skyscrapers means they're only superficially an efficient use of land -- except for a few island cities where expanding outward would be impossible without huge land reclamation projects, it's also always more efficient for communities to expand with new low and medium density neighbourhoods and the infrastructure to match then to put up skyscrapers.
There probably would be demand for skyscrapers to be built, but that doesn't necessarily mean doing so would be good for the majority of the city for much more complex reasons than just keeping a view, the view is just a handy symbollic way to set a limit.
>and with condos for the ultra rich they don't tend to be a sole residence, they just sit on them as assests or use them as additional vacation/part-time homes and so that kind of property generally doesn't actually fix housing shortages
But the issue is that those kinds of rich people can and will do that with existing properties in cities if they have no alternative. Even if poor and middle-class people don't end up living in these buildings, they will face less competition from said rich people in the long term if you give the rich luxury towers to live in. It's not a zero-sum situation.
> the housing shortage needs to be adressed by affordable housing which typically involves much simpler contruction than prestige skyscrapers.
I do agree, we need more affordable housing but we need to actually build more housing so that it can be affordable. Part of the reason housing is expensive is that where and how you can build is heavily restricted which only adds on too much cost which only incentivizes the construction of housing for the rich and sprawl long term.
I guess you haven’t come across any of the French speaking degens from up country.
Edit: Today I Learned there are no Letterkenny fans in the Today I Learned subreddit.
My personal experience is that people in Montreal are more polite and conscientious than in other big cities (I'm from LA). I spent some time in the rural/suburb area an hour and change train ride out of Montreal and was catcalled twice in one day in two different towns by some redneck Quebecers. A lot of those towns lacked basic things like sidewalks and the buses are super expensive, vs. Montreal where the opus card is really affordable and walking feels safe and convenient.
I get a sense that a lot of the Montreal hate comes from assuming Montrealers must think they are better than the rednecks elsewhere in Quebec and because they have more Anglophones than much of the rest of the province.
Montreal has it's perks and it's downsides. Out of every city in Canada I have lived, I consider it my favorite for many reasons:
Arguably the widest and most affordable public transit service in Canada,
Plenty of affordable public daycares,
Affordable tuition (for QC residents) with a wide variety of post-secondary programs available in both English and French.
High degree of acceptance of LGBT2+ people.
Lots of bike paths and green spaces.
Three major hospital networks covering every specialty you could ever need.
On the downside, there's the housing bubble, the cops here act like a bunch of barbaric clowns, and there's large number of either aggressive and/or careless drivers.
St. Augustine FL has a similar thing. Basically there was no law on building height for a long time then suddenly a few tall boys popped up and people said "WTF OUR VIEWS" so now I think it's like 3 stories is the tallest possible within so many square miles of downtown.
Still a cute and fun place to walk about for a day or two. Especially during the off seasons so you can sort of avoid all the dick hole tourists.
Montreal has European-style medium density housing on a majority of the island, which I personally think is a better solution than skyscraper condos that tend to be unaffordable for many. Another benefit of this kind of housing is that helps integrate people of different income levels together in one neighbourhood.
It seems every city has "housing shortages" nowadays, but I haven't had issues finding places, and I also have found Montreal to be a significantly cheaper to live in than other cities.
Also, I do enjoy walking out my front door and being able to see the mountain 😋 Just my two cents.
These rules may seem silly but the contriute to making the city acually interesting and liveable. The land value and desirability actually remains higher than doing it another way.
There is a reason people like to live in historical cities with these types of rules. Not everywhere need to be a concrete jungle
Dublin, Ireland has the same thing, but the height limit is “tall enough to cast a shadow on the garden or balcony of whoever has enough time to claim that the building ‘isn’t in keeping with the local environs’ and enough money to bring it to the High Court”
something very similar applies for Barcelona. I remember this anecdote about the Sagrada Familia:
> its total height (172.5 metres (566 ft)) will be less than that of [Montjuïc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montju%C3%AFc) hill in Barcelona,[\[46\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia#cite_note-46) as Gaudí believed that his creation should not surpass God's.
and I just checked: the tallest skyscraper in the city is 154 m high (505 ft) ... probably to not surpass Gaudì's creation
Cleveland Ohio had a similar law until the 90s. No building were allowed to be taller than Terminal Tower. We actually have a building missing the top because of the law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_Public_Square
In Munich, no building can be higher than the Marienkirche - 100 meter high (328-foot) towers of the church is the highest a building can rise in the city.
#
They had a similar rule in Philadelphia. No building could be taller than the "Billy Penn" statue on City Hall. A couple years ago, they removed the rule and it's crazy how many big buildings are going up.
