Outrage is first and foremost a personal matter. Being an architect, residing part-time in the Laurentians, I pay particular attention and attachment to the rare architectural witnesses that enrich the landscapes of the region. The Domaine-de-l’Estérel was an important one. A legacy. Every week, I had the chance to observe this proud and singular building, visible from the road, in the distance, at the end of the lake. A work and a work of irreplaceable and inimitable value. My family lives in the region, my roots are anchored there. I took the news of the demolition of the Domaine-de-l’Estérel as a straight blow to the heart. A treacherous blow, a low blow.
But let’s not make it personal. Already, the reactions of the mayor of Sainte-Marguerite-du-Lac-Masson, where the complex is located, and of the Minister of Culture of Quebec lead me to believe that the feeling is shared by a certain part of the political class and , say, of the population. What this act of vandalism represents, however, is in my opinion unfortunately representative of what is most vile and deleterious within the world of business and developers: the primacy of personal enrichment at the expense of the collective good. . Quebecers have thus been stripped of a piece of their history and heritage for the benefit of private gain. The rules were clear, stipulated. The evidence is overwhelming.
Although the owner of the premises, Olymbec, said he was amazed and appalled by the news, the delay required for his response and the measures taken upstream cast doubt on the sincerity of this statement. A certain ideology, which still survives, supports the idea that success in business can only be achieved by breaking established rules. This way of doing things no longer has any place today, and the sequence of events, that is to say the sanctions that will be imposed on the owner, should send a clear and unequivocal message as to the position of our governments with regard to the meager architectural heritage at our disposal.
I say it bluntly, as it has also been mentioned, requiring identical reconstruction seems to me the only solution for a minimum of justice to be rendered. The fines mentioned would please Richard Stern, president of Olymbec, only too much, for whom a small million (a paltry sum compared to the cost of rebuilding the building) would in no way affect the activities of one of the most important real estate owners. from the country. Such a fundamental (and lucrative in this case) business comes with its own set of restrictions and regulations, and the company cannot claim to have acted to comply with them.
It is the image of all promoters that suffers from such an act. It is necessary, in this case as in most situations where the conservation of a heritage building seems so difficult and harms the viability of the project, to question the vision of the instigator. Can’t the added value represented by such a building be put to good use? What do tourists come to see? There are thousands of lakes in the Laurentians, fir trees, maple trees. This building is what made this site so unique and attractive. But yes, it would probably have cost more, initially, to keep it. Entrepreneurs for whom such an asset represents only a constraint should look elsewhere. Short view. Short gain.
A little closer to the ground, there is also reason to criticize the practices and rigor that characterize the work of many construction contractors, for whom it is always easier to replace than to repair. Is it a lack of know-how, a question of values or simply laziness? If change is what motivates the movement that seems to be beginning following this sad episode, criticism is not the avenue to advocate, nor even education. You have to supervise, control and crack down.
History will have shown us that we cannot trust our fellow citizens who, alone in front of their task, driven by their individualistic imperatives, will not hesitate to trick their neighbor. Now give them a screen, let them act as corporate citizens, and piracy becomes a modus operandi.