J’ai toujours été fasciné par ces trous et ces interstices dans la trame urbaine qui surgissent un peu partout dans la ville et qu’on délimite souvent par quelques blocs de béton (comme dans le cas présent), ou qu’on transforme en petits parcs (comme fréquemment dans le Village) ou alors qui deviennent partie intégrante du paysage urbain (comme ces stations-services qui ont fermées au début des années 90 et qui ont laissé derrière elles des terrains couverts de gravier qui sont restés vagues pendant une décennie) .
Celui-ci est particulièrement intriguant parce qu’il se situe à moins de 400 mètres de l’Hôtel de Ville, parce qu’il est entouré de condos de luxe, parce qu’on y trouve du bois de chauffage, des matelas, des pneus, des vieux tapis et d’autres objets hétéroclites et surtout parce que personne ne le remarque plus. Ce trou, je l’aime parce qu’il me rappelle que nous, les Montréalais, nous tolérons l’incongru, que nous permettons la coexistence de choses contradictoires et peut-être aussi parce que ça me rassure de penser qu’il y a encore des espaces “vides” en ville habités par autres choses que des automobiles.
Pourtant, les trous sont une espèce menacée à Montréal… nous les remplissons un à un par des projets de condos abordables ou des lofts luxueux, selon le cas. Je sais que c’est en fait une bonne nouvelle – nous densifions pour mieux habiter la ville et pour continuer de faire battre le vieux coeur essouflé de la cité. Mais j’aurai quand même un pincement de coeur quand ce trou sera comblé. Ce n’est pas ma faute: j’ai grandi dans une ville trouée, et c’est difficile pour moi d’imaginer une ville sans trous.
13 comments
Moi aussi j’ai toujours été émerveillé par les terrains vagues en plein coeur des villes nord-américaines… les histoires culturelles, sociales et économiques qu’elles cachent (ironiquement) dans leurs espaces vides.
It should be noted that a lot of these “holes” are usually lots that have been contaminated by something, and that there are laws that regulate their use.
Often, they will simply leave the site alone for 10-20 years and let the soil remediate itself (meaning micro-organisms will eat away at the contaminant over time) but this can be a lengthy process especially due to our cold winter weather, which slows the process down to a crawl for about 6 months/year.
Usually for old gas station lots, this process is sped up by microbiologists who add fertilizer (or whatever else may be missing) to speed up the process of biodegradation of the hydrocarbons that have seeped out of the tanks into the soil over the station’s lifetime.
Once tests show that the soil contaminant is below a set guideline value, the site is sold off and usually will indeed become condos.
A lot of the condos being built in the Hochelagua-Maisonneuve district, and in a lot of other places as well, are being built on old factory sites and the process is about the same and needs special approval form the Ministère de l’Environnement (MDDEP) in order to buid residences on it.
I do like the holes as well, although too often they are being used for dumping trash and that pretty much ruins it all. I’m particularly fond of th one on St-Laurent just below Sherbrooke. A part of this hole is actually very densely populated by trees it feels like walking through a very small (urban) forest. Very cool.
That was actually really informative and interesting. Thanks for sharing Fray!
Oui, très intéressant. Il y avait une station-service au coin de St-Zotique et Christophe-Colomb, maintenant démoli, avec une barrière autour, et j’ai l’impression que le “trou” deviendra un édifice de condos ou autres logements. Très nécessaire dans le coin!
J’aime bien les petits parcs (noter le mini-parc situé rue de Castelnau juste au coin de l’avenue de Châteaubriand); par contre, il faut densifier l’habitation et refaire la trame urbaine.
Le commentaire de Fray est tout à fait juste – la décontamination des sols, qui est très coûteuse, entre évidemment en ligne de compte.
Mais il y a un autre facteur qu’il ne faudrait pas négliger: la spéculation immobilière. Dans plusieurs villes américaines de taille moyenne, comme Harrisburg, PA ou St-Louis, MO, c’est la spéculation plus que la contamination qui est responsable de la pléthore de terrains vacants qu’on y trouve.
C’est pourquoi les Américains ont inventé la taxe sur la valeur des terrains (Land-Value Taxation), qui élimine la spéculation en augmentant significativement le coût de l’inactivité immobilière dans les centre-villes (rappelons que la taxe foncière est en général basée sur la valeur du terrain et de l’immeuble, ce qui veut dire qu’un propriétaire ne paie pas grand chose s’il n’y pas d’immeuble sur son terrain). Voilà une initiative que certains villes canadiennes en difficulté, comme Winnipeg, devraient considérer.
Thanks for your comment Fray, very informative. I do like empty places that are clean, but not the dirty ones like this one. I actually find many Montrealers’ fascination for dirty things a little disturbing. I only hope I am misunderstanding and garbage is not really part of what you find attractive but I do somehow feel that if this place was clean you would not find it as interesting.