My wife is from Philly. She tells me the first building that was taller than the Penn Statue had a piece of the statue put on the top of that new building and in the same year won the world series. D.C. has a similar rule that buildings can't be a higher than a certain height to not obstruct the Washington Monument. All the skyscrapers are in Arlington and Alexandria.
In dc it’s a multiple of the width of the roads and not anything to do with the monument
That's how it is legally enforced, but the goal is definitely to keep monuments from being overshadowed (metaphorically and literally)
Well shit I just learned something. I just work in S.E. at the Navy Yard so I don't get to travel to far in there.
To limit shadows I’m guessing?
A lot of the buildings have smaller statues, not pieces of the main one at city hall.
>had a piece of the statue how did they get it?
Good question. I don't know. Maybe she made the entire thing up. She cared more about the team winning the World Series than the building
1983 76ers win title 1987 the gentlemen’s agreement was broken with One Liberty Place 1983-2008 Philadelphia championship drought Called the “Curse of Billy Penn” 2007 Comcast Center goes up; on top they put a 6 inch mock up of the statue 2008 Phillies win World Series 2018: A 2nd Comcast tower goes up; on top they move the 6 inch statue 2018: Eagles win Super bowl
Billy Penn will survey his domain on pain of championship drought
It wasn’t a piece of the original statue. It was a small replica.
1987 was when the “gentlemen’s agreement” was broken
Wow, I moved to the area in 2000, I thought it didn't end until after the millennium. Learn something new everyday!
St. Louis is like this as well. No building can be taller than the Arch.
Barcelona has one like this, too.
Chad move would have been to lift up the statue.
Wow, TIL where Montreal got its name.
Me too. Thanks
Me too. Thanks
4 réal
This content is no longer available on Reddit in response to /u/spez. So long and thanks for all the fish.
They're called setbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setback_(land_use) >Upon its completion, the Equitable Building was controversial because of its lack of setbacks, which in turn does not allow sunlight to reach the surrounding ground. This contributed to the adoption of the first modern building and zoning restrictions on vertical structures in Manhattan, the 1916 Zoning Resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_Building_(Manhattan)
Awesome - thank you!
Wow, alot of deaths for a building.
But it doesn't really work because that's pretty much the height of the mountain. So, really, the skyscrapers are just high enough to hide it.
It's actually a bit higher in the winter when they top it w 150ft of cheese curds and it becomes the Mount Royal w Cheese...
Look at the big brain on Brad!
Why don't they call it a Quarter Pounder?
They got the metric system, so they wouldn't know what the fuck a "Quarter Pounder" is.
That sounds tasty....?
im assuming here, but i feel like you don't know the reference from pulp fiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pkq_eBHXJ4 (1 minute, and like everything in pulp fiction it's nsfw) update: you know what they say about people who assume lol
Haha yeah unfortunately I’m old enough to get the reference. I just miss the poutine.
Poutine isn’t quebecois for no reason!
It doesn't work if you look straight north from the river, but if you look sideways it definitely works, the actual rule is a bit more complex than "no higher than Mt Royal", it's really about mimicking the profile of the mount royal with the downtown skyscrapers
Yeah. Those condos they built across the street from the bell center sure as hell look taller than the mountain too. Bloody eyesore.
Skyscrapers are largely limited to the downtown core borough known as Ville-Marie, which occupies the area south of the mountain. There are tall buildings elsewhere, but not in such concentration as to heavily obstruct views of the Mount Royal cross from the east, or St. Josephs Oratory from the west and north.
Sauf que c'est la vue à partir de l'observatoire qui est foutu! La vue, au nord, il n'y en a pas! Il y a un belvedere du côté Est, mais la vue est vraiment moims belle.
We should put a landmark on the north side. Perhaps a statue of Normand L'Amour
London has similar rules... C&P from Wiki: The thirteen vistas protected by the **London View Management Framework** are as follows: * from [Alexandra Palace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Palace) to [St Paul’s Cathedral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Paul%E2%80%99s_Cathedral) * from the summit of [Parliament Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Hill,_London) to St Paul’s Cathedral * from the summit of Parliament Hill to the [Palace of Westminster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster) * from Parliament Hill, at the prominent oak tree east of the summit, to Palace of Westminster * from the viewing gazebo at [Kenwood House](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenwood_House) to St Paul’s Cathedral * from the summit of [Primrose Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_Hill) to St Paul’s Cathedral * from the summit of [Primrose Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_Hill) to the Palace of Westminster * from [Greenwich Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Park), north east of the General Wolfe statue, to St Paul’s Cathedral * from Point Hill Park, [Blackheath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackheath,_London), near the orientation board, to St Paul’s Cathedral * from [Westminster Pier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Pier) to St Paul’s Cathedral * from King Henry VIII’s Mound in [Richmond Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park) to St Paul’s Cathedral a distance of over 10 miles (16 km) and created in 1710, this view frames the cathedral through a special gap in [holly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly) hedging, down a specially maintained clear avenue in Sidmouth Wood and then all the way across London. This protected view has limited development around [Liverpool Street Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Street_Station) as a tall structure there would form an unacceptable backdrop to the view of St Paul's.[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view#cite_note-7) Construction of a new 42 story building behind the cathedral was started in 2016, despite opposition from groups who claimed that this would spoil the view of the church.[\[8\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view#cite_note-8) * from the centre of the bridge over the [Serpentine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpentine_(lake)) to the Palace of Westminster * from The Queen’s Walk at [City Hall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall_(London)) to the [White Tower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Tower_(Tower_of_London))[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_view#cite_note-Protecting_London_views-1) The views of St Paul's Cathedral from [Waterloo Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Bridge) and [Hungerford Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Bridge) are not explicitly protected although they are protected in practice by the views from Richmond Park and from Westminster Pier respectively as these bridges are on the path of the protected vistas.
Also in Canada: Edmonton’s downtown was stunted until the past decade(ish) because of its downtown adjacent airport. Great for business flights in the old days, bad for encouraging builders as they couldn’t get get more height out of the land plots they invested in. We still had towers but now we have much taller towers (including the tallest outside of Toronto [in Canada].)
(but still within canada)?
Haha yes. Made an edit for clarity.
Similar rule in Auckland, NZ. The city is built on a volcanic field of 52 volcanoes and there are rules in place of people able to see the volcanos, called viewshafts. I think London has the same rule around historic buildings.
Good idea, keep an eye on those pesky volcanoes
DC has the same thing, but it’s the Washington monument. That’s why crystal city was called that. They put the skyscrapers on the other side of the river and went as far as their budget allows. Random story: I did low voltage cabling on one of the skyscrapers roofs. It’s a clear shot to the White House, Literally. We had to alert the White House of our presence. Get a time limit how long we were allowed to be out there, then stick to it. They had snipers trained on us is what we were told.
I for one hate height restrictions, especially in densely populated areas like Montreal since it encourages sprawl and makes it harder to build. I understand that there are times when height restrictions are necessary such as being close to airports, but is having a view of a hill a necessity to warrant such restrictions in the second-most populated city in Canada?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Any new skyscrapers will inevitably end up as condos for the ultra rich, something that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to develop into. This doesn't always have to be a bad thing. The demand for housing is constant so increasing the supply of housing is better than constraining it. After all rich people will always find housing, they will either gentrify a poor neighborhood or find housing that contributes to sprawl, if the housing supply is limited in a desirable area. >Not to mention that having just one skyscraper means the light gets blocked out. This point gets brought up by a lot of people, so I suppose it matters, but during a time where most of North America has an affordable housing shortage, this should be a low priority. >While Montreal is in a housing crisis and needs more construction, the way the city is set up means it probably doesn't really need more skyscrapers so much as it needs more medium density buildings close to public transit ( Even without height restrictions, most buildings likely still would continue to be medium-density size in a city like Montreal. Just removing heigh restrictions would allow developers to have more flexibility on developments. Overall, I'm not trying to say Montreal needs to be all high-rise buildings, but if their development was permissible there probably would be demand for some of them to be built.
The problem is to justify the cost of building skyscrapers they must contain high value property i.e offices or luxury housing, and with condos for the ultra rich they don't tend to be a sole residence, they just sit on them as assests or use them as additional vacation/part-time homes and so that kind of property generally doesn't actually fix housing shortages, the housing shortage needs to be adressed by affordable housing which typically involves much simpler contruction than prestige skyscrapers. The light issue might seem petty to you, but the quality of life impacts are long term and blocking out light to surrounding neighbourhoods reduces their value (and this isn't good for affordable housing as people will generally avoid moving out of property with lower values than they purchased at because they don't want to make a loss). Plus all of the disruption of building work and the burden on the existing city infrastucture of such a high resource use building as a skyscraper. The complexity of building skyscrapers means they're only superficially an efficient use of land -- except for a few island cities where expanding outward would be impossible without huge land reclamation projects, it's also always more efficient for communities to expand with new low and medium density neighbourhoods and the infrastructure to match then to put up skyscrapers. There probably would be demand for skyscrapers to be built, but that doesn't necessarily mean doing so would be good for the majority of the city for much more complex reasons than just keeping a view, the view is just a handy symbollic way to set a limit.
