Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'districts'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Real estate projects
    • Proposals
    • Going up
    • Completed
    • Mass Transit
    • Infrastructures
    • Cultural, entertainment and sport projects
    • Cancelled projects
  • General topics
    • City planning and architecture
    • Urban photography
    • Urban tech
    • General discussions
    • Entertainment, food and culture
    • Current events
    • Off Topic
  • MTLYUL Aviation
    • General discussion
    • Spotting at YUL
  • Here and abroad
    • Quebec City and the rest of the province of Québec.
    • Toronto and the rest of Canada
    • USA
    • Europe
    • Projects elsewhere in the world


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me





Type of dwelling

Found 8 results

  1. En consultant les résultats officiels ici http://www.electionlongueuil.org/resultats.htm J'ai compilé des statistiques et j'ai crée des cartes. PML = Parti Municipal de Longueuil (Goyette) AL = Action Longueuil (St-Hilaire) Statistiques des districts / conseillers et conseillères Arr. Vieux-Longueuil PML : 10 victoires AL : 5 victoires Arr. Greenfield Park PML : 2 victoires AL : 1 victoire Arr. Saint-Hubert PML : 5 victoires AL : 4 victoires Analyse : Le parti de M. Goyette a gagné dans chaque arrondissement avec une marge de 2:1 dans Vieux-Longueuil et Greenfield Park. L'équipe de Mme St-Hilaire a mieux performé dans Saint-Hubert, quoique le PML a remporté 1 district de plus que Action Longueuil. Le PML (Goyette) a mieux performé... ...dans les secteurs plus urbains et denses ...dans les endroits généralement plus vieux ...à Longueuil, ou les gens connaissent le PML depuis des décennies Action Longueuil (St-Hilaire) a mieux performé... ...dans les dévelopements récents, les secteurs moins denses de type banlieu ...dans le vieux-vieux-Longueuil ...à Saint-Hubert, ancienne ville, ou les gens ne connaissent pas le PML que depuis quelques années depuis les fusions On peut voir que malgré la victoire de Mme. St-Hilaire, l'opposition va être féroce à l'hôtel de ville. Districts remportés par le PML (Jacques Goyette): 16 Districts remportés par Action Longueuil (St-Hilaire): 10
  2. Here are some photos I took in and around Caracas yesterday (I will post more later). I have always wondered what non-Venezuelan people think about Venezuelan cities. Here are my views: Venezuelan metro systems are much cleaner, modern and quieter (the trains, not the people) than the older North American and European subways. The streets outside are much dirtier though. These are photos of a metro station near my house: This is the skyline of a small section of the eastern (wealthier) part of Caracas: These are some photos of the area around Altamira, one of the most important business and residential districts of the city: These ones are from the area around the Bellas Artes metro station. Bellas Artes is the bohemian district of Caracas:
  3. Middle-class communities disappearing Big increase in poor neighbourhoods in Toronto and more rich districts, according to U of T study February 08, 2009 Daniel Dale STAFF REPORTER "PRIMO PIZZA," the sign reads. "SINCE 1965." Like the store's walls, it is green and white and red, the colours of the Italian flag, and, on the left, there is a cartoonishly mustachioed man carrying a pepperoni pie above his head. This could be any Italian-owned pizza joint in the city. It was indeed Italian-owned until last year. Then a man named Rocky sold it to a man named Abdul. Abdul Malik, a 43-year-old Indian immigrant, kept its name and its oven and its sauce and its dough. He made just one addition to the top right corner of the sign, easy to miss if you're darting in from the cold, above the shop's phone number. "Halal 100%." "Some people, when they see the sign `halal,' they don't come," said Malik, who also drives a taxi. "We're losing some customers. But we're gaining other types of customers." The neighbourhood known to Statistics Canada as Census Tract 354 is changing. A community of 1950s red-brick bungalows, sturdy front-lawn maple trees and long, narrow driveways, it seems the very embodiment of white middle-class suburban Canadiana. But like the rest of Scarborough, it is decreasingly white. And by University of Toronto Professor David Hulchanski's definition, it is no longer middle-class. Later this year, Hulchanski – associate director for research at the U of T's Cities Centre – and a team of researchers will release an update of their 2007 report The Three Cities within Toronto. Their new analysis of data from the 2006 census confirms a trend they found in the first study: the income gap between Toronto's rich areas and poor areas is growing, while its middle-income neighbourhoods are disappearing. Hulchanski's findings, in aggregate, are dramatic. At the micro-level of this individual neighbourhood, however, the impact of relative economic decline is not unlike Malik's change to the pizza shop's sign. Significant, certainly, but subtle. Between 1995 and 2005, the 5,225-person census district, roughly bordered by Lawrence Ave. E. to the north, Knob Hill Park to the south, Brimley Rd. to the west and McCowan Park to the east, gained 1,020 members of visible minority groups. They now comprise more than 55 per cent of the population, up from about a third in the 1990s. Most of the newcomers came to Canada this decade or last from South Asian countries – predominantly India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Like recent immigrants of all types, many of them struggle to make an adequate living. The area's average individual income in 2006 – $29,929 – was 25 per cent lower than the average for Toronto census districts: $40,074. Hulchanski classifies areas 20 per cent or more below the city-wide average as low-income; according to him, this area has been low-income since at least 2000. Yet ask long-time white residents to classify their neighbourhood and they will inevitably call it middle-class. Ask them to describe recent demographic changes and they will think for a moment, then point down the street to a house an Indian family bought from a British couple, or around the corner to another now owned by Sri Lankans. "When we moved in almost 30 years ago – we moved in '79 – there were more Anglo-Saxon people," said Filomena Polidoro, 53. "Now there are more ethnic people. It's more mixed. And it's nice, still nice. We like it." The old-timers' shrugs about its low-income status reflect a key caveat to the discussion of the disappearance of the city's middle-class census tracts: to fall from "middle-income" to "low-income," in relative terms, a neighbourhood need not get significantly poorer. Since the city's high-income neighbourhoods are getting richer, a middle-class neighbourhood that maintains its income level will be relatively poorer. The influx of South Asians has not made this one destitute; it remains largely populated, said Polidoro, by people who work as teachers, nurses, and factory and construction workers, among other unpretentious jobs. But the new arrivals contributed to a decline of about $1,000 in the neighbourhood's inflation-adjusted average individual income between 2000 and 2005. Two local real estate agents said about 70 per cent of people now inquiring about houses in the neighbourhood are South Asian. Many recent buyers, said Coldwell Banker agent Raffi Boghossian, are large extended families who have pooled limited incomes, sometimes "not much more than minimum wage," to acquire property. Local businesses have adjusted accordingly. At Reliable Parts, an appliance parts shop beside Primo Pizza, employee Warren Lastewka has a polite "the price is the price" speech he delivers when cash-strapped customers reared in haggling-friendly countries ask for unadvertised discounts. The Paperback Exchange, a bookstore in the plaza since the 1970s, now stocks elementary educational books with titles like Basic Learning Skills and Parts of Speech near its sci-fi novels. "I'll get a family of Pakistanis in when the teacher says to them, `Your kid's not going to make it if they can't read English.' From now through to June, that's when they usually get the notice," said Joy Ritchie, 64, the mother of owner Troy Ritchie. "I keep those books on the wall there. And I do very good business on that from now to June." Low-income areas sometimes lack proximity to social services and other essential conveniences. This one is served by Scarborough General Hospital, a Royal Bank, a Shoppers Drug Mart, a library and a Price Chopper. "Everything is convenient for us in this area," said Kaushik Maisuria, 28, an India-born auto garage employee who lives with his two uncles and two young cousins. "We can get whatever we want." Including, increasingly, products and services targeted to them, like Malik's halal pizza or the plaza's JD's Market and Halal Meat, where large bags of basmati rice line the aisles and a butcher works out back. Once a Becker's Milk, the location was a standard convenience store until October, when Jaffer Derwish's Afghanistan-born family converted it into a small grocery. In a tough economy, business is slow, said Derwish, 23. So is demand for local real estate. "The market is sort of dead in the area," Boghossian said. Many prospective buyers, he said, "are people with income that is not certain." "Typical Scarborough," said Royal LePage Signature realtor Joan Manuel. "You're not getting multiple offers. And if you do, you're not getting them over (the listed price)." Those people still making offers, however, are drawn to the neighbourhood's increasing ability to meet distinct South Asian needs. About 800 metres from Brimley Rd. is the large new Jame Abu Bakr Siddique mosque, a gleaming white facility whose minarets loom over another halal pizzeria. Prospective buyers have cited the mosque as a key lure to the area, said Manuel. And other attractions abound. Down the street is the bustling Bombay Bazaar grocery store in a Lawrence Ave. plaza so busy people park their cars in the middle of the parking lot, preventing those lucky enough to find spots from backing out. Nearby are a Hindi video rental store-slash-hair salon and a fish market. It is, for some, a sight to behold. "Where there used to be an old mom-and-pop operation," said Joy Ritchie, a touch of wonderment in her voice, "now they're selling saris." http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/584203 Poor neighbourhoods growing across Toronto RENÉ JOHNSTON/TORONTO STAR Newspapers in South Asian languages serve the city's many new immigrants. Toronto's middle class is disappearing. Since 2001, 15 of the city's middle-income neighbourhoods have vanished, according to a yet-to-be released University of Toronto report. The majority became low-income areas, where individual earnings are 20 to 40 per cent below the city average. Hardest hit are the suburbs. Declines in Scarborough and north Etobicoke have continued. Falling income is also affecting parts of Brampton, Mississauga and Durham. In 1970, 86 per cent of 905 neighbourhoods were middle class. In 2005, that number had tumbled to 61 per cent. From 2000 to 2005, the number of city neighbourhoods with very low earnings – more than 40 per cent below the Toronto-area average – grew by almost 50 per cent. Residents in these neighbourhoods live on welfare-level earnings, says U of T researcher David Hulchanski. The report, due out this year, is an update of the groundbreaking 2007 The Three Cities within Toronto report by Hulchanski and a team of university researchers. It analyzed and mapped Statistics Canada census data from 1971 to 2001, finding that not only were middle-class neighbourhoods disappearing, but Toronto was divided into three distinct geographic areas: City 1, which consistently gained income; City 2, which maintained its income but shrunk in size; and City 3, whose residents saw their earnings fall over the 30-year period. Hulchanski says municipal governments are not to blame. "The people of Toronto did not do this to themselves. This