next steps, pragmatism, and thinking big.
I had an interesting bus ride yesterday, talking with one of Montréal’s golden-boys in terms of green development. A chance encounter that I am grateful for, although maybe not for the obvious reasons.
Summary from said green development guru: don’t dream big, or suggest things too “out there” because the city just isn’t capable of doing these things. Instead, focus on do-able, baby-step projects that actually have half a chance of getting done. This is the only hope for change.
Wow. So interesting.
I do appreciate the advice (and he gave me lots), and I especially appreciated insight into how dysfunctional the city actually is. But I just don’t think I can come around to his view that lowering one’s sights is the best way to go.
But let’s talk more concretely, since concrete is what this city loves most, and since all this abstraction is sure to confuse and bore.
The two points we got hung up on the most were: tearing down the Jeans Jeans Jeans building on St-Viateur Est and De Gaspé; and, changing streets into green and/or public spaces in the medium- to long-term.
Tearing down a building to open up a neighbourhood
Let’s start with this one first, since it is relatively straightforward. This lovely green developer (who I really do like) was of the mind that tearing down a building to put in a road was a fine idea. Even a good idea. The thinking being: dead-ends are feared, and unwanted. And, the further thinking being: if you want to open up an area, create a public space, and lead people there, tearing down one silly building to build a road wasn’t such a bad thing.
(this is the building he thinks should be demolished, btw).
Was I shocked that this highly respected dispenser of information regarding green development should be completely at ease with wantonly demolishing a building to build a road, even if that road bulldozed a good chunk of valuable green space? And even if said green developer should be well aware that roads are nature’s blight in North America, so much so that even in the most remote parts of Canada our ecosystems are compromised by the never-ending expansion of roads: Was I shocked that one of the most knowledgeable people in green development in eastern Canada should gladly accept the building of yet another road?
Not really.
As is the case with most green development, I find there is a lack of understanding in this community with the importance of diversity in one’s life — biodiversity as well as cultural, social, topographical, symbolic, visual. That a developer (green or otherwise) should be open to demolition and road-building seems (sadly) ‘normal’ to me.
So no…I wasn’t surprised that this go-to person in terms of giving advice to governments and developers regarding green development was so blasé about tearing down a building, bulldozing a good chunk of a rare green space, and putting in a road — all for no really strong reason.
But maybe he had a point?
What’s the big deal anyway? Maybe that Jeans Jeans Jeans Building actually is a integral part of what keeps this neighbourhood back. Perhaps by tearing down that one building — pretty or not — would do incredible things for revitalizing that space. After all, that’s what the urban planners think.
There is a chance they are wrong, though.
I mean, what if dead-ends actually attract people? What if that quiet end of a street is more inviting then repelling? Or, what if — even as repellant — there was another way to get people to the public space, which we hope will be planned behind that building?
If he was wrong — and if the urban planners were wrong — what would we lose by demolishing that building?
Well, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. Let’s be honest.
We would be out probably one of the nicest buildings in the neighbourhood. We would have sacrificed a part of our heritage to bad thinking. And, we would have forever ploughed under green space options that Montréal will never get back, no matter how many trees are planted in future sidewalks.
But, life would go on, right. So why get so bent out of shape? Why be so unwilling to compromise? These were the sorts of questions I was being posed.
And I agree. It wouldn’t be the end of the world to tear down that building. But at the same time, the symbolism, and what it says about what we respect and don’t respect, speaks volumes to me. The fact that we are willing to sacrifice heritage and green space to half-formed ideas bothers me. I won’t go so far as to say that it is imperative that road NOT go through. But I can’t see any compelling reason for why it should, and so I remain unconvinced.
Changing streets into green
The place where we really ran into a dead-end was while discussing this idea of changing parts of the streetscapes in Mile-End into green spaces, public spaces.
My green development guru friend thinks this is silly talk — way too “out there” — and even mentioning this just gets in the way of getting any “real” green business on the agenda. Summary: drop this kind of talk. Don’t complicate this sort of community visioning exercise, and community mobilization, with nonsense talk that could derail all your efforts.
(what about this? a little far-fetched looking, i know…)
Wow. So interesting.
I mean, I see what he means. And, with all the stories of how powerless the municipal government is, and how horribly backward and behind it is in terms of any sort of agenda, it is hard to deny that keeping one’s sights firmly rooted in the easy things would be a good way to go.
But is this the best way to affect change? The green developer seems to think that incremental change — and by this, he means tiny-tiny incremental change — is the only change possible, in Montréal anyway.
But, I wonder about what this does to one’s ability to plan a better world. I wonder what this does to one’s capacity for important change.
I mean, look at this street question. I believe we can take half of certain streets in the Sector St-Viateur Est and turn them into a number of different types of public space. Parts of these reappropriated streets could be planned as hard surfaces, such as little pedestrian street type settings, or little hard-surfaced plazas or play areas. But others could be put into actual park space, semi-wild wildflower or wildgrass plantings, and even community garden space. These last interventions would probably mean that the asphalt would have to be dug up and replaced with soil, but not necessarily. There is also the chance that a raised bed approach could be used, at least in the short-term, to get things moving.
The point being, there are many ways one could approach the re-imagining of these streets, but only if we allow ourselves to start the process. If we push even thinking about this until the municipal government actual functions, when will we have greener urban environments?
My green developer friend spent alot of time pointing out all of the problems that we would face if we tried to do such a thing, and none thinking of possible solutions to those problems.
My feeling is that there are certainly design challenges to changing a part of a street into a green space, but let’s allow ourselves to start confronting those design challenges. What is the point of creating visions for our communities if we keep all the beautiful ideas off the table because they are too complex?
Plus, I personally don’t think the problems are as insurmountable as he let on. Or, at the very least, if garden plots are too tricky to start with (ha!) then we’ll start with what we can do. Like the feisty transportation commissioner in New York City who instead of waiting for the city to get on board with repurposing streets just paints a parking lot green, puts up some big planters to delineate the space, and opens it up to people (see photos below) … and, the people flock in to make that space theirs.
Not too bad looking for a stop-gap measure!
After which, finding ways to plant an actual soft surface becomes all the easier.
Point being, I simply cannot agree with this eco-developer in his approach to these questions. And it saddens me.
It saddens me because this is a person who should be easy to convince! Imagine how hard it will be with people who don’t even like green! (I’m kidding, actually, I think most others would be easier to convince, oddly enough).
The thing that really saddens me is that this is the type of advice the city gets when it turns to its experts in sustainable development.
It gets advice that lacks spirit and imagination. It gets advice that disturbs as little as possible, and ensures that, yes, change will be incremental, because that is all we are willing to work on.
Pragmatic idealist, he calls himself.
I think this is a sad term, really, but I am running on, and should maybe get off this fellow’s back. He’s really quite nice, after all, and like I said … I am grateful for the challenges he posed me, and the insights he shared.
On a final note, though, check out this river below. It was once buried, and partially dried up, under a highway. The highway was ripped up, the river resurrected, and the green added. Now, this is Seoul’s most important green space.
Wow. So interesting.
