Category Archives: Let’s make this an election issue

A modest proposal, Economic commentary, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Perspectives on the City, Political commentary, Social commentary, Urban Redevelopment, West Island, Worth reconsidering

Inefficient by Design: Montréal Public Transit

1 Comment

I should start off by saying that this is not a criticism of the STM; I think they mostly do good work and I’m impressed with what they’ve done in terms of branding, marketing and communicating an idea that public transit in general and the Métro in particular as a chic, conscientious and cost-effective element of Montréal urban living. There’s always room for improvement and I’d like to see a system wide renovation of stations, but that’s an issue for another day.

The inefficiency I’m referring to here is the the fact that the Greater Montreal region is served by multiple transit agencies, companies and corporations with what appears to be little effort at organizing from a top-down perspective to ensure excellent coverage across multiple modes throughout the region. And if we, as a society, want to limit the amount of vehicular congestion on our roads by developing a truly world-class public transit system, we must ensure the highest degree of operational efficiency possible. In addition, such a system would always have to be the preferred method of transit within the city and to and from the cities and suburbs, in order to guarantee high general use. If we want our city to grow in population and prominence, then we need to plan for the public transit system which will encourage people to live here precisely because they could use such a system. It’s a marketing tool inasmuch as it is a vital social service, and it requires bird’s eye perspective planning. Ergo, it is time to establish a common fare, across the region and across services. I would further recommend instituting an ‘interconnectivity’ system, wherein, as an example, buses are scheduled to arrive and depart from train stations in such a fashion so as to allow passengers to transfer from one to another within a five minute window. A single transit security force would also be preferable to multiple distinct organizations with differing mandates and training, as would a single maintenance and utilities division. Streamlining transit operations across the metropolitan region would be beneficial for workers as well, given that they would be able to form larger unions with greater bargaining power and a larger pension plan, among other things.

The alternative is only the proliferation of additional transit agencies operating in the metro region as it grows and as the demands of residents, whether living in the City of Montréal proper or any of the surrounding satellite cities and towns, turn towards demanding better public transit services within their own regions. I’ve advocated in the past that the West Island communities would be wise to unite so as to create their own public transit service using trams, which in turn would allow the STM to consolidate their operations within the city and save them the high maintenance and operations costs of bus operations in sprawling suburban regions. That said, I feel a united West Island transit agency would be best employed as a lobby group, and even if such a system were to financed by the West Island communities, I would nonetheless argue in favour of a common fare, inter-connectivity and many other integrating elements. If we want change, we should be willing to put up the capital and subsequently negotiate preferential terms for integration, beneficial to all. But I digress…

Québec transport minister Pierre Moreau has indicated that the public transit agencies of the Montreal region will not be merged into a new version of the Agence Métropolitain de Transport, the Québec government-owned corporation that handles commuter trains and some express buses in the Greater Montréal region. Nor will the AMT be handed over to the control of the municipalities of the region of Montréal, something advocated by Mayor Tremblay. Moreau has indicated that, as he sees it, the new AMT should also involve itself in road planning.

An example of the AMT’s focus on road planning with public transit in mind, and the region’s key axial corridors

Tremblay’s proposal would put the AMT, as is, into the hands of the cities, towns and villages of the metropolitan region, but so far there’s no indication as to whether this would be done solely so as to make the AMT more directly responsible to the communities it serves or whether there would be an effort to stream-line the different public transit agencies of the region into a single all-encompassing, region-wide and single-fare system. I would argue that this ought to be the case for efficiency’s sake, as otherwise we’re left dealing with multiple service providers and multiple communities – there are too many moving parts. We need to streamline the service while incorporating multiple independent viewpoints in a separate over-sight and planning organization. Imagine a Transit Congress making legislative and executive decisions regarding transit development, with proportional, elected representation, administering a single regional system? It’s the ‘best of both worlds solution’ allowing for operational standardization and integration, while further supporting direct community involvement in the decision making processes.

