The City of Saint-Lambert, on the South Shore, has pressed “pause” in order to rethink a real estate project planned on former industrial land. In Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, the mayor has adopted emergency measures to curb densification in its downtown area. The two municipalities must review their urban plan, but until then, they want to regain control of their development.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
When we talk to them, these elected officials say they are in favor of “intelligent” densification. Is. Densification may well be “smart” or “soft”, another term we hear a lot these days. The important thing is that we are talking about densification.
In Saint-Lambert, there are questions about the height of the buildings and the capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate new residents. But if the number of dwellings is reduced too much, the project will no longer be profitable. We will have to resume the work done by the previous administration and redo a consultation.
On the Saint-Bruno side, where there are a large number of single-family homes, the idea of allowing the addition of a housing unit on the land of one’s house is mentioned. There is also a real estate development project near Promenades St-Bruno, far from the city center, where there are plans to add a school and a daycare center. This densification is too soft, but it responds to the demands of the population who do not want us to touch their city center.
Except that the Metropolitan Land Use and Development Plan (PMAD) of the Montreal Metropolitan Community, like the land use and development plan for the Longueuil agglomeration, are clear: we must first densify near services and structuring public transit to reduce the use of the car, which would create more traffic. That’s smart densification: building where there is already a core of people. Even if, at the beginning, people resist.
All elected municipal officials in Quebec are faced with the same challenges caused by the climate crisis, which requires us to reduce our GHGs, and the housing crisis: adding homes to their territory without losing their soul and character.
These elected officials are often sandwiched between developers who want to build a lot to make their investments profitable, and citizens who defend the status quo during consultations, petitions and referendums.
We talk about “social acceptability” and when we talk about density, it is difficult to obtain. However, this acceptability must evolve. Elected officials must be able to properly explain the needs and benefits of densification to their population.
Unfortunately, at present, they have few compelling examples to convince anyone. When we say “densification”, people immediately see what they are going to lose, not what they have to gain. They must therefore be reassured: densification does not mean that your neighborhood will turn into a copy of Griffintown.
We can turn to the city of Candiac, for example, which is developing a TOD* district around the exo train station. When it is done well, when it is worked on upstream with developers, densification improves people’s quality of life. Active transportation, made possible by the proximity of businesses and services, has direct impacts on the physical and mental health of individuals. It is demonstrated.
In any case, cities will soon no longer have the choice to densify: demography will force them to do so. Aging baby boomers will no longer want to live in their big house, but may want to stay in their neighborhood.
More condo buildings, therefore, and fewer cottages. On the territory of the CMM, the construction of single-family homes has fallen in recent years. In some American cities, their construction is outright prohibited. It’s a big cultural change for North America, which was built around the ideal of the “bungalow-pool-entrance to garage” after the Second World War.
We will not change mentalities overnight, but we have to work on it.
But at present, those who could give impetus to the debate, important ministers of the Legault government, are swimming against the tide and politicizing the issue of densification.
In the opinion of several players in the municipal world, the declarations of the Minister of Transport, François Bonnardel – who said that densification was a “fashion” – have caused a lot of harm. Densification is not a fashion, it is a necessity.
But you have to know how to explain it well.
*TOD: from English Transit Oriented Development, it is a real estate development of medium to high density around a high capacity public transport station such as a train station, for example.