is a national trend. What we're showing on these maps is the way federal and provincial policies, as well as the economy, have played out in Toronto's neighbourhoods." He says policies such as universal health care and social assistance helped build the middle class. Cutbacks, including downloading of social services from the province to cities and a lack of affordable housing and job protection, are leading to its destruction. "You didn't talk about McJobs in the 1970s, or even part-time jobs without benefits. Whoever heard of a job that wasn't full-time without benefits?" he asks. "That would be shocking 25 years ago. Now it's normal." Hulchanski's updated study, with another five years of data from the 2006 census, confirms the decline of the middle class and the continued polarization of rich and poor neighbourhoods. From 2001 to 2006, individual incomes in wealthy areas grew 14 per cent, while residents of low-income neighbourhoods made only modest gains. During the 1970s, Toronto was a predominantly middle-class city, with 341 of its 520 census tracts – neighbourhood areas determined by Statistics Canada so that they have roughly 4,000 residents each – in the middle-income category. Poverty was contained in the city's urban core. Thirty years later, it's a city divided. Richer residents live along the Yonge St. corridor, close to services and transit. Individual incomes average almost $90,000 a year. The proliferating poorer communities are located in Toronto's pre-amalgamation suburbs, the middle-class bastion of the 1950s. In 2006 that area included 40 per cent of the city's census tracts. Sixty-one per cent are immigrants. There is little rapid transit and an average income of $26,900. Sandwiched between the two areas is a shrinking City 2, neighbourhoods with static income where the average income is about $35,700. Hulchanski began his research in 2005 with a $1 million grant (spread over five years) from the Social Science Humanities Research Council of Canada. He teamed with St. Christopher House, an omnibus social service agency in the city's west end, to examine how gentrification was changing the neighbourhood. The data was difficult to analyze. Within the 30-year period, census boundaries had changed and some of the information wasn't available electronically. A U of T data analyst took more than a year to get it into shape. By the time Hulchanski began his work, Toronto and the United Way had completed research showing the city's poverty was highest in 13 priority neighbourhoods. "The trend line was clearly there. Researchers saw it and the city's work with the United Way was going on," says Fiona Chapman, manager of social research and analysis for Toronto. "What David's work has done is absolutely confirmed the concerns. And I think why everybody doffs their cap to David is (that) he's been very good at helping the public understand these concerns." BY THE NUMBERS How the income decline affects the outer suburbs $40,074 Average 2005 individual income, all Toronto census districts 61 Percentage of population comprising immigrants in districts where incomes have declined more than 20 per cent since 1970 34 Percentage of population comprising whites in such districts 19 Number of subway stations within 300 metres of such districts, versus 40 for biggest-gaining districts 54 Percentage of 2005-07 homicides in such districts, versus 12 per cent for biggest-gaining districts Source: University of Toronto Cities Centre U of T analysis of census data shows middle class shrinking, especially in Scarborough, Etobicoke February 08, 2009 Patty Winsa STAFF REPORTER http://www.thestar.com/Article/584204 interactive map: http://www3.thestar.com/static/Flash/map_middleclass.html PDF:http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/51/c7/2cc835a5403d8d76478fae97bba0.pdf
  4. La Presse Le vendredi 11 mai 2007 L'arrondissement du Plateau-Mont-Royal persiste et signe avec son initiative de démocratie participative : pour l'an 2 de son Budget participatif, les citoyens décideront de l'affectation de 30 % des fonds du Programme triennal d'investissement (PTI), soit 1,5 million. Cette année, les choix se feront d'abord par district. Dans la semaine du 11 juin, les citoyens de chaque district de l'arrondissement identifieront les projets qu'ils souhaitent voir se concrétiser dans leur quartier. Ces projets devront respecter cinq critères : avoir un caractère spécifique et non général, être réalisés à un endroit déterminé, être concrets, avoir un caractère durable et être admissibles au PTI. Durant l'été, l'administration évaluera les coûts de ces projets. Début septembre, dans chacun des trois districts, les citoyens classeront les projets par priorité et éliront 12 délégués. Fin septembre, lors d'un sommet, les 36 délégués des districts, les sept élus de l'arrondissement et 12 personnes issues de la société civile se réuniront pour discuter puis voter sur les projets qui seront adoptés ensuite par l'arrondissement. «Cette procédure de vote a été retenue à la demande des citoyens, a dit hier Helen Fotopulos, la mairesse de l'arrondissement. Nous avons décidé de choisir la transparence et la prise en charge de certaines responsabilités de l'arrondissement par les citoyens.» En 2006, la première expérience de budget participatif a permis aux citoyens qui y ont participé (environ 500) de définir des priorités d'investissement pour 500 000 $ dans le verdissement (projet de ruelles vertes), dans l'apaisement de la circulation (initiatives à venir cet été), dans la réfection de rues et de trottoirs et dans la restauration de parcs. Mme Fotopulos a dit qu'après plus de 20 ans en politique municipale, elle était fière du succès de cette initiative de démocratie participative, «une première en Amérique du Nord», car il s'agit d'une de ses motivations à faire de la politique. Elle a voulu associer à ce succès la conseillère Josée Duplessis et des citoyens du Plateau qui ont déployé des efforts dans ce cadre, notamment Dimitri Roussopulos, Lorraine Decelles et Luc Rabouin.
