The issue of development really started to come up during the last administration, and it has been a point of contention in our community since then. Two separate camps seem to have been born from this conflict: either you’re in support of dense development in PC or you’re not, as if the future of our city boils down to a black-and-white issue and that everyone must take one side or another. It’s my experience that very few conflicts are cut and dried, but rather that they exist on a grey scale, inhabited with a multitude of considerations, possibly as numerous as there are residents in our city. 

With that in mind, I’d prefer to write about what we all have in common. I think we can all agree that we want Pointe-Claire to be a livable city, a place in which we actually enjoy residing. If we look at what makes cities livable, greenspaces are at the top of that list, alongside safety, public transit, and walkability. Proximity to greenspaces increases health, well-being, and property value. It should be mentioned that only 9% of Pointe-Claire is protected parks and greenspaces. Let us recall that at COP15, our governments committed to protecting 30% of our natural spaces. With that data in mind, let’s talk about densification. 

When we talk about density, what we really mean is people. Human beings. Folks that have a right to access affordable housing and have nature in proximity to where they live, like many residents do, south of the 40. Both contribute to a place being livable. The benefits that natural spaces provide are a privilege that many of us take for granted. With an expected increase of 10,000 people in the north sector of Pointe-Claire in the next 15-20 years, these new residents, not to mention all of the commuters that will be travelling to the REM via the future bike path, need and have a right to have local access to a park similar to Terra Cotta. 

Does insisting that our last natural spaces be protected need to come at the expense of all development? Absolutely not, but there are areas that should and some that should not welcome densification and development, and acknowledging that reality is important. With the added presence of the REM comes an extra layer of pressure to densify, namely Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). It is absolutely essential to point out, however, that the same governments that are imposing these TOD zones are the same ones requiring that these territories include 30% of protected greenspace. I hear all too often one priority being put over the other, but BOTH of these requirements will exist concurrently in the PMAD (Plan métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement).

Fairview Forest in particular would be an important and well-placed contribution to the aforementioned 30%. I often tell people that it is a true miracle, a gift to our municipality, that despite the REM, 43 acres of it still exist, with its meadow, its sugar maple, beech, and hemlock groves, and its centennial forest. Even after being owned by John Abbott, Smart Centres, and now Cadillac Fairview over the past half century, this phenomenal space is still gifting us with its presence without a word of thanks. 

The healthy version of PC of the future should not include seeing each other as enemies. We are all pieces of a giant puzzle. We have the right to our own concerns, our own hopes, and our own vision, but we all need to consider how that vision plays into the larger picture. Corporations and industries do, of course, make up that puzzle, but what happens when these larger players are able to make decisions that will impact the health and well-being of tens of thousands of people? How do we enter into the equation? As we know, land ownership does not give you acquired rights. Laws change with the times, as they should!

These are extraordinary times, and they call for extraordinary and brave measures. Our administration has a responsibility to make decisions that will create long-term viability and livability for our current and future population. The consultations have been opportunities to have our own voices heard, and residents have spoken: density can look like so many things, and greenspaces need to be protected. And both CAN coexist.

Will Mu1 and other key areas of PC be developed? In the future, most probably. Can we, and should we, save Fairview Forest as a Central Park of our very own for present and future residents? Absolutely, and there are many tools available to do so that could leave all parties happy. These two truths can exist at the same time. How these play out is in our hands and in the hands of our administration. Their legacy is our collective future.