Rosemont-Petite-Patrie is creating a Plan Particulier d’Urbanisme (PPU) for the Bellechasse sector, bordered by St-Laurent, St-Denis, Bellechasse and the train tracks to the south. Its an area that desperately needs some cohesive planning, but it’s sure to be touchy as residents of Mile End and Little Italy tend to get emotional about this place. From the much-hated pedestrian under-pass at St-Laurent, to the adored green corridor along the train tracks, and the love-it or hate-it Van-Horne Viaduct.
Last month, the borough put out an open call for multi-disciplinary teams to propose plans for the site, which is 20% owned by the city, 40% privately owned, and 40% owned by the STM.
The borough’s planning orientations (pdf) envisages a mixed-use, transit-oriented development, in which architecturally interesting buildings are recycled, and new, sustainable 8-10 story buildings include housing for families, low-income people, and universal accessibility. One thing that I was happy to see in the planning document was a network of “free spaces” (réseau d’espaces libres) that aims to break down barriers between Petite-Patrie and the Plateau by linking greenspaces and creating cycling and pedestrian links across the tracks. Planners may chose to integrate or dismantle the viaduct.
The borough has also taken public consultation beyond the usual plan-first complain-later model and set up an online Forum for the public to discuss their concerns and ideas for the site. According to Louis Tremblay, a borough communications officer, the public’s comments will be handed over to the 4 planning teams selected by the borough to further develop PPUs.
The public is also invited to comment on the 4 selected plans during a presentation on November 26th (Spacing Montreal will follow the story as it unfolds).
13 comments
I hope they don’t tidy it up too much.
I really appreciate the wildness of the land along the tracks: the footpaths through fields cut not by landscapers but by, well, feet. And the slightly derelict look of the whole place.
I agree Shawn, I especially like the bus graveyard near the viaduct.
What does the STM plan to do with the bus depot? I would think it would be sensible to keep one the central part of the city rather than putting out in an industrial park somewhere like Anjou or Lachine so as to allow buses to get where they’re needed faster.
This project has caused me to dissect the viaduct a bit closer. I always thought it was smart of have it so as to allow cars to get across the tracks from the east/west but now that I really look at it, it seems like a useless extravagance. Why not just build a tunnel under the tracks at Bernard in Mile End to connect Marmier/Rosemont? I suppose it could be blamed on the 60 and 70s and thoses decades’ love for over-doing things.
Tunnels are not very safe for pedestrians. The late Parc-Pins échangeur was a notorious spot for muggings and rapes.
Not very safe for cyclists either.
The wild greenery is pleasant, but we do need more social housing and it is an excellent location (obviously it has to be decontaminated, but so do most urban sites). Be interesting to see how all of this can be brought together.
Don’t forget to follow the link above and put your comments on the borough’s official forum as well.
I think the forum is a great idea and very progressive of the borough. Good for them.
How does the city decide when to do a PPU? If ever there was an area that needs one, St Henri would be it… Given the Turcot reconstruction, MUHC, the CN tracks, brownfields, etc. um Hello ??!
Re the viaduct – if it’s a choice between leaving it be while transforming what’s around/under it and replacing it with a tunnel, I say leave it.
Having walked across it numerous times as well as taking the 161 bus to Rosemont Metro frequently, I appreciate it as an example of what the architect/urban planner Chris Alexander, in his book A Pattern Language, calls “high places” – public spaces for vistas, for anyone to go to get an unordinary perspective on their city. I love the panoramic view from there – the sweep of the neighbourhoods in all directions, the various steeples, the view of that magnificent church at St. Viateur & St. Urbain, the view towards the Mountain, the ziggurat apartment buildings where Outremont meets Côte-des-Neiges, all of it.
A tunnel, besides being unsafe and unhealthy for pedestrians and bikes, can’t perform this function. And bikes in particular are better served by an expansion of the existing path network near the tracks. And there’s no reason that ground-level pedestrian pathways couldn’t be formalized as well.
But it can’t be ground-level, surely, because the heavily used rail line runs diagonally in such a way that it cuts through both north-south and east-west streets. Traffic — car, bike or pedestrian — must go over or under.
True. I meant the existing ground level paths should be expanded upon, but of course they have to cross somewhere.
Separate overhead crossings – little bridges which don’t have to have the load-bearing capacity of an auto viaduct -for pedestrians and bikes (pedestrians could still cross on the Van Horne as well) would be less costly, I’d think, than tearing down the viaduct and building tunnel(s). It’s true that if there were such bridges then then auto traffic only could be put in a tunnel. Then it would simply be a cost-benefit analysis of the remaining allocations whether to replace the viaduct with a tunnel; the important thing is to separate the foot and bike traffic from the auto without also putting them underground.
I suppose CN is going to have to have some say about where a tunnel would go, as well as mini-bridges?
Hi everyone!
I would like to invite you to visit our Web page at: ville.montreal.qc.ca/sitebellechasse and to leave your comments on our forum so they would have more chance to be take into consideration by the teams who will work on thje project.
Thanks!
I received the four-page insert on the plan and consultation process in my local neighbourhood paper. It is attractive and well-presented. Remember that this area also includes both sides of rue Bellechasse itself as well – an area which has experienced great neglect since a lot of it had been slated for demolition for the new “super-hospital” before those plans were changed. There are a lot of sadly degraded buildings, including some lovely old industrial ones. Not a tree on Bellechasse between St-Denis and St-Laurent. Not a stoplight either – it is very dangerous for pedestrians trying to cross, and even for drivers.
Given the height of some of the industrial buildings in the area (north and south of the railway), it is an area where housing can be built taller and denser, provided the design is well done.
Also remember that just a bit east along the railway line (it dips down a bit, so the northern side there is Rosemont) is an interesting new mixed development of social housing, condos, public buildings (a library and a swimming pool – yay!) and a little park.
Let’s hope this time the revitalisation and development project gets things right.
I am here at a forum newcomer. Until I read and deal with the forum.
Let’s learn!
Hello,
I’m a student in the new program Environnement et développement durable at the université de Montréal. I have chosen the PPU Bellechasse as a study project. Does anyone know the status of this project at this time, I see no comments after Dec. 4th, 2008.
Guido – I think the consultation process and the design workshop are completed. You can see the outcomes here:
http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=40,31063629&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
You can probably contact the borough for more information about the next steps.