Whether in Montreal, Quebec or in the regions, the shape of our towns and villages is changing rapidly. A new construction on the right, a new district on the left, real estate development has the wind in its sails. This proliferation of projects has many impacts on our lives, and this is why these regularly arouse passions: on the one hand, developers who see each plot of undeveloped land as a missed opportunity; on the other, citizens who want to preserve a forest, a frog, a quality of life. But is there a right way to do real estate development? The answer is complex.
From an ecological point of view, it is clear that the best development is one that does not exist. It would therefore be necessary to question the legitimacy of real estate development before considering how to do it. That said, if a real estate project seems inevitable, it should never be established in a nearby natural environment, such as an urban wooded area, which we unfortunately see too often.
Not only do nearby natural environments provide refuges for biodiversity and a host of free ecosystem services (regulation of air quality, carbon capture and storage, flood mitigation), but they are also important places for citizen ownership. The neighboring population can practice a multitude of activities there, from hiking to mountain biking and birdwatching, which are often impossible to practice in smaller green spaces, such as municipal parks.
Their proximity also makes them accessible to more vulnerable people and by sustainable means of transport (walking, cycling, etc.). Finally, it is now recognized in the medical world that these spaces have an impact not only on environmental health, but also on human health, both physical and mental.
The Boiler sector, a case in point
A classic scenario that opposes development to the protection of natural environments is that of the Vision for the development of the Chaudière sector, in Quebec City. This vision involves the destruction of a large proportion of the sector’s natural environments in order to build a new neighborhood that would be based on the principles of sustainable development. A neighborhood whose objectives would therefore be to enrich our living environments and fight against environmental crises.
Unfortunately, building a new district, however exemplary, by destroying natural environments is in contradiction with the very achievement of these objectives. If real estate development is inevitable, it should strictly be used as an opportunity to transform already mineralized, urbanized and car-dependent environments into compact, mixed, tree-lined living environments geared towards sustainable mobility.
For example, the requalification of power centers and their huge parking lots represents more coherent projects from an environmental point of view. Seen from another angle, the Chaudière sector holds the potential for a much more ambitious and innovative project. That of a large park integrating a rich biodiversity, which relies on the protection and restoration of almost all the natural environments of the sector.
A refuge where citizens could practice various outdoor activities. A park that could become an icon and define the identity of the surrounding neighborhoods. What would Old Quebec be without the Plains of Abraham? What would New York be without Central Park? What if we allowed ourselves more vision? The case of the Chaudière sector is unfortunately not isolated.
Over the past few years, we have seen the birth of a number of citizen initiatives to defend local natural environments in the face of development projects. In Laval, as in Montreal, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Granby, all over Quebec, groups are campaigning to preserve havens of peace, the last islands of coolness to which they have access. Rather than razing these natural environments of importance to the population in order to develop new neighborhoods there, we should enhance them for what they have best to offer us.