  5. Est-ce que l'article ci-dessous et un avertissement pour la préservation hyperactive de l'architecture Montréalaise? Preservation Follies http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_preservation-follies.html New York’s original Pennsylvania Railroad Station opened its doors in November 1910, with its towering Doric columns and a 150-foot-high waiting room based on the Baths of Caracalla in Rome. “As the crowd passed through the doors into the vast concourse,” the New York Times reported, “on every hand were heard exclamations of wonder, for none had any idea of the architectural beauty of the new structure.” But in the mid-1960s, the Pennsylvania Railroad tried to make up for falling revenues by razing the Beaux Arts structure—over the protests of architects and editorial boards—and replacing it with today’s drab station, the new Madison Square Garden, and rent-bearing office towers. The beloved old station became a martyr for the preservationist cause. In 1965, Mayor Robert Wagner signed the law establishing the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Initially, the move seemed like a harmless sop to the activist architects. But the commission’s power soon grew, partly because it was charged not only with protecting beautiful old structures but also with establishing large historic districts. Today, New York City contains just 1,200 individually landmarked buildings, far fewer than the 25,000 buildings within its 100 historic districts. And in these districts—1,300 acres’ worth in Manhattan alone—almost every action that affects a building’s exterior must pass muster with the commission, from installing air conditioners in windows to mounting intercom boxes next to front doors. A tree can grow in Brooklyn, but not in SoHo, unless the commission decides that its leaves are no affront to that neighborhood. It is wise and good to protect the most cherished parts of a city’s architectural history. But New York’s vast historic districts, which include thousands of utterly undistinguished structures, don’t accomplish that goal. Worse, they impede new construction, keeping real estate in New York City enormously expensive (despite a housing crash), especially in its most desirable, historically protected areas. It’s time to ask whether New York’s big historic districts make sense. According to a law passed in 1965, to bestow historic-district status on a neighborhood, the Landmarks Preservation Commission must hold public hearings, vote, and then submit its proposal to the city council, which must approve the designation. Once that happens, the commission has enormous powers over the new district: it may “specify the nature of any construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any landscape feature which may be performed” within that district. The commission began landmarking speedily after the law was passed. From 1966 to 1981, it created 20 historic districts in southern Manhattan, at a rate of about 38 acres per year. (By “southern Manhattan,” I mean the island below 96th Street—the most expensive land in the city and some of the most expensive in the world.) The largest of these districts was Greenwich Village, which was landmarked in 1969. The plan to submit the Village to the commission’s oversight was embraced by most of its residents, despite their well-known history of fighting the government’s use of eminent domain to seize their property outright. Mayor Wagner said that he was “deeply concerned and sympathetic with the people of the West Village neighborhood in their desire to conserve and build constructively upon a neighborhood life which is an example of city community life at its healthiest.” Mayor-elect John Lindsay and mayor-to-be Ed Koch, a Village resident himself, also favored making the Village a historic district. Two property owners did file a lawsuit against the city, and large property-owning institutions like the New School and Saint Vincent’s Hospital also didn’t want their future building options curtailed. But in the end, the proposal passed, and a similar groundswell helped establish the SoHo Cast Iron District in 1973. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed governments to landmark commercial areas without compensating the owners, giving the Landmarks Preservation Commission a green light to expand farther into areas that had many nonresidential properties. The largest of these was the Upper East Side. Once again, effective organizers, like New Yorker drama critic Brendan Gill, rallied a sophisticated community behind the districting plan. Opponents of the Upper East Side Historic District mounted a spirited defense, challenging the notion that this large swath of Manhattan had any kind of architectural unity, but they were overwhelmed. Paul Goldberger, writing in the Times, noted that the decision put the Koch administration “squarely on the side of preservation, rather than development, of some of the city’s most expensive real estate.” The Upper East Side Historic District was the high-water mark of preservationism in the age of Ed Koch. From May 1981 to May 1989, the commission added just five new districts in southern Manhattan, a rate of 2.82 acres per year. Perhaps the commissioner during much of this period, Gene Norman, didn’t believe in expansion as much as his predecessors did. Perhaps the commission was busy fighting other battles, like landmarking the Broadway theaters and preventing Saint Bartholomew’s on Park Avenue from erecting a tower. Or perhaps it was the spirit of the expansive eighties, when New York’s growth seemed like a pretty good thing. But then Norman resigned, and suddenly, perhaps coincidentally, historic districting soared. Between May 1989 and December 1993, 509 extra acres were added—a pace of over 100 acres per year. Tribeca, Ladies’ Mile, and the Upper West Side—a vast collection of extremely heterogeneous buildings, many of them with little architectural distinction—were just a few of the major districts brought under the commission’s control. The bulk of this districting occurred during the mayoralty of David Dinkins. Again, that may be the result of happenstance, or of Dinkins’s appointments to the commission, or of their sense that their decisions wouldn’t be overruled. But it’s worth noting that the districting explosion stopped as soon as Rudy Giuliani became mayor. Since 1993, the pace of historic districting in southern Manhattan has averaged about seven acres per year. Only one-tenth of the 1,200 acres that are now part of historic districts in southern Manhattan have been added since 1993. The Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, including their commission chairs—Jennifer Raab, Sheridan Hawkins, and Robert Tierney—have shown far more restraint in increasing their sway over Manhattan than most of their predecessors did. Nevertheless, the damage has been done. Not counting parks, southern Manhattan contains about 7,700 acres of potentially buildable area. Today, nearly 16 percent of that land is in historic districts and therefore subject to the commission’s authority. This preservation is freezing large tracts of land, rendering them unable to accommodate the thousands of people who would like to live in Manhattan but can’t afford to. To get an idea of the way that historic districts can freeze a city, consider two recent episodes. In 1999, Citibank sold a one-story branch bank on the corner of 91st and Madison Avenue to a developer who planned a 17-story tower for the site. But the corner was within the prestigious Carnegie Hill Historic District, whose distinguished residents didn’t like the idea of another tower in their neighborhood. Woody Allen made a short video protesting the plan. Kevin Kline recited Richard II: “How sour sweet music is, / When time is broke and no proportion kept!” No New Yorker who grew up hearing Kline play Henry V in Central Park can fault the commission for being swayed by his eloquence. It told the developer to limit the building to nine stories—even though one of the few limits to the commission’s power, explicitly stated in the New York City Administrative Code, is that “nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the commission, in acting with respect to any historic district or improvement therein, . . . to regulate or limit the height and bulk of buildings.” A few years later, the developer Aby Rosen wanted to erect a 22-story glass tower atop the old Sotheby Parke-Bernet building at 980 Madison Avenue, in the heart of the massive Upper East Side Historic District. Even though the building itself wasn’t landmarked, Rosen and his architect, Lord Norman Foster, proposed keeping the original building’s facade intact and letting the tower rise above it, much as the MetLife building rises above Grand Central Terminal. Once again, well-connected neighbors didn’t like the idea and took their complaints to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Tom Wolfe, the brilliant chronicler of the foibles of New York and the real-estate industry, penned a 1,500-word piece in the New York Times insinuating that if the commission approved the project, it would betray its mission. Wolfe won, and nothing was built. Replying to his critics (of whom I was one), Wolfe wrote in the Village Voice that “to take their theory to its logical conclusion would be to develop Central Park. . . . When you consider the thousands and thousands of people who could be housed in Central Park if they would only allow them to build it up, boy, the problem is on the way to being solved!” But building high-rises in dense neighborhoods means that you don’t have to build in green areas, whether they’re urban parks or undeveloped areas far from the city. In fact, a true preservationist should realize that building up in one area reduces the pressure to take down other buildings. Once the landmarks commission decides that a building can be knocked down—as was the case in the Battle of Carnegie Hill—it should logically demand that its replacement be as tall as possible. Does turning a neighborhood into a historic district actually discourage new construction, as these stories suggest? To find out, I couldn’t simply use data from the U.S. Census to see if regular districts boasted more housing growth than historic districts did, because historic districts don’t match up exactly with census tracts. So I have made comparisons among three kinds of census tracts: those that have no territory within a historic district; those that have some; and those with a majority of land in a historic district. During the 1980s, the mostly historic tracts added an average of 48 housing units apiece—noticeably fewer than the 280 units added in the partly historic tracts and the 258 units added in the nonhistoric tracts. In the 1990s, the mostly historic tracts lost an average of 94 housing units (thanks to unit consolidation or conversion to other uses), while the partly historic tracts lost an average of 46 units and the nonhistoric tracts added an average of 89 units. In short, census data show that there has indeed been less new housing built in historic districts, even though they are some of the most attractive areas in New York. A different approach to measuring new construction is to use consumer websites to look at high-rise buildings, which make the biggest contributions to the city’s housing stock. According to Emporis.com, just five residential buildings with more than 15 stories have been erected in historic districts in southern Manhattan since 1970; that’s an average of 0.004 buildings per acre, less than half the rate in nonhistoric southern Manhattan. Nybits.com, another website, lists 234 over-15-story residential buildings built in southern