Welcome Gazette readers!
This WordPress blog is our repository of older news and articles. It’s no longer actively maintained.
Please update your bookmarks to our current, active site:
www.griffintown.org
Bienvenue au lecteurs du journal Montreal Gazette!
Ce carnet-web WordPress est notre archive des anciens articles. Il n’est plus mis à jour activement.
S’il vous plaît, mettre à jour vos signets-web à notre site actif:
www.griffintown.org
Posted in Uncategorized |
(English version follows)
La première phase du plan de réaménagement de l’autoroute Bonaventure prévoit remplacer la section d’entrée de l’autoroute, située entre la rue Notre-Dame et le canal de Lachine, par deux boulevards urbains à quatre voies, de par et d’autre d’un bloc central de bâtiments.
Le plan prévoit également déplacer le corridor de circulation des autobus de la Rive-Sud. Au lieu de lui réserver une voie sur chacun des deux boulevards urbains, la Société du Havre, à l’instigation de l’Agence métropolitaine de transport, veut percer le viaduc ferroviaire qui longe l’entrée d’autoroute pour aménager un corridor d’autobus de l’autre côté du viaduc, le long de la minuscule rue Dalhousie, au coût exorbitant de 65 $ millions.
Des solutions plus logiques et moins coûteuses existent pourtant, à court terme (durant les travaux de réaménagement) comme à long terme.
Pendant les travaux, le parcours le plus logique pour les 1400 autobus par jour (200 l’heure aux heures de pointe) serait d’emprunter brièvement la rue Wellington pour ensuite remonter la rue Peel, ces deux larges rues comptant plusieurs voies. Pourquoi cette option n’est-elle pas retenue? Parce que le maire de Montréal, nous dit-on, souhaite réserver la rue Peel pour l’hypothétique ligne de tramway tant discutée, qui n’est pourtant pas prévue par l’AMT dans les prochaines années.
Et quant au tracé permanent, pourquoi ne pas simplement réserver l’une des quatre voies des nouveaux boulevards urbains aux autobus? Pour ne pas ralentir la circulation automobile, selon la Société du Havre. Cinq feux de circulation le long du nouveau tronçon ralentiront le trafic de l’heure de pointe, c’est certain. Mais l’utilisation d’une voie réservée en sens inverse pourrait mitiger ce problème, si problème il y avait.
Le nouveau trajet en ligne droite ferait gagner deux minutes aux autobus selon L’AMT, mais à quel prix! En plus de son coût exorbitant de 65 $ millions — de loin le plus coûteux parmi les sept trajets possibles — le parcours prévu mettrait en danger un joyau patrimonial de Griffintown.
Sur les 65 millions, 20 serviraient à creuser un tunnel sous le viaduc ferroviaire. Selon une étude réalisée par les ingénieurs du CN, la courbe du viaduc devrait être étayée à l’entrée et à la sortie par une série rapprochée de piliers de béton verticaux supportant des poutres de béton horizontales. Or ce tunnel et surtout ces piliers, du côté de la rue Dalhousie, condamneraient presque automatiquement le bâtiment New City Gaz, un « immeuble de valeur patrimoniale exceptionnelle[1] » datant de 1861, ciblé par plusieurs comme pierre angulaire de la remise en valeur de Griffintown.
En ces temps de crise, allons-nous vraiment dépenser 65 millions pour creuser un tunnel dont la nécessité semble plus que douteuse? Allons-nous condamner un bâtiment de valeur patrimoniale exceptionnelle pour gagner deux minutes de trajet aux voyageurs de la rive-Sud ou pour réserver la rue Peel à une hypothétique ligne de tramway?
(English version)
The first phase of the Bonaventure Expressway transformation project plans to replace the expressway entrance section, situated between Notre-Dame Street and the Lachine canal, with two four-lane urban boulevards, one in each direction.
The project also plans a separate corridor for South shore buses. Instead of creating a dedicated bus lane on each urban boulevard, Société du Havre, in response to an AMT (Agence métropolitaine de transport) request, wants to bore a tunnel under the elevated railway track that runs along the expressway, in order to create a bus corridor along tiny Dalhousie Street (see plan), for an exorbitant 65 $ millions.
Less costly and more logical solutions exist, both short-term (for the duration of the expressway transformation roadwork) and long-term.