Across the region we’re paying far too much for over-crowded buses and trains, which are all too often late or delayed. Most AMT stations, unlike the one pictured above, are nothing more than cement slabs and unprotected benches and kiosks. Development is retarded because we don’t have an agency which can actually negotiate with Canadian National, Via Rail or Canadian Pacific, and thus projects like the Train de l’Ouest is caught in total deadlock. Meanwhile, the Train de l’Est project is so over-budget the former president of the AMT abruptly resigned after an inquiry was called into, you guessed it – corruption in the construction industry. The Train de l’Est is actively killing the public’s consumer confidence in public mass transit, and this is coming on the heels of the over-budget Laval extension, the endless discussions around implementing gas-taxes and tramways and the never-ending road-work, all of which work together to undermine the public’s trust in government’s ability to get things done.

I think we need a new solution, one which recognizes the needs of the whole as well as the parts, but which is ultimately striving to provide excellent coverage and excellent service across the entire region. There will always be specific local requirements that need to be addressed when you’re building a comprehensive public transit plan – such as which systems should be used and where they need to grow, station-community integration, proximity to schools etc. – but all of this works in tandem towards a single comprehensive goal – to secure public confidence in the publicly-funded mass-transit system so as to raise the common standard of living and the value of metropolitan properties.

The ability to quickly, efficiently and cheaply cross great distances within an urban area in the comfort of a well-designed, clean and secure public transit system is quite literally what distinguishes the very finest cities from your run of the mill cities, and we should demand as citizens united nothing but the very best in this regard – it will only serve to enrich us long-term.

A modest proposal, History and Culture, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Montréal Landmarks, Perspectives on the City, Political commentary, Québec sovereignty, Social commentary, Unrealized development projects, Urban Redevelopment, Worth reconsidering

The LaFontaine House – Another Landmark in Ruin

1 Comment

John Ralston Saul at the LaFontaine House – credit to Gabrielle Cauchy of Dimedia

The house above is all that remains of the once residential Overdale block, which was torn down in the 1980s in the name of urban renewal. You’ll likely know it better as a parking lot with kebab stand adjacent to Con-U’s fine arts pavilion. Thankfully this house wasn’t destroyed outright, though after years of neglect I can’t imagine there’s much left to save.

The reason eminent Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul is standing in front of this house is because it was once the home of Sir Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, a man of national importance to any self-respecting Canadian and Québecois. This is the man who, along with Robert Baldwin, helped establish responsible government in the 1840s, becoming the de facto Prime Minister of United Canada in 1848.

That’s right; nineteen years before John A. Macdonald became the first Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, LaFontaine the passionate and zealous Patriote, follower of Papineau, was running things at a proto-federal level. If he and his accomplishments were better known in this country, by Canadians of any socio-cultural background, I’d argue we would at the very least feel a bit more comfortable with ourselves, and maybe have a bit more pride too. LaFontaine was a great man who overcame many obstacles and fought viciously to establish a Canada in which the only nationalism was pan-national, open to all minorities, in every sense a post-modern nation. He insisted on speaking French in the assembly and worked tirelessly with Robert Baldwin to establish a new nation of diverse peoples. We owe the country we have today in part to this man. He was one of our distinguished founding fathers.

And we, the citizens of Montréal, have let his house fall into disrepair.

Granted, a park and a tunnel are named after him, but neither will tell you anything about the man, his era or ideas.

The house has been on Héritage Montréal’s threatened list for some time, and city officials have been exceptionally slow to act. The lot has been purchased for $28 million and there are plans to develop a 40-floor condo tower, though a city spokesperson suggests its nothing more than an idea for the moment. One of the partners has suggested that he would like to convert it into a museum, but further stated it must turn a profit.

A for-profit, private museum dedicated to one of Canada’s most important historical figures eh?

For some reason it just doesn’t jive well in my noggin – maybe I’m too closed-minded.

In any event – for the time being the house is still standing and the Overdale block remains a big gaping hole in the urban fabric. It’s been this way so long people just assume it’s how it’s always been. Hard to think there was once a neat little community there.

But it still bothers me that we simply don’t try harder, and that our city officials have been all too interested in not getting involved for almost thirty years.

What will it take for people to recognize and promote their proud heritage? And why are we always so inclined to ‘let the market handle things’, especially the physical remains of our shared history, culture and identity. Some voice in the back of my head is telling me capitalism and the housing market really doesn’t care much for the life and times of one of our finest early leaders.

