by ELISE HUGUS

For pale and pasty Montrealers, the spring thaw puts one burning question on sun-deprived lips: where’s the best terrasse this season?

A pilot project to allow café terrasses on the sidewalks of Mont-Royal will give us many more opportunities to find out.

Though the project is only in the development stages, a controversy is already bubbling beneath the veneer of vernal revelry. Is public space being sold out to private interests? Or will terrasses simply add to the eclectic community atmosphere of Mont-Royal?

To Mont-Royal Avenue Verte (MRAV) organizer Owen Rose, it’s not the terrasse project that’s a problem, it’s the lack of public involvement in the decision-making process. He claims city councillors have consistently ignored the wishes of neighbourhood residents, pointing to the city’s glacial response to the 18,500 signatures on a petition calling for a ban on car traffic along Mont-Royal as an example. Rose says people are now asking him “not why, but when?” the street will be car-free.

Trendy troubles

Mont-Royal has seen major changes in the past 15 years, after a revitalization campaign dubbed “Operation commerce” in the early ’90s changed its down-and-out character to one of the most attractive and trendy areas of the Plateau. But as the avenue’s hotspot status has soared, so has the traffic: the 97 bus route is deemed the slowest in the city, in an area with one of the highest population densities in Canada. Still, Rose says that 80 per cent of people who come to Mont-Royal are on foot.

The terrasse project is an idea set forth by the Societé de développement de l’avenue du Mont-Royal (SDAMR), which services businesses on the avenue between de Lorimier and St-Hubert, and operates on a grant from the borough. According to SDAMR director Michel Dépatie, about 60 cafés and bars along the avenue would be eligible for a terrasse permit. City engineers will evaluate each case to ensure that a minimum of 2.1 metres of sidewalk space are left around each terrasse and blocked off with a metal barrier. There are no plans to enlarge the sidewalks or reduce street parking.

Dépatie says the terrasses will improve the ambiance and shopping experience for pedestrians. Emphasizing the cultural aesthetic of the Plateau, he says the terrasses will add to the community atmosphere and encourage people to walk there.

“Citizens should have more access to Mont-Royal by foot,” says Dépatie. “People come here for all their shopping. This is a residential neighbourhood and we value that.”

For those living in the area, terrasses won’t necessarily improve the quality of life, says Huguette Loubert, secretary of the Avenue Mont-Royal residents’ association. Pointing to the terrasses on St-Denis, she says the noise, pollution, and danger caused by cars ruin the concept of a peaceful afternoon on a terrasse.

“It’s a commercial street, a place where pedestrians do their shopping,” says Loubert. “It’s already difficult to walk because of the traffic and speeding. Terrasses won’t help the situation.”

Citizen input ignored

In the last municipal election, Plateau borough mayor Helen Fotopulos made the reduction of traffic on Plateau streets a campaign priority, but Rose and Loubert say they have yet to see concrete changes, such as lowering the speed limit from 40 km/hour to 30.

“We’re trying to reduce circulation on all levels by encouraging it out of residential streets and onto transit ways,” says Mark Snyder, spokesperson for the Plateau borough council. “The terrasses are an ongoing discussion. We want additional animation on Mont-Royal, something that’s approved by both residents and store owners.” Snyder was unable to comment on whether terrasses will help or hinder the traffic problem.

In 2004, the borough held public consultations on how to improve the community atmosphere of Mont-Royal, with recommendations for additional park space and trees, introducing biking lanes, removing parking spaces and encouraging alternative forms of transportation. The recommendations were compiled into a report in November 2004. An urban plan was drafted by the borough in Feb. 2005, but was shot down by community groups protesting the lack of input from the report. A revised plan passed quietly the following July—with a 10-year binding enforcement.

To MRAV’s Rose, the process has proven that the concept of participatory democracy is a sham. “The city chose to ignore our recommendations because it’s got a planned agenda,” he says. “The last thing we heard is that the conversation’s closed—for 10 years.”