Manhattan since 1981. Of these, just 6 percent were built in historic districts, even though historic districts cover 16 percent of southern Manhattan. Neither website includes every new building erected in the city, but there’s no reason to suspect that they are disproportionately missing new buildings in historic districts. Again, we see that less new housing is built in historic districts—which shouldn’t be much of a surprise. The laws of supply and demand aren’t usually subject to legislative appeal: when the supply of something desirable is restricted, its price will typically rise. To find out whether prices have risen more quickly in historic districts than elsewhere, I have used data on more than 17,000 Manhattan condominium sales by the First American Corporation. The data cover the years between 1980 and 2002, avoiding the extreme price increases that occurred during the last eight years, and they include the addresses of the condos, making it possible to link them to historic districts. From 1980 through 1991, the average price of a midsize condominium (between 800 and 1,200 square feet) sold in a historic district was $494,043 in today’s dollars. From 1991 through 2002, that price was $582,671—an 18 percent increase. The average price of a midsize condo outside a historic district, meanwhile, barely rose in real dollars, from $581,865 in the first decade to just $583,352 in the second. In other words, even though condos within historic districts were cheaper than those outside historic districts in the 1980s, they had become equally expensive by the 1990s. Over the entire 1980–2002 period, prices each year rose $6,000 more in historic districts than outside them. The results tend to get stronger if you look at price per square foot, use statistical techniques to control for unit size, or expand the sample. For example, if you include units between 500 and 1,500 square feet, you’ll find that price per square foot increased by only about $5.50 outside historic districts from the first decade to the second (again, in real dollars)—but that within historic districts, the price per square foot rose from $530 to $596. The increasing cost of property in historic districts remains even if you control for those districts’ amenities, like proximity to Central Park, and if you allow that proximity to become more valuable over time. Restricting new construction in historic districts drives up the price of housing, then. This, in turn, increasingly makes those districts exclusive enclaves of the well-to-do, educated, and white. Census data about southern Manhattan show that in 2000, average household income in census tracts that were primarily in historic districts was $183,000 (in current dollars), which was 74 percent more than that of households in tracts outside historic districts. Almost three-quarters of the adults in the mostly historic tracts had college degrees, as opposed to 54 percent in tracts outside historic districts. And people in the majority-historic tracts were 20 percent more likely to be white. This alone isn’t surprising: architectural beauty is a luxury good, so one would expect that the prosperous would be willing to pay more to enjoy it. What’s disturbing is that historic-district status itself seems to make areas more exclusive over time, as limits on new development make it more difficult to build for people with lower incomes. In 1970, families in tracts that would eventually be located at least partly within historic districts had incomes 29 percent higher than families living outside such districts. By 2000, that gap had widened to 54 percent. Similarly, in 1970, people living in areas that would become historic districts were 4 percent more likely to be white than those outside these areas, as opposed to 15 percent 30 years later. Tracts in historic districts have also seen their share of residents with college degrees increase significantly faster than that of tracts outside historic districts. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs argued that “cities need old buildings” because “if a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction.” Jacobs was surely correct that cities benefit from having some less expensive real estate—but restricting the construction of new buildings doesn’t achieve that end. Prices stay low not when the building stock is frozen but when it increases to meet demand. Preservation doesn’t make New York accessible to a wider range of people; it turns the city into a preserve of the prosperous. As if it weren’t enough that large historic districts are associated with a reduction in housing supply, higher prices, and increasingly elite residents, there’s also an aesthetic reason to be skeptical about them: they protect an abundance of uninteresting buildings that are less attractive and exciting than new structures that could replace them. Not every city, it’s worth adding, has restricted construction in its most valuable areas. Chicago has allowed an enormous number of high-rise buildings with splendid views of Lake Michigan. The result is a city with a great deal of affordable luxury housing. It’s hard to fault the Landmarks Preservation Commission for stopping development in historic districts. That’s its job: to “safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage,” as the city’s administrative code puts it. The real question is whether these vast districts should ever have been created and whether they should remain protected ground in the years ahead. No living city’s future should become a prisoner to its past. Research for this article was supported by the Brunie Fund for New York Journalism. Edward L. Glaeser is a professor of economics at Harvard University, a City Journal contributing editor, and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. He is grateful to Kristina Tobio for heroic research assistance.
