Marianopolis - 9 étages (2010)

[GDS]

Development critics are making a mountain out of a molehill

Marianopolis project would retain green space and bring tax dollars to city

 

HENRY AUBIN, The Gazette

 

The controversy over the development of the former site of the Marianopolis Cégep is already hot but it could soon get hotter.

 

The city's consultation office - the apolitical body that held well-attended hearings on the plan last spring - is to make its recommendations to the city's politicians within a month. If the Tremblay administration decides on a pro-development stance, citizens living near the Marianopolis site could demand a neighbourhood referendum. That would make city-wide waves just in time for this fall's municipal election.

 

Curiously, most Montrealers have never actually seen the property even though it's spacious (equal to 11 Canadian football fields) and located on the edge of downtown. Motorists can pass within metres of it along Côte de Neiges or Cedar Ave. and never know of it. That's because the land is largely tucked away at the bottom of an escarpment.

 

Because it is on the slope of Mount Royal.

 

And because critics have made it seem as though the mountain's fate depends on the outcome of this development proposal. As the head of Mount Royal's leading defence organization, Peter Howlett of Les Amis de la Montagne puts it, "This is a bellwether project for the future of Mount Royal." It's imperative to draw a "line in the sand," he says. "If this (site) is developed, there is nothing else (on the mountain) that cannot be developed."

 

If this real-estate plan were irresponsible, it indeed might set the sort of anything-goes precedent that Les Amis fears. Mount Royal, according to this scenario, would become a mountain of schlock. Developers' greed might trump ordinary Montrealers' desire to keep Mount Royal as an uplifting natural treasure.

 

But is this bleak scenario justified?

 

The local company that bought the land from the Sulpicians, Développement Cato Inc., plans to convert the main existing building, built in 1894, into condos and to construct 15 new buildings (10 of which are detached houses) for a total of 325 units.

 

Let's look at various critics' arguments.

 

Argument: The property should properly be sold to a public institution that would protect the land and buildings.

 

Fact: The Sulpicians tried to find a public institution to take it. No institution wanted it. There's already of a glut of empty institutional property (notably shuttered schools) and this surfeit will grow as soon as the Children's and other hospitals close. The only realistic alternative to selling this property to a developer would be to board it up.

 

Argument: The project would shrink green space.

 

Fact: Built-up space will rise from the existing nine per cent of the site to 15 per cent, yet there would actually be 200 square metres more green space. That's because existing tennis courts and parking lots would go. (The plan calls for underground parking.)

 

Argument: The project would block views.

 

Fact: The tallest building (nine storeys) would be only two metres higher than the existing buildings.

 

Argument: The public won't be able to keep enjoying the site.

 

Fact: The land had never been a park, though the previous owner tolerated a public presence. Cato says it will continue that policy.

 

Here are other points.

 

Second, the architecture in the Cato's plan is tasteful.

 

Third, city hall is in weak financial shape, and the more tax revenue it gets from new properties the less it will need to raise taxes on existing properties. Tax revenue from 325 new upscale homes is nothing to sniff at.

 

Finally, the overriding environmental priority is not city green space. It is curbing greenhouse gases. Densifying cities - that is, having people live near where they work to reduce use of cars - helps. This plan respects that approach.

 

Sure, some secondary aspects of Cato's proposal might be worth adjusting (for example, lowering that nine-storey building for the sake of views). But the thrust of the plan in no way merits a line-in-the-sand defence.

 

Worthier controversies will surely come, and defenders of Mount Royal would do well to safeguard their credibilty for those battles.

[Cataclaw]

Excellent Article!

[identifiant]

It seems that a lot of columnists are for this project.

How strange.... but nice.

 

A height reduction would be alright if it means the project gets built.

[rufus96]

A very refreshing article. It seems that someone with the potential to influence can think rationally.

 

I agree, a height reduction would be fine by me, if the thing got built.

[Habsfan]

Guys, we are talking about a 2 meter difference! Have any of you ever been to the site?

 

I have. I was the one who toured the space with all the potential buyers( I toured the space at least 15 times in the span of 3 months). My ex-firm was hired by les Sulpiciens to market the site. An extra 2 meters will make no difference what so ever...a 10 meter difference wouldn't make any difference.

 

This is why i hate these fvcking pressure groups. This promotor has promised to do everything he can to protect the site. He has promised not to cut down trees, he has promised treduce surface parking lots etc.. and even then, these pathetic little asses continue to complain.

 

These idiots are only good for one thing; complaining! If these people were just a little more realistic, they'd understand that Les Sulpiciens couldn't hold on to the site forever, and that NO OTHER Governmental agency wanted to buy this site.

 

At least the promotor who bought the site isn't planning on building a 45 storey condo tower!

 

fvcking idiots, they should learn when it's advantagous to complain, instead of complaining all the time!

[rufus96]

I completely agree. A two meter difference is absolutely negligible. I just want the damn things to be built in one form or another so that we can take some sort of positive away from this.

 

The NIMBYs want cleaner, more environmentally friendly cities, which involves some measure of densification, and yet as soon as any reasonable proposal (the Maison Radio-Canada quartier, for example) casts a shadow on their property, they flock in droves to protest it, for any reason possible. This is simply another example.

 

Because as we all know, a 9 storey, 35 meter tall building will block views of a 232 meter tall mountain. for shame.

[identifiant]

The NIMBYs want cleaner, more environmentally friendly cities, which involves some measure of densification, and yet as soon as any reasonable proposal (the Maison Radio-Canada quartier, for example) casts a shadow on their property, they flock in droves to protest it, for any reason possible. This is simply another example.

 

This weird way of thinking is common...

Many of my friends for instance complain about suburbans, but then they complain about condos popping up downtown.

