At the end of the week, we learned that UTILE, the organization dedicated to the creation of affordable student housing, is facing opposition from local residents living opposite two student residence projects. The object of their discord? The height and density of buildings, which raise concerns in neighboring communities.
It is essential to remember UTILE’s primary objective: to provide affordable housing for students. By teaming up with educational establishments, student associations and private and public sector partners, UTILE strives to realize housing initiatives that are not only affordable, but environmentally friendly. In these times of housing crisis hitting students, among others, hard, UTILE’s projects represent a breath of fresh air.
We could quickly fall into criticism of the “not in my backyard” syndrome or simple resistance to change, obviously. There are those who sigh with relief knowing that these initiatives will escape the twists and turns of a referendum approval process since they are affordable housing. And there are those who are offended and would have liked to be able to jump at the opportunity to block their implementation. We can already hear some murmuring that it would be better to revoke this regulatory exemption, for all projects, without exception.
But this is not the heart of the debate that I wish to make here. My real question concerns our openness to welcoming high-density projects outside of neighborhoods typically designated to accommodate so-called vertical construction. Key considerations include the following two questions. Should we systematically equate density with height? And is there a single way to think about urban density?
The answers to these questions are of course far from simple. Often debated, density is a concept which is essentially defined according to the context of the project. This may seem obvious, but it is crucial not to jump to conclusions that lead us back to preconceived ideas about resistance to change.
To put things into perspective, let’s look at the population density figures for a few major cities. Take Paris, for example, with its 20,359.6 inhabitants per square kilometer (inhab./km²), New York, with 10,194 inhab./km², the densest in the United States, Tokyo, at 6,313 inhab./km² , London, at 5596 inhabitants/km², and Rome, at as little as 2300 inhabitants/km². Let’s compare this to Montreal, which has a density of 4,323 inhabitants/km², and the urban heart of Quebec, with 2,790 inhabitants/km².
These figures demonstrate that it is simplistic to directly link density and height of buildings. Digging further, let’s take the example of the La Petite-Patrie district in Montreal, which has a density of 10,373 inhabitants/km², and that of Plateau-Mont-Royal, with 12,792 inhabitants/km², two of the neighborhoods the most densely populated in Canada, with mainly duplexes and triplexes.
While handling these figures with caution, we must recognize the multiplicity of paths towards balanced urbanization which does not systematically involve building towards the sky. The history of urban planning teaches us that densifying in a thoughtful manner that respects the existing urban environment is not only possible, but preferable to a development strategy focused exclusively on height. It is imperative to design projects that harmonize with their context, favoring gentle integration rather than brutal imposition.
The very definition of the human scale, as promoted by the Danish architect, urban planner and entrepreneur Jan Gehl, invites us to think about living spaces in a way that enriches the daily experience of city dwellers, far from the anonymity of towers. dominant. This flexible scale can mean the adoption of 6 to 10 floors in some environments, while limiting itself to 2 or 3 floors in others, illustrating the adaptability necessary to respond to the challenges of urban density in a humane and contextual.
Faced with the realities of the real estate market, where prohibitive land prices make the construction of small-scale houses in the city center unfeasible, we must navigate between the expectations of residents and the profitability expected by developers. The real solution lies in an adaptive densification strategy taking into account the specificities of each territory and integrating a diversity of forms of housing. Thus, by overcoming the false density-height dilemma, we can envisage densification which meets both the imperatives of profitability and the aspirations of city dwellers.
Let’s summarize roughly. It can be said that the two UTILE projects are entirely on the right scale in their context, just as a 40-story tower is in the city center. On the other hand, implementing such projects in the middle of a district of duplexes and triplexes would hardly harmonize with the existing environment.
Exploring different urban densification strategies leads us to think about new scenarios for our Quebec cities. This will help address the housing crisis on a more human scale. In the meantime, we can imagine what our cities would look like if, instead of favoring the construction of bungalows since the 1950s, we had persisted in the development of duplexes and triplexes!