  6. 40.20 Urbanisme - Projet particulier d'urbanisme CA Direction de l'aménagement urbain et des services aux entreprises - 1124400013 Adopter une résolution autorisant la construction d'un bâtiment résidentiel de 6 étages et la démolition d'un bâtiment résidentiel de 2 étages au 1097-1103, rue Dorion, en vertu du Règlement sur les projets particuliers de construction, de modification ou d'occupation d'un immeuble (Le Patriote) - 1er projet de résolution District(s) : Sainte-Marie
  7. Il en avait été questions il y a plusieurs mois et je croyais que la ville avait finalement abandonnée l'idée... mais voilà qu'on en jase à l'Hôtel de ville : Merci à IluvMTL 20.20 Contrat de services professionnels CA Bureau du directeur d'arrondissement - 1131145005 Accorder un contrat de services professionnels de 285 425,44 $ à Affleck de la Riva architectes pour l'aménagement du square Cabot et autoriser une dépense maximale de 342 510,53 $ (appel d'offres public VMP-13-026- 6 soumissionnaires) District(s) : Peter-McGill
  8. (Voir le pdf à la fin pour les tableaux et cartes). Une analyse décortiquée de la mobilité à Montréal par Jean-François Lachance L’ISQ produit annuellement des données sur la migration interne1 à l’échelle des MRC. Ces publications permettent l’analyse des tendances migratoires infrarégionales et leur évolution dans le temps. Ce but n’est toutefois pas atteint à Montréal, qui regroupe en un seul territoire équivalant à une MRC près du quart de la population du Québec, soit 1,9 million de personnes. Une analyse poussée de la migration interne à Montréal requiert donc un découpage plus fin du territoire. Pour ce faire, nous utiliserons les territoires de CLSC (ou districts) de l’île de Montréal, au nombre de 352. La taille moyenne de ces territoires (approximativement 53 000 personnes) est similaire à celle des MRC hors Montréal, qui est d’environ 57 500. En plus d’identifier avec plus de précision le point de départ des personnes qui quittent Montréal et le point d’arrivée de ceux qui y entrent, l’exploitation de ce découpage permet également d’identifier les principaux flux migratoires intra-Montréal. Les moyennes annuelles calculées à partir des statistiques des années 2004-2005 à 2008-2009 seront présentées ici. Les impacts différenciés de la migration interrégionale sur Montréal Pour l’ensemble de la période mentionnée, les pertes nettes de Montréal reliées à la migration interrégionale sont de 22 500 personnes par année, les 42 200 entrants annuels étant largement inférieurs aux 64 700 sortants. La majorité des territoires de CLSC perdent également plus de personnes qu’elles n’en attirent (voir tableau)3, les déficits nets les plus importants étant ceux de Côte-des-Neiges (– 2 284), Montréal-Nord (– 2 143) et Saint-Michel (– 1 771). Quatre territoires comptent cependant un nombre légèrement plus élevé d’entrants que de sortants : Saint-Henri (+ 284), Lac-Saint-Louis (+ 256), Montréal–Centre-Ville (+ 188), et Pierrefonds (+ 105). Il est à noter que trois de ces districts auraient un solde migratoire interrégional négatif si la migration intra-Montréal n’avait pas été prise en compte; seul Montréal–Centre-Ville serait demeuré du côté positif. Inversement, le solde migratoire interrégional du Plateau-Mont-Royal devient négatif lorsque la migration intra-muros est ajoutée. Prise dans son ensemble, Montréal montre un profil résolument urbain dans la structure de ses échanges migratoires, avec des gains chez les 15-24 ans et des soldes négatifs pour tous les autres grands groupes d’âge, particulièrement les 25-44 ans (Lachance, 2007 et 2010). Pour la période 2004-2009, la situation au niveau des territoires de CLSC n’est pas aussi homogène. Par exemple, chez les 25-44 ans, la majorité des districts montrent effectivement des taux négatifs, particulièrement à Côte-des-Neiges, Snowdon et Montréal-Nord, mais il se trouve aussi quatre districts (Montréal–Centre-Ville, Saint-Henri, Lac-Saint-Louis et Pierrefonds) avec un taux net positif pour ce même groupe d’âge. Les 25-44 ans sont prépondérants dans l’analyse des mouvements migratoires montréalais, car ils comptent pour 41 % des arrivants en provenance des autres régions et 47 % des personnes ayant changé de territoire de CLSC à Montréal. De même, sur les 35 territoires de CLSC, on en compte cinq où les taux nets des 0-14 ans sont positifs (Lac-Saint-Louis, Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Pierrefonds, Mont-Royal et Rivière-des-Prairies). Pour les 45 ans et plus, sept districts sont du côté positif, notamment Montréal–Centre-Ville, Saint-Henri, Côte-Saint-Luc et Lac-St-Louis. Quant aux 15 à 24 ans, il s’agit de la tranche d’âge pour lequel le taux net de migration annuel varie le plus selon le territoire. Il culmine à + 12,0 % au Plateau-Mont-Royal et atteint + 9,8 % dans Montréal–Centre-Sud. À l’inverse, ce taux est de – 2,5 % dans Parc-Extension et – 2,4 % à Saint-Michel. À l’exception de ces deux derniers territoires, les taux