That's what happens you become an extreme left-ist (or right-ist), your opinions become contradictory.

[Cataclaw]

NIMBYs never make much sense.

 

The very NATURE of the NIMBY idea is contradictory: I want something, i'm in favour of something, just don't do it in my back yard.

[ToxiK]

This weird way of thinking is common...

Many of my friends for instance complain about suburbans, but then they complain about condos popping up downtown.

That's what happens you become an extreme left-ist (or right-ist), your opinions become contradictory.

 

You are right. The problem is not as much as being on the right or on the left, its when you get blinded by dogmas.

[Atze]

Marianopolis: l'Office invite à réduire les hauteurs

 

Publié le 11 août 2009 à 07h57 | Mis à jour à 08h01

Sara Champagne

La Presse

 

Le promoteur responsable de la transformation extrême de l'ancien collège des prêtres sulpiciens, sur le flanc du mont Royal, devra modérer ses ardeurs. Dans un rapport où l'administration Tremblay est critiquée, que La Presse a obtenu avant son dévoilement prévu demain, l'Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM) estime que l'immeuble aurait dû conserver sa «vocation institutionnelle».

 

Faute de pouvoir renverser la vapeur auprès des instances gouvernementales, l'OPCM recommande au maire de Montréal d'exiger du promoteur qu'il réduise la hauteur de certains bâtiments et renonce à certaines constructions de type villa et maisonnette, sans quoi le projet ne pourra pas être qualifié «d'exemplaire», laisse-t-on entendre.

 

 

Pour l'Office, la transformation de l'ancien collège, chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, entre les avenues Cedar, de Ramezay et le chemin Saint-Sulpice, est l'un des projets les plus controversés sur lesquels il ait été appelé à se prononcer. Il constitue un premier test pour le Plan de protection et de mise en valeur du mont Royal (PPMVMR). Il servira aussi à baliser d'autres projets résidentiels sur la montagne, comme celui de Catania au couvent des soeurs des Saints-Noms-de-Jésus-et-de-Marie.

 

Avant d'énumérer une série de recommandations précises, les commissaires préviennent l'administration municipale qu'elle devrait dorénavant mieux encadrer, «avec des balises claires», les négociations avec les grands propriétaires de la montagne à propos de leurs projets immobiliers. Mais surtout, la Ville de Montréal devrait préciser la notion de «capacité limite» de construction sur la montagne dans le PPMVMR. «Il en va de la crédibilité du Plan de protection», peut-on lire dans le rapport signé par Louise Roy, présidente de l'OCPM.

 

Trop d'immeubles trop hauts

 

En se basant sur les principes du Plan de protection et sur les 60 personnes qui ont exprimé leur point de vue lors des audiences, les commissaires ciblent plusieurs éléments «posant problème» dans les visées de Développement Cato. Premièrement, l'Office mentionne que le projet de cinq ensembles résidentiels, pour quelque 325 unités, entraîne une augmentation de 70% de l'empreinte bâtie au sol, «ce qui va à l'encontre de l'esprit de protection de la montagne», peut-on lire.

 

À cet égard, l'Office suggère de renoncer à une dizaine de villas le long du prolongement de la place de Ramezay, à cheval sur une zone considérée comme non constructible en vertu d'une étude commandée par les prêtres sulpiciens. À leur place, l'OCPM privilégie un édifice unique, plus modeste, à logements multiples. Les villas «forment une barrière entre le nord et le sud de la propriété, scindant les espaces naturels à protéger de part et d'autre», note l'Office.

 

L'Office déplore par ailleurs que la construction selon les plans actuels obstruera la vue sur l'ancien séminaire, le centre-ville et le fleuve à partir de l'intersection Cedar et Côte-des-Neiges. «En fait, la vue serait complètement bloquée pour les piétons qui y déambulent au quotidien», précise-t-on.

 

Sans édicter une baisse de hauteur précise puisqu'il estime que «ce n'est pas son rôle», l'instance recommande de réduire la hauteur d'au moins quatre ensembles résidentiels, dont le complexe sportif en forme de U, de 6 et 7 étages, et des multiplex atteignant neuf étages, sur la pointe du terrain. On mentionne aussi qu'il serait souhaitable de renoncer à des maisonnettes multiplex dans cette partie du terrain.

 

Quant à l'accès public aux lieux, les commissaires jugent que «plusieurs ambiguïtés subsistent», et on recommande à la Ville de concevoir un sentier «comme un tronçon d'une éventuelle voie piétonne municipale reliant la montagne au centre-ville». Autre recommandation et non la moindre, l'Office propose de renforcer l'accord de développement avec Cato en ce qui concerne les ententes de servitude dans les déclarations de propriété.

 

Même s'il milite pour obtenir un moratoire de construction sur le terrain, le rapport de l'OCPM devrait donner des arguments à l'organisme Les Amis de la montagne, qui réclame que soient mieux définis le concept de «capacité limite» de construction sur le mont Royal de même que les balises de protection. Le comité exécutif de Gérald Tremblay aura le dernier mot sur les recommandations, avant de les acheminer au conseil municipal. Mais la décision d'accepter ou non la transformation de l'ancien collège incombe à la ministre de la Culture, responsable du patrimoine, Christine St-Pierre, qui est restée jusqu'ici plutôt vague sur le sujet.

 

Selon nos sources, le promoteur Développement Cato serait prêt à réviser ses plans, jusqu'à un certain point, afin de conserver une rentabilité. Il doit aussi préciser ses intentions quant à la préservation de la chapelle grâce aux conclusions d'une étude commandée par la firme Daniel Arbour&Associés, responsable du concept architectural.

 

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/regional/montreal/200908/11/01-891479-marianopolis-loffice-invite-a-reduire-les-hauteurs.php