Food for thought; for a nation so chronically convinced it lacks a character, I wonder why we’ve never endeavoured to protect, preserve and promote the very real links we have to our past.

I’ll be keeping my eyes on this one.

A modest proposal, Cultural commentary, Economic commentary, History and Culture, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Montréal Architecture, Montréal Landmarks, Montréal on Film, Montréal public art, Perspectives on the City, Photographs, Scenes from the City, Social commentary, Urban Redevelopment

Expo 67 happened 45 years ago; could we do it again?

2 Comments

Though of poor quality, this is still an exceptional photograph of Expo 67, specifically Place des Nations – fully operational as it was intended. You’ll notice there doesn’t seem to be anything going on in the square, and yet people fill the benches and bleachers rising around. All sorts of activity is happening here, at this crucial transit point, as the fair ground expand out in all directions, a festival of truly epic proportions.

Fifty million people came to visit Montreal and see Expo during the Summer of Love. It was an outstanding achievement, as it was the raison-d’etre for a wide variety of city, government and corporate development projects, all coming together in time for opening day. The project, despite delays, was completed on time and on budget. After six months, the fair had paid itself off in admissions and concession sales. What Expo 67 did for international consumer confidence in Montréal, Québec and Canada is incalculable, though it certainly permitted Montréal enough credo to survive armed insurrections, separatism, terrorism and two referendums on national sovereignty in which Montreal was the primary battleground. Expo bought us confidence and an internationally recognized (and enduring) image of modernism, stability and innovation. We haven’t exhausted that confidence yet, though we would be wise to out-do ourselves as quickly as possible. The amount of free publicity for the city the fair generated made subsequent tourism marketing a synch, not to mention the fact that the facilities were operational for several years afterwards as a semi-permanent exhibit, encouraging repeat visitors and locals. Today, though almost all the original pavilions have been torn down and the grounds re-developed into a gorgeous park, we as citizens still retain a massive fair-ground, and we use it every year to our advantage and shared enjoyment.

Expo’s legacy is that it is always preferential for a large city to distinguish itself from other large cities by demonstrating it’s importance in a globally and culturally significant manner. This is precisely what Expo did for our city inasmuch as our province and country. I would argue that it benefitted Montréal perhaps the most given that it resulted in net increases to the common standard of living. We all got to benefit from the Métro, inasmuch as the numerous remaining attractions at Parc Jean-Drapeau. Moreover, ask yourself if we would have had an Olympics without Expo, or whether we would have bothered to protect Old Montréal if not for the reaction it produced in tourists. Thinking big allowed us to secure investment for many years, and it provided new opportunities for growth and development. It kept people employed and made ourselves available to host the world – what power we once had, and all because we dared to dream.

Place des Nations – Overgrown and Underused, 2007

A modest proposal, Cultural commentary, Economic commentary, History and Culture, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Political commentary, Social commentary, West Island, Worth reconsidering

Unite the West Island {Part 1}

10 Comments

Baie d’Urfe, quintessential Old West Island – unknown author

This post has a lot to do with the West Island, as you might suspect from the title, but the West Island is fundamentally an important component of metropolitan Montreal, and thus I feel it has a place here. In my opinion, in order for the West Island to become all it can be and provide for itself long-term, it must unite into a single amalgamated city. It is beginning to mature in such a fashion that a discernible local character and culture has developed here, largely as the result of the development of common goals and aspirations for the people who live there. The people who live here have common needs which have heretofore largely been the responsibility of either the City of Montréal or the Province of Québec; otherwise, the West Island today is merely a collection of small municipalities with little mutually beneficial long-range planning. This must change if we want to increase our standard of living, together. This must change if we truly want solutions to the myriad problems and difficulties that we’ve all become acutely aware of over the last few years. Problems with traffic gridlock, declining population, lack of local investment capital, over-crowded hospitals and lack of public transit access – all of this can be better dealt with by a new, united West Island city.

Ask yourself, what can a city of 235,000 people do for itself? How quickly can it double its population? What opportunities can it provide for its citizens? What resources could it share and benefit from, and what could we guarantee for to promote our unique society and culture? Finally, what can 235,000 people do to increase property and house values and median income across the entire West Island, simultaneously?

