Save Griffintown!


Comparing the preliminary and final Griffintown PPUs by ajkandy
May 2, 2008, 12:38 am
Filed under: griffintown

Jeff Dungen, a resident of the Lowney Lofts and member of the Committee for the Sustainable Redevelopment of Griffintown, did a side-by-side comparison of the draft and final changes that will be made to the Peel-Wellington sector:

  • Supposedly more green space and/or public places, they say, but according to (possibly badly drawn) new diagrams, it looks like a lot less now. The new plan seems to extend a space from Square Gallery Park down to the canal; there’s also a new public space / pedestrian area extending down Ann near or under the railroad tracks. This in addition to their pedestrian extension of De La Montagne through a “piercing” under the tracks to the canal, and a vaguely-defined public space where Peel becomes Rue de la Commune, again under the tracks, near the proposed concert hall / arts complex. On another map, a green area extending up from the Canal along Wellington appears to have vanished.
  • Rue Smith will be rehabilitated and not closed, and sections of Murray and Shannon below Wellington will be kept as pedestrian streets in the “lifestyle sector.”
  • The area below Wellington has had its height restrictions eased to encompass 70m buildings (!) where only 60m buildings were allowed in the previous design. That said, minimum street heights have been lowered to 9m from 14m, which should in theory allow for more human-scaled buildings at the pedestrian level.
  • The former “camillienne,” aka comfort station, at the corner of Wellington and Murray will not in fact be moved to St. Ann’s Park, but will be integrated in situ. Whether its vocation is still to be a museum for Irish Griffintown is still unanswered.
  • Most troubling, is that where four of the larger and more interesting buildings were planned to be “partially reconstructed,” the new plan shows outright demolition, with only the old police station on Young being preserved and moved to De La Montagne. Is this just bad diagramming or has preservation (or taxidermy if you want to call it that) gone out the window?

2 Comments

I have been following the Projet Griffintown proposal closely – I am not as agaisnt it as some but was worried at the lack of heritage conservation. I am at a loss as to how the adopted PPU could be worse. Presumably in its submission Devimco propsoed to retain or rebuild a certain number of buildings. Why would the city, in response to concerns that not enough was being preserved, ask or allow Devimco to demolish more than it asked for? Is this really correct? Now I’m alarmed.

Comment by Donal Hanley

The City doesn’t give a shit. Imagine Devimco heads doing a double take when they find out that by doing a little window dressing, they have even more power than they thought.

Comment by neath




Comments are closed.



%d bloggers like this: