Conference by Louise Roy at Ecocity 2011


Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Conference by Louise Roy at Ecocity 2011

  1. 1. Building sustainable cities through citizen participation
  2. 2. •  Are citizens sustainable-city builders?•  How do we foster issue-conscious contribution?
  3. 3. •  A neutral, independent third party –  A President and 28 commissioners appointed by a 2/3 majority of votes cast by city council –  Subject to a public code of ethics•  A public consultation producer –  On major urban projects, revitalization plans and public policies –  Conciliation, arbitration identification, pursuit of optimum results and the common good, help with elected officials’ decision-making•  Public report, submitted to city council•  The Office has been in existence for almost 10 years
  4. 4. •  Cities are vulnerable to development problems owing to population density –  The city is broken up into multiple communities –  No common agreement on vision implementation methods; multiplicity of points of view –  Generating common approaches, fostering community spirit –  Democracy should be a SD factor. Is it?•  Urbanism consisting of planning and negotiation –  The development processes become as important as the norms –  Can the processes generate SD?
  5. 5. •  Agreement on the objectives –  Making the urban environment more resource thrifty –  More conductive to social integration and economic development –  More equitable in terms of housing, mobility and access to public services•  Very hands-on experience in public-right-of-action arbitration and hierarchization
  6. 6. •  An interactive process –  To share and further develop a diagnosis, knowledge, and integrate common knowledge –  To identify common values –  To generate development guidelines –  To discuss community choices –  To give meaning and direction to SD through reflection and discussion•  Revitalization of industrial land; redevelopment of destructured neighbourhoods; development planning of urban areas
  7. 7. –
  8. 8. Representatives of: –  Community groups –  Economic groups (CEDC) –  The health community (DSP) –  The school community (School Board and École des Nations) –  The borough
  9. 9. •  A follow-up committee interacts, validates, goes beyond –  Outlining the development context of the area –  Discussions on development problems and opportunities –  Discussions on development biases•  5 forums with target publics –  Presentation and discussion of preliminary orientations by the borough •  With residents of the Namur – Jean-Talon ouest site •  With all the members of the CDN Community Council •  With the residents of the Victoria area •  With store and office building owners doing business on the site
  10. 10. •  Convergences/divergences – Follow-up committee –  Review of discussions with target publics –  Identification of convergences and divergences –  Problems and opportunities•  Open house and public forum•  Hearing of briefs•  OCPM report
  11. 11. •  Identity and densification of the area•  The place of social housing•  The place of families•  The place of the automobile•  Access to the site and parking for stores and office buildings•  Interaction and interdependence of uses•  Quality of the urban environment and safety•  The special case of Mountain Sights Avenue
  12. 12. •  Inclusive processes with the contribution of the general public –  Targeting collective interest –  Taking into account all individual interests•  Complete transparency•  Citizens have an influence on –  Development orientations –  Local issues and the configuration of concrete projects•  A detailed report serving as a memorandum to all –  On the vision and future of the site and development orientations –  On the participants’ suggestions
  13. 13. •  The Montreal Master Plan is biaised in favour of sustainable development –  A balanced approach in terms of: •  Economic vitality •  Social equity •  Environmental preservation •  And respect for the needs of future generations•  How do debates held by the OCPM contribute to giving shape to Montrealers’ values in the city? –  Solidarity –  Coherence –  Conviviality
  14. 14. Inclusion of affordable housing•  Increasingly pressing demand for the inclusion of affordable and social housing units in residential complexes –  Battle against gentrification; social mix•  Openness of developers, resulting exclusively from the existence of formal public debate –  Upstream –  Adjustment and sometimes increase in % –  Amounts in reserve to build off site –  Qualitative aspects of inclusion•  The public debate: a spokesperson; a monitor –  For the application of the municipal strategy Ateliers Rosemont (Quartier 54)
  15. 15. Local hiring•  An emerging issue, benefiting local communities•  Public debate has contributed to –  The visibility of issues –  The identification of commitment possibilities by the developers •  Discussion/joint action with local follow-up committees •  Collaboration in the drawing up of a local hiring strategy •  A place for social economy organizations
  16. 16. •  Strong demand for an area-wide development vision•  Densification of the territory –  Building heights and envelopes are views as blots on the urban landscape –  Desire for complexes that provide continuity with the area rather than fracturing it 1475 boul. René-Lévesque
  17. 17. •  Public debate has served to improve integration into the neighbourhood to preserve its identity –  Softening of fractures; transition elements; design adjustments –  Taking into account of the spirit of the area –  Control of negative impacts: sunlighting, traffic, etc. –  Protection of views –  Reconciliation: making public transit infrastructures profitable while consolidating neighbourhood identities
  18. 18. The place accorded to pedestrians•  Concerns regarding parking space reductions –  Increased public transit offering –  Fear of automobiles spilling over onto neighbourhood streets –  Access problems for stores•  Every area has its own distinctive transportation dynamics – there is no universal solution•  Public debate does not seen to have a substantial effect on the reduction of parking spaces –  3/8 of recommendations have led to partial reductions
  19. 19. ravelling conditions•  Through-traffic is viewed as a menace to tranquility and safety•  Public debate improves travelling conditions in the area –  Vehicle access and safe passenger drop-off areas –  Indoor parking garages –  Better bus service –  Car-sharing and bicycle-rental spaces –  Financing of part of the monthly public transit card for new residents
  20. 20. The development of green spaces•  Strong demand for everything green•  Many developers would like their projects to better correspond with the citizens’ idea of a welcoming place –  LEED certification approaches, Quartiers verts, Villes et villages en santé –  Fighting heat islands, white/green roofs –  Community gardens•  Public debate has allowed us to: –  Increase public access to green spaces with the establishment of pedestrian and bicycle paths –  To reflect on the role of green spaces in day-to-day life
  21. 21.