de migration des 15-24 ans les plus élevés se concentrent au centre de Montréal et les moins élevés sont plus courants aux extrémités est et ouest de l’île. Une dimension inexplorée : la mobilité intra-muros à Montréal Entre 2004 et 2009, on estime à 115 000 par année le nombre de personnes qui ont changé de district de résidence dans la région de Montréal, alors que le nombre d’entrants annuel en provenance des autres régions du Québec était de 42 200. La majorité des nouveaux arrivants dans un quartier donné proviennent donc des autres parties de l’île. C’est le cas de 64 % des entrants à Pointe-aux-Trembles (la plus faible proportion) et de 88 % à Côte-Saint-Luc (la plus forte). Par conséquent, les échanges migratoires intra-muros influent davantage sur l’attractivité d’un quartier donné que les gains ou pertes par rapport au reste du Québec. Les banlieues extérieures à l’île de Montréal ne sont pas les seules à attirer en masse les 25-44 ans. Les territoires de CLSC situées aux extrémités est et ouest de l’île attirent également des centaines de personnes aux dépens des districts centraux (voir figure). Pointe-aux-Trembles montre les plus forts gains relatifs chez les 25-44 ans; suivent Pierrefonds, Rivière-des-Prairies et Saint-Henri. Les trois districts accusant les pertes les plus marquées sont adjacents : il s’agit de Côte-des-Neiges, Snowdon et Métro. Rappelons que pour ce groupe d’âge, en tenant compte des migrations intra-muros et extra-muros, il n’y a que quatre territoires de CLSC qui affichent un solde positif. Dans les districts des extrémités est et ouest, l’arrivée d’une quantité non négligeable de 25-44 ans en provenance du centre de l’île vient donc atténuer, et dans certainscas contrebalancer entièrement l’impact des nombreux départs de personnes de ce groupe d’âge vers les banlieues situées hors Montréal. On peut généralement en dire autant pour les 45 ans et plus, quoique à des niveaux plus restreints puisque la propension à migrer n’est pas aussi forte pour ces catégories d’âge (voir tableau). À peu de choses près, la migration des 0-14 ans intra-muros suit les mêmes tendances que les 25-44 ans. Les plus forts gains relatifs dans cette catégorie d’âge sont enregistrés à Rivière-des-Prairies, Pointe-aux-Trembles et Pierrefonds; Côte-des-Neiges et Snowdon connaissent quant à eux les plus fortes pertes relatives. Quelques différences à noter quant aux 15-24 ans : par rapport à la population totale de cet âge, les taux nets les plus élevés se trouvent dans les districts du Plateau-Mont-Royal, de Saint-Paul, de Montréal–Centre-Ville et de Hochelaga-Maisonneuve; au contraire, les territoires de Côte-des-Neiges, Snowdon, Mont-Royal et Parc-Extension qui subissent les pertes relatives les plus fortes. Dis-moi d’où tu pars, je te dirai où tu iras Règle générale, la personne qui quitte un quartier donné de Montréal aura tendance à choisir les territoires adjacents à celui qu’elle occupe déjà. C’est ce qui explique que certains districts centraux ne voient qu’une part limitée de leurs sortants quitter l’île de Montréal, comme Snowdon (17 %), Métro (19 %) et Côte-Saint-Luc (20 %), alors qu’au contraire ceux situés aux extrémités est et ouest ou près des ponts sont plus enclins à sortir de Montréal, comme on le voit à Pointe-aux-Trembles (59 %), Lasalle (48 %), Rivière-des-Prairies et Montréal-Nord (tous deux 46 %). Et pour les cas où le point de destination se situe hors Montréal, les secteurs les plus populaires sont généralement assez rapprochés du point de départ. Les flux les plus importants des sortants de Montréal sont ceux allant de l’ouest de l’île vers Vaudreuil-Soulanges, du nord de l’île vers Laval; de l’est de l’île vers Les Moulins (Terrebonne) et L’Assomption (Repentigny); enfin du sud de l’île vers Châteauguay-Mercier, Saint-Constant–La Prairie et Brossard–Saint-Lambert. Conclusion L’analyse des profils migratoires de l’île de Montréal décortiquée en 35 territoires de CLSC remplit plusieurs objectifs. Elle démontre que les impacts de la migration extra-muros ne se répercutent pas de manière homogène sur l’ensemble du territoire montréalais. Cette approche nous a également permis de quantifier les mouvements de population internes de Montréal et, corollairement, d’entrevoir le rôle plutôt méconnu que jouent les migrations intra-muros dans la dynamique de mobilité montréalaise. Au point de vue de l’attractivité, chaque secteur, chaque quartier se doit ainsi de se démarquer non seulement vis-à-vis des banlieues situées hors de l’île, mais aussi par rapport à ses voisins immédiats. Bibliographie Lachance, Jean-François (2007). « Les profils migratoires des MRC, 2001-2006 », Données sociodémographiques en bref, vol. 12, no 1, octobre. Lachance, Jean-François (2010). « Faits saillants de la migration interrégionale en 2008-2009 », Coup d’oeil sociodémographique, no 1, janvier. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/pdf2010/sociodemoenbref_oct10.pdf
  • Create New...