Raphaël Fischler, a professor of urban design at McGill University, has weighed in on the Griffintown project with an op-ed published in today’s Gazette. “Mayor Gérald Tremblay is telling us not to be negative about the huge project just proposed for Griffintown. Well, if the project were perfect and the administration’s stance beyond reproach, there would be no need for criticism. But as things stand, a couple of critical comments are called for,” he writes by way of introduction.
Fischler starts by critiquing the size of the proposed development:
First, the project is simply too large. This is no way to build cities, megaproject by megaproject. There is no reason, except for developers’ hubris, to develop such a huge swath of land in one swoop. This is not a railyard that is lying fallow; it is a working piece of the city. It is in bad shape and definitely needs upgrading. But that process must take place gradually, in medium-sized (or even small) increments that complete the area and complement each other, rather than in a large-scale project that obliterates what exists.
Yes, the whole area must be planned as a unit to set a framework for future development. But implementation should not be in the hands of one, single developer and should not proceed too fast.
We hear the developer has not yet acquired all the land needed for the project. One hopes he will not succeed in doing so. And one hopes the city of Montreal will not want to use its power of expropriation to help him do so.
He also questions whether or not the city should be encouraging the construction of a large student residence and concert hall in Griffintown when it plans to do exactly the same thing in the Quartier des spectacles: “Does the city need this duplication? If not, where does it want to locate a new hall and new student housing? If there is room in the city for two new concerts halls and two new student housing projects, should the ones downtown not receive precedence over the others?”
Fischler, like others in recent days, wonders whether the proposed retail that would be included in the Griffintown development, which would likely include several big-box style stores, would hurt business on Ste. Catherine St. The mayor argues that it would attract a different clientele — those would normally shop in the suburbs by car, not downtown by public transit — and I’m inclined to agree. The big box trend has become too pervasive to ignore. Either we allow stuff like the Marché Central to emerge in our midst or we encourage that kind of retail to take on a more urban form, as would be the case in Griffintown.
Still, there are plenty of things in the Griffintown plan to be concerned about, and Fischler recommends an alternative course of action. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me:
Tremblay wants us to shed negative attitudes toward new development. But the purpose of criticism is to improve projects and, in the long run, improve policy. Of course, constructive comments are better than negative critiques.
So here is my advice. Give city planners the mandate to prepare a Plan particulier d’urbanisme for the district that sets guidelines on local development based on what is best for the city, not what is best for one developer. Make one of these rules the prohibition against the consolidation of urban blocks (one of the features of the proposed project).
Exclude the possibility the city will expropriate land for a private commercial project. Decide now where a new concert hall and international student housing should be located (and decide that it be downtown). Enter into a binding agreement with the developer that forces him, on penalty of a large fine, to develop a mixed-use project from the start, and not build big-box stores without building housing, too.
Photo: Dave Sidaway, The Gazette
2 comments
Why are we giving Griffintown such a hard time? We should be encouraging developments like this and going after low-density suburban sprawl in the suburbs. Who cares if there are a few minor details that people disagree with, like the fact that there will be big-box type stores in this development? Big-box stores here would be an awful lot better than car-friendly power centres in the burbs. We have 95% of what we want here; asking for the remaining 5% will simply slow down this development and give us more of what we don’t want, and less of what we want.
The importance of the “remaining 5%” goes beyond the specific case of Griffintown. Now is the time to give Urban planners the green-light to design a beautiful and integrated framework that private developers can subscribe to. This form of “guided diversity” will provide economic opportunities for the private sector that go beyond what they could do alone. A well-designed city profits everyone in the long-term. Now is the time to get that “remaining 5%” straight. Better to “slow things down now” rather than try to go back in time later.