Photo du Jour – Edge of the Plateau

14 comments

1. That new development along the train tracks is a disaster. It’s exactly how infill should NOT be done. Even in this photo you can see how it turns its back on the adjacent streets; it feels like some exclusive suburban enclave, not an extension of the Plateau’s built environment. Besides, it’s tacky looking and there’s no retail, not even a single depanneur.

2. I caught the Mont Royal bus through the area recently, heading west from Olympic Park, and I have to agree: for the most part, it’s pretty mediocre.

3. Shawn, you must have passed through the Angus development, which is similar in appearance and equally underwhelming. This one is located north of Laurier along St. Grégoire, next to the CPR tracks.

4. Clearly being located in the Plateau Mont Royal is a huge selling point for these condos, yet they haven’t blended the development into the existing street grid and seem to have taken pains to isolate these homes (note the brick wall). You’d think that the train tracks on the north side of the development would be isolation enough…

5. That’s right. It WAS Angus. BTW, the developments that took place in the city centre, west of Peel, now considered part of Little Burgundy… those used to be rail yards, too, as I dimly recall. If so, does anyone know what they were called? There’s Angus, Turcot, but I cannot remember what the name of the downtown one, if indeed there was one.

6. I think this is Fabre, looking up toward the new developments. The condos on Garnier have square, flat roofs, those on the west side anyhow. The row on the left of the photo faces Garnier, the condos on the right face Robert-Gravel. Horror of horrors, the last street west of these complexes is called Gerry-Boulet.
   And, I admit, I live in one of thee, on Garnier. Yeah, there’s no retail, and I have to wonder whether that’s because of some zoning agreement. However, a big draw for us was being able to return to my neighbourhood and its proximity to Laurier, so hitting the retail stores there is a short walk away.
   Sure, it would be nice to live in one of the older places around here, but most of those are co-ownerships, and not many folks have the 25% down payment required. As with anything, you have to compromise when buying.

7. Michel is right, it’s Fabre street. The location is great – as you say, close to Laurier park and shops. That’s why its so strange the the developper seems to have purposefully cut off the new homes from the existing fabric of the neighbourhood.

8. A little correction on my part: what you see is an English-style courtyard, with the row-houses facing each other. Hence the fence. There’s now a big square box condo building there, which is a monstrosity.
   But, because I live there and therefore have a vested interested, what exactly is wrong with this development?
   Trust me, I’m not playing devil’s advocate, nor do I want to come across as defensive, but I have zero experience in urban planning or architecture. So, besides the courtyard fence in the photo, how do the other buildings turn their back on the neighbourhood? And how is the infill bad? Honestly, I’m really curious.

9. Michel, I actually think that the townhouses are much better than the condo buildings in that development. The courtyards are nice and they create a sense of intimacy. But, on the whole, I find that the development fails to integrate with the surrounding area because of a few important details:

   — The setbacks are too deep, which creates a somewhat suburban atmosphere that is at odds with the rest of the neighbourhood.

   — The condo buildings on Ste. Grégoire feel isolated from the street because of their setbacks and, more importantly, the half-storey of parking at their ground level.

   — The development as a whole feels isolated from the rest of the neighbourhood. It should have included a footbridge over the railroad tracks or, at the very least, more continuity with existing streets.

   I think the biggest shortcoming is really the lack of retail or public amenities. There needs to be space for depanneurs, cafes, grocery stores, and there should be some sort of small park or square that would bring together residents from all of the surrounding areas. (I know Laurier Park is nearby but small squares have their place, too.)

10. Well, I think calling it a “disaster” is way overstating the case. While no housing development is perfect, this one isn’t bad, if you ask me. Keep in mind it’s only one block deep (and then it stops because of the tracks), so how much integration with the street grid can you do?

    As for retail, you don’t need a depanneur on every block. This development is about a four minute walk from a really nice part of rue Laurier, which has all the deps and cafes and stores that are needed in this area. Sticking a retail space in that development would have been pointless, and it would have taken business away from the neighbourhood’s “high street.”

    Angus Yards is a whole other question. That really is like suburban sprawl set down in the middle of the city. But that’s because it is so huge! The lack of retail spaces there means you pretty much have to get in your car and drive even if you just want a loaf of bread and some milk. Also, big sprawling developments like that really need to incorporate public spaces, parks, etc.

