By claiming that with the architectural proposal presented in recent days, CPDQ Infra responds to 80% of the recommendations made by its committee of experts, the organization’s vice-president of corporate affairs, Harout Chitilian, subscribes to the culture the denial in which the subsidiary of the Caisse de depot et placement has taken pleasure since the beginning of the REM saga.
It is in fact hard to understand, given what has been revealed, how one can claim to satisfy such a proportion of the recommendations when they are underpinned by very many reservations and concerns to which the managers of CPDQ Infra always show indifference. And that, moreover, the organization immediately ruled out the possibility of discussing several major aspects of the project that are the subject of legitimate criticism from transport specialists, planning professionals and citizens.
The problems raised with regard to governance, the route, the mode of transport, the link with the other components of the system, the costs to be assumed by the municipalities and the methods of financing the REM relate to issues that CPDQ Infra still refuses to discuss.
From this point of view, it is particularly aberrant to hear the organization’s spokespersons reiterate what was stated from the outset by Michael Sabia a few years ago, namely that we have neither the competence , nor the intention, nor the mission to plan the transport, when we are about to embark on an operation of more than 10 billion dollars. An operation that neither the ARTM, nor the Ministry of Transport, nor the Prime Minister’s office — it should be remembered — are in a position to validate through a credible planning exercise. Even acknowledging past failures of infrastructural and urban planning, there is something staggering about such an admission.
Mirage
That being said, back to the architectural sketches. If these reveal a real concern for design refinement — too bad we decided that the people of the South Shore, the southwest of Montreal and the West Island did not deserve a such respect — they perpetuate a way of doing things that offers an idealized vision of the insertion of such an infrastructure into existing urban environments.
While bird’s-eye views may be appreciated by drones and residents of a few high-rise buildings, they have little to do with the reality of those who dwell on the daisies or who will be privileged to have a REM at balcony level, walkers and public transit users, or those concerned about the impact on heritage buildings and spaces.
The locations chosen to include these views also make the installations look good, another trick well known to the designers of such images. As for the technical arguments put forward by CPDQ Infra to rule out other materials or other construction methods, the least that can be said is that it is puzzling and confirms the weight of the business model in decision-making processes.
However, as the president of the Order of Architects reminds us, whose remarks are reported in the March 10 edition of the Homeworkthe architecture must not be a wrapper a posteriori intended to conceal inconsistencies or gaps in a poorly designed project. The same is true of urban design.
The proposal to close lanes on René-Lévesque and develop a landscaped walkway over several kilometers falls under the same “1960s” approach. Development is subject to a choice of transport infrastructure which immediately excludes the urban dimension. The urban environment must therefore be reviewed to accommodate the insertion of the infrastructure imposed on it. And this, at the expense of the City of Montreal, which, it should be remembered, was kept out of the decision-making process.
CPDQ Infra’s insistence on aesthetics aims less to guarantee the quality of the REM de l’Est project than to create a diversion, such that its relevance and many of its questionable dimensions pass under the radar. There is nothing elegant about this stratagem. Vigilance is therefore more important than ever.