It’s difficult to balance the desire for these open urban spaces with the need to maintain a consistent urban fabric. I agree with Adolfo that the more destitute and dirty of these abandoned spaces serve a very narrow “clientele”, those more interested in the social and historic layers of an area than its actual livability.
I would argue that if a given one of these spaces actually serves as a node for social interaction, then it should be formalized as a public park under the ownership of the city, so as to serve all sectors of the local population. If not, if it acts as a scar on the neighborhood, an awkard place of transition or no-man’s-land, it should be developed.
I think, however, that the arbitrary conversion of such spaces into parks is unwise. I’m thinking of some of the little “pocket” parks in St-Henri that seem more forboding than welcoming. As to those that would mourn the loss of such unstructured space, I sympathize, but would argue that such areas have little place in the urban center.
What is attractive is the beautiful trees that just grew there, and the magnificent light in the background. I don’t think most poeple like rubbish.
I actually suspect a large number of “pocket parks” are designated “parks” for the sole objective of preventing people from squatting in them over night. In the village between Ontario and Sherbrooke there are a number of these parks, and none of them look particularly inviting or maintained.
Fray and Joel’s comments are extremely interesting (the kind that make this a great blog to read).
I would just like to clarify my own comment above that while I find empty lots fascinating (coming from a part of the world where this phenomenon doesn’t really exist), I certainly believe they are far from desirable.
They remind me of bombing scars that persisted for decades in Europe, though I suspect these are scars from fires, poor urban development and other problems. There is always a certain mystery and nostalgia about ruins, but it involves loss.
Yes, just anywhere shouldn’t become a park. Often ones at corners seem to be more successful. A park I like very much near here is the children’s park at the corner of Drolet and Mozart/Bélanger (the street that is the long street Bélanger east of St-Denis and the short street Mozart west of St-Denis). That was once an empty patch of asphalt – I have no idea what it was before then. It has become a lovely little park for small children, with benches for parents and guardians, and beautiful little crabapple trees. It is very much used.
A bit north of there, a nice little park is the one on avenue de Gaspé on what must have been part of the grounds of St-Cécile church, just north of rue de Castelnau. It is not as much used as the children’s park, but seems to be a place strollers, many of a certain age, rest for a while, and is simply a nice spot.
But I’m quite radical about the question of unused lots – they should be heavily taxed and expropriated if the taxes are not paid, then used for much needed social and affordable housing.
Fray, hasn’t the law been changed in terms of (very polluting) filling stations, that the petrol company has to bear the cost of remediating the soil now? There is an underused lot just east of St-Laurent on Beaubien that had been for sale for years (it is not a “hole”, but home to a marginal repair place, very underused). I was wondering why such a desirable spot, right next to three bus lines and a few minutes’ walk from different métro lines, went begging and a business owner near there told me this. It has been sold; I assume it will be developed as condos or rental apartments with ground floor businesses.
If this is contaminated, then there is nothing to do but let the garbage pile up and then build something, but if it wasn’t, wouldn’t it be nice that neighbors clean it up and make a little nice park until it is used for something else? Wouldn’t it be nice to do that on every single empty space in the city (wherever i’s possible)? But I guess that’s not going to happen. Not in Montreal… we are not supposed to care. We are supposed to admire the history, to criticize the bad things, but never get our hands dirty…
Maria: You know what, the issue is that the law has almost always forced companies and industries to clean up their mess when it is made or when they leave a site (before selling it off). But most of the time, what happens is that the company will just declare bankruptcy, which basically takes away any responsibility they might have had towards remediating the site (which is a despicable practice in my opinion).
When this happens, usually the land falls back into the hands of the city or the provincial government, and then they (meaning “we”, through taxes) are forced to take on the financial burden of remediation. But since it’s somewhat costly to do that, they will usually evaluate the extent of the contamination and calculate how long it will take for the site to remediate itself without outside intervention. If this timeframe is acceptably low, they will leave the site alone for over a decade. Hence, the “holes”.
Sure, a promoter could come in and buy the land for cheap, but not only will he have to pay for remediating the site, he’ll have to wait for the process to do its thing before he can use the site, which is certainly not instantaneous. So they would have to front the money without ay financial guarantees. We all know how those condo-loft projects work, they sell the units off before any of it is built. So I can only assume that is why the holes remain instead of being redeveloped, that and the fact that taxes on such urban spaces are really quite low (as was mentioned up there).
I can’t be sure but I think the law has been changing somewhat in the past few years so that people can be held accountable (legally) in the event a company goes under and a site needs remediating. I’d have to do some research on that.
Bonjour,
Je passe là presqu’à tous les matins. Effectivement, c’est entre le dégeulasse et l’insolite.
Les vieilles bicoques à côté sont assez inspirantes aussi.
Merci de donner une vie à un vilain petit coin pas si banal que ça.
Salutations