During the roadwork period, the most logical detour for the estimated 1400 daily buses (200 buses per hour at rush hour) would be to turn left on Wellington street and drive up Peel Street, (two wide streets with multiple lanes). Why was this option rejected? Because, we’re told, Montreal mayor Gérald Tremblay wishes to reserve Peel Street for the hypothetical and much publicized tramway line, although it isn’t budgeted for in the near future by the AMT.
And why shouldn’t the permanent route be a reserved bus lane on each of the two new four-lane urban boulevards? So buses don’t slow down car circulation, says the AMT. Yes, five traffic lights along the new section are bound to slow down traffic at rush hour. So why not simply use the reserved lane in the opposite direction at rush hour?
The new in-a-straight-line bus corridor would allow South Shore buses to gain an estimated two minutes, but at what cost! Apart from its $65 million price tag — by far the costliest of seven possible routes— the planned corridor would seriously threaten an 1861 “outstanding heritage building”, considered by many to be the potential cornerstone for the cultural revitalization of Griffintown.
Out of that costly price tag, $20 millions would be used to bore a tunnel under the elevated railway. According to a study by CN engineers, the curve of the railway track would have to be braced at both ends by closely spaced vertical concrete posts supporting horizontal concrete beams. Boring the tunnel, and erecting the concrete posts and beams along Dalhousie Street, right next to the New City Gas building, would virtually condemn it.
In these economically strapped times, are we ready to condemn an outstanding heritage building, and spend $65 millions in order to gain two minutes for South-Shore commuters?
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
According to an article in The Gazette, Devimco estimates that by November, 2008, it will have bought up the requisite amount of land to go ahead with the project.
Among the many skeptics quoted are Joseph Baker. “They were pushing this through city hall on very sketchy outlines,” he said. “I wonder if anyone at city hall has any idea what they’re proposing to build.”
Read more here.
Posted in Devimco, Manchettes / Headlines, Urbanisme / Urbanism, Ville de Montréal / City of Montreal |
Click here to read the McGill Daily’s sobering summary of the “Remember Griffintown” event, which includes interviews with the organizers, artists in the ‘hood, and Chris Gobeil from CSR Griffintown.
The quote that should give all those concerned with Griffintown’s “patrimoine” the shivers is that of Devimco’s Serge Goulet, who is quoted as saying that the area is a “decimated neighbourhood that [Montrealers] have to pass through on their way to the South Shore via the Victoria Bridge.”
Posted in Activism / Action communautaire, Développment saine / Sustainable Development, Devimco, Events / Evenements, Urbanisme / Urbanism, Ville de Montréal / City of Montreal |
Posted in Activism / Action communautaire, Events / Evenements, Urbanisme / Urbanism |
Click here to view several urban design and high-density housing proposals for the Lachine Canal in or adjacent to Griffintown. Professor Robert Mellin’s students were individually responsible for devising a program of living and working spaces that addressed collective housing and urban ecology.
Posted in Développment saine / Sustainable Development, Environnement / Environment, Urbanisme / Urbanism | 1 Comment »
Le maire de l’arrondissement de Ville-Marie Benoit Labonté est engagé dans une lutte de pouvoir avec le maire de l’agglomération Gérald Tremblay. Ce dernier, appuyé par son parti d’Union Montréal, a proposé des amendements au projet de loi 22 qui lui donneraient des pouvoirs directs sur le centre-ville de Montréal (qui relève actuellement de l’arrondissement de Ville-Marie) et qui lui permettraient de nommer des conseillers exécutifs en plus des trois conseillers élus par les citoyens, ce qui lui assurerait un droit de veto. En réaction à cette tentative de prise de pouvoir qui réduirait à néant son autorité, Labonté a quitté le parti Union Montréal pour devenir le chef du parti d’opposition Vision Montréal.
Au Conseil de ville du lundi 28 avril 28, le PPU encadrant le Projet Griffintown a été adopté presque sans opposition. Durant l’assemblée, la journaliste du Devoir Jeanne Corriveau a observé un échange révélateur entre les deux maires en conflit, provoqué quand un citoyen a demandé pourquoi les consultations publiques sur le PPU du Quartier des Spectacles n’étaient pas confiées à l’OCPM, un organisme créé dans ce but et capable de mener des consultations impartiales et en profondeur?