    But that little spot up above St. Gregoire? It’s tiny! It’s the equivalent of one block!

    As for building a walkway over the railroad tracks; why? There’s nothing over there. The walkway would terminate in an industrial parking lot.

11. Yes, calling it a disaster is probably an overstatement, but shouldn’t we hold even the smallest parcels of land to the highest of standards? In any case, the whole St. Grégoire development is actually about five blocks long and one block wide, so it’s not that tiny.

    I think retail really is needed given the relatively high population density. If retail spaces had been provided/allowed, I’m certain they would have been filled by now. Five minutes is an unreasonably long walk for even the most basic of conveniences; I don’t think there are any other parts of Plateau where you have to walk that long just to get a depanneur.

    I also don’t see why allowing a few retail spaces to open on St. Grégoire would take business away from Laurier; it’s not like it’s a zero-sum situation in which there is a fixed number of people shopping at a fixed number of stores. In fact, expanding the amount of retail in the northern part of the Plateau could ultimately be good for business by increasing competition and drawing even more customers from outside the neighbourhood.

    You’re right that a footbridge would lead to an industrial area — but it would also lead to the bike path that runs along the north side of the train tracks. It probably won’t be long before that industry is redeveloped (it’s already happening to the city works yards further west) and, if that happened and there were a footbridge, it would create a direct link between the Plateau and Père-Marquette Park in Rosemont.

    Here’s a map showing the benefit a footbridge could have had in creating a link between this new development and the park across the tracks.

12. Stores in the development would have generated new business; big cities allow this kind of duplication. That’s why there is not just one dep in all of Montreal.

13. It’s not a question of “high standards” it’s a question of what is appropriate for each project and each neighbourhood. These urban planning ideas about retail spaces, etc., are not universal. Each area has its own circumstances and its own specific needs.

    In the case of the development in questions, one of those needs is NOT retail space. As I said, the whole development is the size of one block. Yes it is “five blocks long” but those are short blocks. The total area is no bigger than the block enclosed by rues Fabre, St. Gregoire, Garnier, and Laurier. It’s just oriented east-west instead of north-south like the other blocks in the area.

    As for the overpass, do you realize that your proposed overpass (according to the map you link to) is only one block from Papineau, where there is already an underpass? Do you really want the city to spend several million tax dollars building an overpass just to make a one block shortcut to a bike path?

    Incidently, 90% of the people from that development who would use the bike path would be going South, so they can already hook up to it by going west on St. Gregoire to where the path goes through Laurier park. People coming from farther north would not use the overpass because it would mean having to climb up the incline, and at the other end they’re no long on the bike path. Why not just stay on the existing path, where there are no hills and no cars?

    It is true that the nature of this development sets it off, and back, from the rest of the neighbourhood. That is largely (but not entirely) due to the nature of the site and its orientation. The result, unfortunately, is that if you live in the development you will feel connected to the neighbourhood, but if you live elsewhere in the neighbourhood the development will seem a bit stand-offish.

    That is unfortunate. However, that’s also a reason why there is no need for a dep there. Few people from the neighbourhood would to into the development to go to the dep; they’ll continue to go to the deps they’ve always gone to. So the poor soul who opens a dep in that development would pretty much only be serving the families who live in that development. Not a good business arrangement.

    And no, five minutes is not an unreasonably long walk to a dep. Jeez!

    I go back to my original point; each development, and each neighbourhood, has unique needs. You can’t paint every situation with the same parcel of urban planning chestnuts. You can’t just rubber-stamp every project with the same proclaimations.

    Yes, bike paths and parks and retail spaces are good, in general, but they don’t apply in all cases. I wish people would get in the habit of challenging their own assumptions before passing judgement!

14. I live about 10 doors down from the house seen on the photo, there used to be a dep about half way between there and my place and it’s now closed, there just wasn’t a need for it.

    As Blork said, east to west the blocks are very short and north to south the development is about 1/3 the length of “normal” blocks. Michel is all of a minute further from Laurier stores than I am.

    I’m not a huge fan of that development, some of the styles for parts of it are horrible, the latest one, not seen here and which Michel mentioned is a sinfully ugly but in terms of integration, they are actually kind of cosy and those extensions to streets like Garnier actually feel more like cul de sacs than anything else.