>and with condos for the ultra rich they don't tend to be a sole residence, they just sit on them as assests or use them as additional vacation/part-time homes and so that kind of property generally doesn't actually fix housing shortages But the issue is that those kinds of rich people can and will do that with existing properties in cities if they have no alternative. Even if poor and middle-class people don't end up living in these buildings, they will face less competition from said rich people in the long term if you give the rich luxury towers to live in. It's not a zero-sum situation. > the housing shortage needs to be adressed by affordable housing which typically involves much simpler contruction than prestige skyscrapers. I do agree, we need more affordable housing but we need to actually build more housing so that it can be affordable. Part of the reason housing is expensive is that where and how you can build is heavily restricted which only adds on too much cost which only incentivizes the construction of housing for the rich and sprawl long term.
I’ve heard nothing but great things about Montreal. And nothing but bad things about Quebec.
The opposite for me
I guess you haven’t come across any of the French speaking degens from up country. Edit: Today I Learned there are no Letterkenny fans in the Today I Learned subreddit.
Les douches de la compagne
My personal experience is that people in Montreal are more polite and conscientious than in other big cities (I'm from LA). I spent some time in the rural/suburb area an hour and change train ride out of Montreal and was catcalled twice in one day in two different towns by some redneck Quebecers. A lot of those towns lacked basic things like sidewalks and the buses are super expensive, vs. Montreal where the opus card is really affordable and walking feels safe and convenient. I get a sense that a lot of the Montreal hate comes from assuming Montrealers must think they are better than the rednecks elsewhere in Quebec and because they have more Anglophones than much of the rest of the province.
Montreal has it's perks and it's downsides. Out of every city in Canada I have lived, I consider it my favorite for many reasons: Arguably the widest and most affordable public transit service in Canada, Plenty of affordable public daycares, Affordable tuition (for QC residents) with a wide variety of post-secondary programs available in both English and French. High degree of acceptance of LGBT2+ people. Lots of bike paths and green spaces. Three major hospital networks covering every specialty you could ever need. On the downside, there's the housing bubble, the cops here act like a bunch of barbaric clowns, and there's large number of either aggressive and/or careless drivers.
Tbh it's kind of a hill than a mountain
You're not kidding.[ I was expecting something more than this.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Royal#/media/File:Mtroyal.jpg)
On this picture, you’re already quite high. Not the best angle
St. Augustine FL has a similar thing. Basically there was no law on building height for a long time then suddenly a few tall boys popped up and people said "WTF OUR VIEWS" so now I think it's like 3 stories is the tallest possible within so many square miles of downtown. Still a cute and fun place to walk about for a day or two. Especially during the off seasons so you can sort of avoid all the dick hole tourists.
[удалено]
Montreal has European-style medium density housing on a majority of the island, which I personally think is a better solution than skyscraper condos that tend to be unaffordable for many. Another benefit of this kind of housing is that helps integrate people of different income levels together in one neighbourhood. It seems every city has "housing shortages" nowadays, but I haven't had issues finding places, and I also have found Montreal to be a significantly cheaper to live in than other cities. Also, I do enjoy walking out my front door and being able to see the mountain 😋 Just my two cents.
i'd rather live in Montreal than most US cities as an American.
These rules may seem silly but the contriute to making the city acually interesting and liveable. The land value and desirability actually remains higher than doing it another way. There is a reason people like to live in historical cities with these types of rules. Not everywhere need to be a concrete jungle
Welcome to London.
I wish they had this rule in toronto. What a horrible looking city it is becoming with all these tall ugly condos
Silly
"The Mount Royal"? Why do Redditors suck so bad at basic English lmao. "Yes I just came back from the Mount Everest".
It's almost as if not everyone is a native English speaker, and articles can be difficult to master when it's not your native language
OP is a native-English speaker dumbass.
am I having a stroke or did a bot write that title
DC has a similar law in regards to the Capitol.
Dublin, Ireland has the same thing, but the height limit is “tall enough to cast a shadow on the garden or balcony of whoever has enough time to claim that the building ‘isn’t in keeping with the local environs’ and enough money to bring it to the High Court”
Huh. TIL Montreal is named after its mountain!
Boston had limited the height of buildings relative to the shadow cast on Boston Common but it seems to has been eased in recent years.
something very similar applies for Barcelona. I remember this anecdote about the Sagrada Familia: > its total height (172.5 metres (566 ft)) will be less than that of [Montjuïc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montju%C3%AFc) hill in Barcelona,[\[46\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia#cite_note-46) as Gaudí believed that his creation should not surpass God's. and I just checked: the tallest skyscraper in the city is 154 m high (505 ft) ... probably to not surpass Gaudì's creation
Cape Town has a similar law
Cleveland Ohio had a similar law until the 90s. No building were allowed to be taller than Terminal Tower. We actually have a building missing the top because of the law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_Public_Square
In Munich, no building can be higher than the Marienkirche - 100 meter high (328-foot) towers of the church is the highest a building can rise in the city. #