« Plus tôt en soirée, le maire de l’arrondissement de Ville-Marie, Benoit Labonté, a annoncé son intention de demander au comité exécutif de confier l’étude du PPU du Quartier des spectacles à l’OCPM. L’arrondissement avait déjà indiqué qu’il tiendrait une séance de consultation publique locale le 5 mai prochain, mais le maire Labonté estime que l’ampleur du projet justifie que l’Office s’en mêle. D’autant plus, a-t-il tenu à préciser, que l’administration a fait savoir récemment qu’elle avait demandé à Québec d’amender la Charte de la Ville pour faire en sorte que tous les projets de développement d’envergure régionale soient automatiquement confiés à l’OCPM.
Sa demande a reçu un accueil glacial de la part du maire Gérald Tremblay: «C’est encore une autre astuce du conseiller Labonté pour retarder les échéances, sachant très bien que j’ai pris l’engagement de réaliser le Quartier des spectacles dans les plus brefs délais», a déclaré le maire. Malgré cette réponse, M. Labonté entend soumettre sa demande au comité exécutif le mois prochain. »
Cet incident ajoute un certain poids aux spéculations voulant que l’administration municipale ait présentement en chantier jusqu’à sept PPUs encadrant des projets de développement privés, et qu’elle ait décidé d’en écarter l’OCPM. Selon certains experts appelés à l’occasion par l’OCPM à conseiller la Ville, leur rôle est diminué, il n’y a pas de personnel à temps plein pour superviser les projets, et les ressources de la Ville en planification urbaine, jadis un solide bureau central de planification et de supervision, ont été éparpillées à temps partiel dans les arrondissements.
Un rappel : les élections municipales se tiendront le 1er novembre 2009.
***
Ville-Marie borough mayor Benoit Labonté is in a power struggle with agglomeration mayor Gérald Tremblay. The latter, backed by his Union Montreal party, has proposed amendments to Bill 22 that would give Tremblay direct powers over downtown Montreal (instead of the Ville-Marie borough) and allow him to name executive councillors in addition to three elected by citizens, essentially giving him veto power. In response to this power grab which would reduce his authority to virtually nothing, Labonté quit the Union Montreal party to become leader of the opposition Vision Montreal party.
At the city council meeting on Monday, April 28th, the Griffintown PPU passed virtually unopposed. During the proceedings, Le Devoir reporter Jeanne Corriveau caught this exchange between the warring mayors, prompted by a citizen’s question about whether the Quartier des Spectacles project would pass to the OCPM for a proper citywide, arm’s-length review process:
Plus tôt en soirée, le maire de l’arrondissement de Ville-Marie, Benoit Labonté, a annoncé son intention de demander au comité exécutif de confier l’étude du PPU du Quartier des spectacles à l’OCPM. L’arrondissement avait déjà indiqué qu’il tiendrait une séance de consultation publique locale le 5 mai prochain, mais le maire Labonté estime que l’ampleur du projet justifie que l’Office s’en mêle. D’autant plus, a-t-il tenu à préciser, que l’administration a fait savoir récemment qu’elle avait demandé à Québec d’amender la Charte de la Ville pour faire en sorte que tous les projets de développement d’envergure régionale soient automatiquement confiés à l’OCPM.
Sa demande a reçu un accueil glacial de la part du maire Gérald Tremblay: «C’est encore une autre astuce du conseiller Labonté pour retarder les échéances, sachant très bien que j’ai pris l’engagement de réaliser le Quartier des spectacles dans les plus brefs délais», a déclaré le maire. Malgré cette réponse, M. Labonté entend soumettre sa demande au comité exécutif le mois prochain.
This puts more weight behind speculation that the city administration has as many as seven PPUs for private development projects in the pipeline, and that the OCPM isn’t going to be let near any of them. From what we have heard from experts occasionally called to advise the OCPM, their role is being minimized, there’s no fulltime staff to oversee the projects, and the city’s urban planning resources have now been scattered in a part-time fashion to the boroughs.
Municipal elections are Nov 1, 2009.
Posted in Manchettes / Headlines, Ville de Montréal / City of Montreal | 1 Comment »
guest post
by Raphaël Fischler, School of Urban Planning, McGill University
“What the Griffintown project shows, is that there is a lack of political leadership in urban planning and development in Montréal. Our elected officials seem to have no sense of priority and to react to development proposals in an ad-hoc manner,” writes Raphaël Fischler in this musing on the City of Montreal’s seeming refusal to listen to its own experts. This talk was presented to the Montreal Citizen’s Forum last Thursday, April 24, the same day that the City released its revised PPU (Plan Particulier d’Urbanisme) for Griffintown.