There is a lot more to the West Island than residential housing projects and strip malls, though you might not know it to first look at it. In too many ways the West Island is the defective prototypical North American sprawl mega-suburb. But it has a unique character nonetheless and I would dare say the makings of at least its own identifiable sub-culture within the larger subgroups of Montréal culture and the Québecois middle-class. We are distinct as a whole in many ways, but we refuse to see our points of commonality, and thus our community remains an ineffective collection of cities without much common planning. Our bondage is our lack of cooperation. Moreover, we have unique needs with regards to education, healthcare, public works & transit and emergency services, yet we are overly reliant on outside forces to supply these services. As long as this is the case we can’t do much to improve the bare essentials of our shared services, and further have very little hope to collect the investment capital needed to fund our own improvement programs.

So why not unite?

If the eight de-merged municipalities were to combine with the four merged communities along the north-western edge of the island (which would be advantageous for the City of Montréal, but I’ll address that later), we could quickly form a new community of roughly 235,000 people, a community of roughly equal size to other Canadian cities like Kitchener, Burnaby, Regina or Windsor. All of those cities manage to provide their own public transit and emergency services, not to mention universities, museums, performance venues and sports stadiums. Ultimately, this is not about limiting the individual sovereignty of the constituent West Island communities, but rather about recognizing our common needs as citizens in a suburban conurbation with over 300 years of shared history and inter-related development. Throughout much of the 20th century development was more or less haphazard, driven largely the market trends in post-war suburban housing construction common throughout North America. But this in turn has lead to a large number of people with a common appreciation of shared green spaces and the rustic charm which is emblematic of the region, and a general desire amongst said residents to see what remains of Montreal’s last remaining wilderness (a semi contiguous area of Eastern Great Lakes lowland forest in the Northwest sector) preserved and promoted. In other words, there’s a reason why people live there together; they appreciate many of the same services and aesthetics, and they choose this region as an ideal location to raise a family and develop important middle-class wealth. We think similarly and have broadly similar aspirations, so why do we continue to plan like 17th century hamlets?

If we unite, we can plan on a large scale, limit low-density residential construction while promoting higher-density alternatives. We could build a new city centre akin to examples you would find in Toronto’s inner-ring suburban areas, like North York. By increasing density we could provide diverse housing styles for new residents, and establish a civic core for the West Island as a whole. Moreover, we could seek to develop new higher-density retail space and commercial office space as well, to attract necessary local services. New capital and investment could be obtained in a far more efficient manner, and provide on a greater scale, through the lobbying efforts of a single new medium sized city.

But we simply cannot do it alone, as individual communities, this must be an achievement for our own societal evolution. We must ask ourselves what our future holds and whether or not we will grow old here, with our children.. If West Island residents want better schools & hospitals, better opportunities and greater options, then we must provide for each-other en masse. If the older generations want their children to raise families here as well, they must be given reasons to stay. Uniting the West Island into a single community could allow us to accomplish many things for each other, not to mention establish a better working relationship with the other major cities of the Montréal Archipelago. We owe it not only to ourselves to put ourselves in a stronger bargaining position with the City and the Province, and we know both Ottawa and Québec City will look favourably towards this new community. We must lead by example, to unite so as to encourage better thinking in the future, better design and a better standard of living, here inasmuch as anywhere else in Canada.

There’s a lot of ground to cover here, I’m guessing this might be a three-parter. More later. But before I go, if you lived in the West Island or live there now, ask yourself what life would be like if a new combined community suddenly had the capital to construct a sophisticated performing arts venue, a bilingual liberal arts university, a surface tram network or an art museum. What dreams could we realize for the greater good?

