Twenty-nine community groups are facing eviction from a public institution this month that has served Villeray-Saint Michel-Parc Extension for nearly 100 years.
The Centre 7400 on Saint-Laurent Boulevard will be converted into luxury condominiums come June 30 after a long battle to preserve its public function.
“Nous croyons qu’une bonne partie de la population aurait aimer que ce centre demeure avec une utilisation publique: c’est-à-dire, sous la forme de centre communautaire,” says Andres Fontecilla.
In February 2010, Fontecilla helped form the Coalition des amis du 7400 Saint-Laurent after a newspaper article reported on the Centre’s redevelopment plans. The coalition brought together the building’s current occupants; members of the deaf and mute community; merchant and tenant rights organizations; and Villeray inhabitants fearing the neighborhood’s gentrification.
The Centre 7400 is owned by the clerics of Saint-Viateur. It was built in the 1920s to house the Institut des Sourds-Muets. Since the 1970s, it has been occupied by religious and secular community organizations, as well as providing inexpensive short-term lodging and conference space.
The clerics of Saint-Viateur offered the building to the deaf and mute community—but for a price its members could not afford. The coalition then asked the municipal government to place a two year moratorium on the rezoning of the building to allow time to negotiate with the clerics. The moratorium was refused.
The building should remain in the public interest, as everyone had contributed to—and benefited from—the Centre, argues Fontecilla. But privatizing the space will change that: “Ces bâtiments sont construits grâce à l’argent de la communauté et aujourd’hui on privatise un bien qui était construit grâce à l’argent de nos parents et nos grans-parents…On ne voit pas pourquoi aujourd’hui seulement les plus riches peuvent en profiter alors que tout le monde à contribuer à la construction de ces bâtiments.”
Thibault, Messier, Savard, and Associates Inc. (TMSA) plan for 302 new condominiums—none of which are social housing units. According to the city of Montreal’s “Stratégie d’inclusion de logements abordables dans les nouveaux projets résidentiels” adopted in 2005, every new residential development over 200 units must allocate 15 per cent of those units to social housing. Instead, TMSA offered the coalition $300,000.
“On ne veut pas $300,000; on veut des logements sociaux,” says Fontecilla, calling the monetary compensation insufficient and insulting.
Habiter Montréal reports that the 5.4 per cent of occupied social housing units in Villeray already falls below Montreal’s average of 7.1 per cent.
The Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM) agreed that the compensation was unsatisfactory. It was hired by the municipal government to hold public meetings on the future of the Centre 7400. In February, the OCPM released its findings: they supported the condominiums.
The report notes the belief by many that the condominiums will boost Villeray’s commercial and service sectors, as well as the neighborhood’s attractiveness. But it also mentions the majority of consultation attendees lamented the loss of a public institution, especially one close to a park, metro stop and bus lines.
OCPM’s secretary general Luc Doray clarified the Centre’s redevelopment was only found acceptable in light of the fact that no money came forward to sustain the public function of the building. Doray highlighted the report’s suggestion that the city of Montreal play an active role in helping the current occupants of the Centre 7400 find new lodgings. The OCPM also proposed the increased monetary compensation by TMSA should be allocated to constructing social housing on a nearby site.
These recommendations have not yet seen the light of day—and the coalition doubts they ever will. On March 29, the municipal government’s executive committee approved the redevelopment of the Centre 7400 in an open vote. All but two members of Projet Montréal voted in favor of the condominiums.
Patrick Cigana, director general of Projet Montréal, admits his party was divided on the issue. The project conflicts with parts of Projet Montréal’s mandate, such as demanding at least 25 per cent of new residential units include social and affordable housing and protecting the rights of tenants when it comes to urban planning. Still, Cigana says the project “fits well with our program” because of it’s transit-oriented development, large apartments for families, and green spaces.
Projet Montréal estimated an offer of $1.124 million would be needed to build 300 social housing units. But the money is unlikely to surface. The city of Montreal’s strategy for social and affordable housing is not binding; it’s merely a guideline. Doray says developers must at least make an effort to offer compensation to current tenants, but the municipal government can choose to overlook the Stratégie—and often does.
It’s a matter of money, says Marie-Josée Corriveau of the Front d’action populaire en réménagement urbain, a provicinial organization which protects the housing rights of Quebeckers and supported the coalition. Corriveau notes 80 per cent of the city’s revenue comes from property taxes: a fact she believes will lead to the increasing gentrification of Montreal.
But the coalition is hoping to deter this urban planning trend. On May 25, it held a small meeting to assess the failed efforts to maintain the Centre 7400 as a public institution, and to brainstorm how to better protect against such developments in the future.
The meeting’s organizers saw the need to create a public assembly to discuss public buildings under possible threat and fortify against their potential redevelopment before it even begins. A liaison committee was also proposed to form informational and tactical alliances with adjacent neighborhoods.
“Même si on n’a pas gagné la lutte pour le Centre 7400,” says Fontecilla. “On a gagné la solidarité.”
4 comments
I don’t see what the problem is. The city will make a fortune off taxe de bienvenue – use that money to build what ever new community centre is needed. There’s plenty of space in that neighbourhood for new constructions.
Uh huh, so this is that moral compass that catholics are so proud about?
It’s all about the money and keeping the pope in gold plated robes and toilet paper. When the Catholics act like this it just adds evidence that their “moral compass” that they tout for the rest of us is broken completely and totally. Just sell the building and get out of Quebec, we reject your intolerant doctrine and while we’re at it, it’s long past time that church leaders go to jail for the criminal abuses they have done upon the weak and the children of our society.
Personally I think we should seize the church assets, and redistribute them to the poor. This would, for a change, put the teachings of Jesus front and centre. He was a good man, too bad the Catholic church perverted basically all of his teachings in exchange for wealth, power, and prestige. It’s OVER.
While I feel it is unfortunate that another peice of religious architecture is losing its community function we can not expect the religeous orders to continue to foot the (no doubt) escalating costs of a building for community organisations that should by rights be subsidised by the municipality and not by the church. The order offerred the building up to its community memebers, (most likely) at fair market price and if they couldn’t meet that price then we can’t reasonablly expect the order to obsorbe the cost.
What I find most frustrating about articles like this and these debates is the ongoing mischaracterisation of gentrification and its supposed negative effects on the city. The rise and fall of incomes within cities has is as old as time and too apply a blanket suggestion that all gentrification is bad, is a mischaracterisation of the actual issue of social and affordable housing. If our cities are to be able to sustain themselves and provide the services that we expect of them then we can only hope that property values will continue to rise and the citie’s tax base will improve, you can’t have services without taxes to pay for them. Campaigning against gentrification is pointless and in many ways reverse classism, campaigning for better social housing regulations, such as making the guidlines manditory, will have a much better impact on the future of our cities.
I do want to note that in response to Dan (above), yes, the clerics of St. Viateur offered the building to the deaf and mute community and they could not afford it.
Also, the Coalition des amis 7400 and those individuals and groups who supported them ARE asking for better social housing laws, in addition to combatting the gentrification as Dan described it.