The Griffintown saga is an example of what has become routine in Montreal. A developer comes up with a project; citizens and planners (civil servants, members of municipal advisory committees, outside experts) believe that the plan is weak in several respects; officials, however, find that the plan is a great investment which will bring good tax-revenue to the city; they disregard the advice given to them and give the developer what he wants.
This is a caricature of what really happens, of course. In most cases, projects do get changed somewhat in response to advice given by residents, planners and others. The new development agreement between the City and Devimco shows that the Tremblay administration has forced the developer to improve his project in several ways, for instance by including more park space and by showing a bit more respect for the existing historic context.
But the improvements come nowhere near to responding to the requests for change that were issued. I don’t know exactly what the planners working for the City and for the South-West borough told officials about the project. I cannot imagine that they found it all good. What I can tell you, and what many of you know, is that both the Comité d’architecture et d’urbanisme and the Conseil du patrimoine, two so-called “expert” panels, issued very negative assessments of the project. Independent experts have expressed similar opinions in the media, and a large number of residents and other stakeholders have stated their reservations in public as well. The weaknesses that these people have highlighted have not really been remedied in the new plan.
The main problems with the plan—if one may restate what has been said repeatedly—is that it is the wrong thing in the wrong place. It contains nothing else than a new destination for commerce and recreation, a new regional node right next to downtown and Old Montréal. It contains “big-box” stores and associated shops with a total floor area of 100,000 square metres (larger than any regional shopping centre on the island of Montréal, barely smaller than Carrefour Laval) and close to 4,000 housing units (at a gross density that is higher than in any Montréal neighbourhood except parts of downtown). And it does all that by means of an urban design that is completely at odds with the morphology of the area and its surroundings.
A related problem is that, due to its size, the project requires major interventions by the City: expropriation (done solely for the benefit of a private developer), infrastructure investment (at least $60 million, plus the $300-million tramway) and plan amendment (of course, current plans and regulations do not allow for such a mega-development). The City is going to use its power and money to do something that contradicts its own policies and endangers existing urban areas. And, to make things even worse, it is doing so by short-circuiting public participation in the process.
All this has raised intense criticism. Rarely has a project met such unanimity of opinion. Rarely have experts issues such a strongly worded opinion as they did in this case. Even the Ordre des urbanistes du Québec, which normally does not intervene in specific cases, has seen fit to add its name to the list of a signatories to a letter addressed to the mayor Montréal. All this must mean something.
One of the things this means, is that the Tremblay administration is not playing by its own rules and is betraying its own promises. When Tremblay became mayor of Montreal, he and Robert Libman, who was then in charge of urban planning at the Executive Committee, said loud and clear that, from now on, Montréal would demand higher-quality architecture and urban design and would manage urban-planning processes in a more fair and transparent manner. The time of “anything-goes-as-long-as-it-brings-in-property-taxes” was over.
Tremblay had the opportunity to deliver on this promise, because he had a strong real-estate market and because he had political support. When developers are eager to build, it is far easier to demand certain things from them, such as the inclusion of affordable housing, the use of green building technology, or simply good, context-sensitive urban design. The Montreal Summit had given Tremblay a strong consensus in favour of more participatory processes. But Tremblay has squandered this opportunity and André Lavallée, who is now in charge of urban planning, is too isolated to make good on theses promises on his own.
The sad reality is that our elected officials do not really know what to ask for. Too often, they do not know the difference between good and bad urban design, between sustainable and unsustainable urban development. (Not that the differences are radical, but they are real.) The same holds true of their understanding of citizen participation. For Alan DeSousa, public consultation on the Griffintown project was (I quote from the notes for his speech today) “exemplary.” That represents a very modest notion of public consultation at its best…
When we talk about good urban design, good urban development or good urban planning, one may of course ask: who is to say what is good? One person may think that Paris is the greatest city in the world; for another New York City is tops; for a third, Sienna is a dream place. And for every person who loves how Paris looks, there is one who hates how much Paris costs, or one who hates how undemocratically it has been planned. Even within Montréal, some people believe that downtown is the greatest place to be, while other are enamored with Rosemont and yet others feel good only on the West Island. In the same way, some people believe that large-scale projects are important to make a difference and to create a harmonious environment. But others believe that small-scale projects are the way to go, because they are less risky and allow for fine-tuning over time. So who is to say what the right vision or attitude is?
Ultimately, urban development is a collective responsibility. It has to be managed by the community, through the political process. In this process, there must be room for leadership and there must be room for broad participation. Leadership can come from many sides, from private developers as well as from grassroots organizations. But leadership is expected also from our politicians. What the Griffintown project shows, is that there is a lack of political leadership in urban planning and development in Montréal. Our elected officials seem to have no sense of priority and to react to development proposals in an ad-hoc manner.
In truth, many people are afraid of political leadership in urban matters. They recall the terrible things that were done to the city in the past, for example the demolition of neighbourhoods to build highways. Many residents want their representatives to help protect their neighbourhood, to be conservative. Even our dear Plateau progressives can be terrible NIMBYists. For them, exercising leadership often means saying “no.”
But Griffintown is not Milton Park. Griffintown is not a vibrant neighbourhood being threatened by large-scale demolition for the sake of private profit. Griffintown is a more or less derelict, half-abandoned area that can use major reinvestment. Indeed, reinvestment has started there, along Peel Street and along other streets. What it also needs is municipal leadership to guide that reinvestment in ways that are socially, environmentally and economically sound.
Good urban design and good urban planning can take place only if there is political support for these values. Montréal has some champions of good design and planning, such as the CCA and Héritage Montréal. It also has good defenders of democratic decision-making, among them the members of the Montreal Citizens Forum.
What Montréal does not have, not yet at least, is a culture that values urban design and urban planning. Officials and citizens too often accept easy solutions when, for the same money, they could have something better. One should not ask for excellence all the time; excellence is too hard and too expensive for the bulk of urban development. But clearly, Montréal deserves something better for Griffintown than what is being proposed now. Experts and professionals can help, but what is most needed is a better-informed political class and a more proactive population. The organisers of this meeting are to be commended to trying to generate movement in that direction.
Posted in Urbanisme / Urbanism, Ville de Montréal / City of Montreal | 1 Comment »
guest post
by Joseph Baker, Architect, past president of the Quebec Order of Architects and former director of the School of Architecture, Universite Laval
“Griffintown was destroyed by municipal indifference and technocratic apathy; it is time to make amends and get it right,” writes Joseph Baker in this piece presented to the Montreal Citizen’s Forum last Thursday, April 24. This was the same day that the City released its revised PPU (Plan Particulier d’Urbanisme) for Griffintown.
I have a visceral reaction to grand plans—to words like “urban renewal”. Some years ago I moved my growing family into a quiet unpretentious district that the city fathers slated for renewal—every block, every street south of Dorchester Boulevard from Atwater to the Glen were to be demolished and handed over to a Toronto developer who proposed to erect a dozen high rise slabs in their place. As if that weren’t enough, highway planners would complete the destruction, and incidentally run an access ramp through my living room.
None of this came to pass. The residents rallied, organized and resisted. The developer went belly up and the city administration adopted a more modest approach that included improvements to sidewalks, a low-income housing project and the transformation of a barren lot into an attractive neighbourhood park. The city fathers came up smelling like roses and earned a prestigious award for environmental excellence.
From There to Griffintown
Responding to an appeal for help, along with my students of the McGill Community Design Workshop, I opened an office on Barre Street. We were responding to an appeal for help by residents faced with the gradual loss of their community assets—St Ann’s splendid church and presbytery, the closing of its schools and the deterioration of their homes. We inspected the homes, prepared plans for renovations, explored new uses for the vacated convent and sought the attention of City Hall to lift the zoning regulations that precluded the construction of sorely needed new housing. Our appeals met with little response. The process of decline continued. Griffintown lay suspended in time, its fate ignored.
Curious that great portions of the city can lie neglected for 40 years or more. Buildings are abandoned, schools, churches and other landmarks are demolished, and surviving residents are dispersed as if it is of no concern to those charged with the future of these territories. It’s as if civic administrations are unable or unwilling to explore, beyond the most simple zoning terms, the content, composition and form of the urban landscape and must await the arrival of the self-styled developer. The developer, supposedly backed with unlimited resources, is expected to demonstrate, with the wave of a wand, just how easily and effectively the magic transformation of dross into gold can be accomplished. A bend to the zoning and height limitations here, a public investment in a rapid transit rail line there, and, yes, a nod to heritage sensibilities with a suitable memorial to the vestiges of vanished signs of long-gone communities seem to be enough to snare the collusion of City Hall and whet the appetites of the media.
Urban Planning
Genuine urban planning does not merely occupy itself with checking densities, height and floor coverage. It uses vision, imagination, and creativity. It is aware of social as well as economic needs. It seeks to know how the best urban environments have been achieved. It determines the framework in which both public and private investment can play their roles, evaluates the impact on the city centre, and establishes the genuine needs of an in-town urban community. Griffintown was destroyed by municipal indifference and technocratic apathy; it is time to make amends and get it right.
I have devoted a long career to the conservation of buildings and cities. I have taught students of architecture to give equal attention to the conservation of the urban fabric. I have supported community organizations and co-founded three non-profit corporations to rehabilitate run-down housing. I worked with Loge-peuple in Point St Charles, Benny Farm and the Bon Pasteur Convent in Quebec City to recycle buildings to provide homes for people of modest income. I have advocated the improvement of urban space for the enjoyment and activity of our citizens—streets, squares, and parks. A lifelong passion has made me a constant explorer of city form and I have shepherded a generation of students through the finest examples. It has made me a severe critic of the abuse of cities—wastelands, scars of empty lots that disfigure them, and deplore the loss of buildings created by earlier generations, whether mansions or humble homes, or ecclesiastical properties that stand witness to our growth.
I welcome improvement to public space, giving priority to pedestrians, calming traffic, facilitating cycling in the city; urban space that is accessible, active, sociable, clean, and secure. The city should be full of meeting places; outdoor rooms furnished with fountains, stairs to be sat upon, street fairs, sheltering colonnades, and places for play….
I have poured over the dozens of submissions to the so-called public hearings on the Devimco project. I see a need, a hunger, for a vision of a fair and generous city, for family housing offering an attractive alternative to the suburbs, for an urban environment not overwhelmed by towering blocks.
Devimco’s Press Conference
An email from Devimco this morning advised that there would be a press conference at 10h30, with documents available at 9h45. I immediately hiked to the city hall annexe on the 6th floor. Not a member of the press, I was not entitled to the press kit but to the 68-page PPU document. I managed to secure a copy of the release and perused it in the time available, Before M. de Sousa and Mme Montpetit, spoke I was quietly advised that though my presence was welcome that I should observe the protocol of the session—in other words don’t attempt to intervene.
Questions from the journalists seemed quite modest and the project as presented by M. de Sousa seemed the best of all possible worlds. He praised those who had participated at the public hearings and obviously felt that all concerns had been adequately addressed. One would need time to verify this assertion, but between now and April, when the proposition is placed before City Council, there is scarce time to do so. More worrying is the further deadline in May when approval of the Devimco project will be concluded.
In view of the serious attention given by the several hundred persons who submitted their thoughts on the project and who awaited the report of the Borough, these final steps seem to be concluded in indecent haste. A first reading would indicate improvement in a number of areas but must be examined more closely. On first glance, we glean the following:
So, Why Worry?
The objectives read reassuringly but the devil is in the details:
The idea of high rise buildings set on a medium rise base is a dated concept. On the other hand, the “horizontal skyscraper” of seven-story buildings is a concept that makes streets a secure and well-monitored environment of “coming and goings”’ of many meeting places–accessible, active, and sociable. These streets, full of doors and windows, are what Jane Jacobs–the passionara of good city form–called the “eyes on the street”. We cannot replace this activity with the activity on green roofs and terraces 25 meters above the street.
We know that the City of Montreal deprived itself of Service d’urbanisme with the professional expertise needed to guide the project. Architect Jean Claude Marsan in his opposition to the project, pointed to the success of Britain’s South Bank, the renaissance of Manchester industrial areas, Toronto’s distillery district, and he could have pointed to Barcelona’s astonishing city plan. We have many good architectural firms and they should be involved in a varied range of projects working in a co-ordinated well-planned structure. And we desperately need a competent well-staffed, well-led planning department that will co-ordinate the work of individual developers and architects. Until then, time must be allowed for a full and adequate examination of this unguided project.
Posted in Activism / Action communautaire, Devimco, Urbanisme / Urbanism, Ville de Montréal / City of Montreal | 1 Comment »
Le conseil municipal de la Ville de Montréal se réunit ce soir pour voter l’adoption du Programme particulier d’urbanisme (PPU) encadrant le Projet Griffintown. Pour exprimer votre opposition à ce projet, vous avez deux recours possibles :
***
The City’s Municipal Council meets tonight to vote on the Griffintown project as laid out in the revised project plan (also known in English as the SSP and in French as the PPU). To voice your opposition to the project their are two things you can do:
Posted in Activism / Action communautaire, Ville de Montréal / City of Montreal |
CSR Griffintown 