A modest proposal, Cultural commentary, Economic commentary, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Perspectives on the City, Political commentary, Social commentary, Sovereign Socialist, Urban Redevelopment, Worth reconsidering

Institutionalized Graft {Part Two}

Leave a comment
Corruption Construction by Sebastien Thibault

This article was originally published by the Forget the Box news collective on January 31st 2012. While it refers to events that I commented on back in October of last year, the simple fact is that we have done virtually nothing as a society to fix the rampant corruption, collusion and nepotism at the heart of our vital construction industry. The control over this sector by the powers at be ultimately define our paralysis, impotence, as a people. If we can’t ensure those who build our metropolis can do so free from the pressures of dishonesty and organized crime, then we are figuratively sewing these traits into the very fabric of our social tapestry. Until our society decides, in unison, that they will no longer tolerate this corruption and seek to annihilate it, it will stand as the greatest obstacle to our mutual success.

***

I’m not an accountant but I can’t believe that the cost of constructing a $5 billion bridge can be done without cost to the taxpayers. Where will the initial capital come from? Who will pay for the design, materials, salaries, equipment etc?

The Tories have stated that an initially two-dollar toll will be collected and that will pay off the bridge “without cost to the taxpayer”. The toll may one day recoup the initial capital investment, but that investment will most certainly be coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers up-front, unless the fed and province feel initial capital can be covered through investment from the private sector. In that case, we need to figure out what the interest will be on such an immense loan.

All of this aside, we haven’t left the box yet; what if I were to tell you that keeping the bridge serviceable for the next decade has been pegged at only $25 million? And what if I were to further tell you that replacing the Champlain Bridge (without expansion) was estimated to only cost $1.3 billion back in 2007? Moreover, if adjusted for inflation, the cost of the Champlain Bridge in today’s money would only be about $250 million, though this figure doesn’t account for the rise of construction costs (which may be artificially high and thus kind of useless given the established corruption in the Québec construction industry).

And all of this is secondary to the main issue: what is the bridge designed for? The simple answer is that it allows about 159,000 vehicles to cross the Saint Lawrence each day and that is about as much daily traffic as it can handle. So if more than 159,000 people need to use their cars to get into the city, the city, province and fed need to find a way to get those people onto the island in a more convenient and less ecologically damaging manner.

Consider a 2009 plan prepared by the provincial government estimated to cost $4 billion to add 20km and between ten and twelve new stations to the Montréal Métro, extending the Blue and Yellow Lines, and closing the Orange Line. That plan spread the cost across the entire metropolitan region, across three cities, and would likely draw at least one hundred thousand new riders from the South Shore alone.

All of a sudden the lifespan of all the existing bridges would in turn increase, given the drop in automobile traffic across all spans, and the Champlain would no longer be in dire need of replacement. Two megaprojects of similar cost, though extending the Métro benefits far more citizens and guarantees a better dollar value for the taxpayers. This is stimulus done right because it is far-sighted, benefits a majority as opposed to a minority and further allows for stimulus in a niche domain, in this case Métro design and construction.

But when stimulus spending is viewed as a source of financial reward to party stalwarts, the project tends to be organized and designed as though it were a consumable object. And so, instead of designing a bridge to last forever, we design infrastructure to require near-constant maintenance, or take a very long time and very large budget to complete.

Every infrastructure project necessarily becomes a megaproject for the status it brings, for its marketability and political connotations. Thus, those responsible for us are tasked by the public’s failing comprehension of the purpose of government to simply demand as much money as they possibly can so that they “get what’s theirs” first and foremost.

How many Canadian voted strategically in favour of a Conservative candidate during the last election because it’s a fait accompli that Tory and otherwise strategic ridings generally get a disproportionate amount of financial stimulus money? Perhaps we’re searching for a strange equilibrium where eventually every electoral district in Canada gets a $5 billion cash infusion, though it seems as though those on the receiving end of the stimuli don’t change all too often with Tory administrations.

Ask Tony Clement how it’s paid off for the needy constituents of Toronto’s cottage country. And ask yourself if you think this is a financially tenable economic model, whether it can be sustained, or whether we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

The astounding thing is that this kind of behaviour is lambasted as “excessive socialist spending” and “corruption disguised as socialism” when proposed by a Liberal or NDP member of parliament, and “investing in Canadian families” when proposed by the Tories. They benefit from manipulating elements of our ideology towards their own self-interests and then have the audacity to call us thieves seeking to ruin the economy to fulfill some kind of anarchistic desire to hasten the collapse of our society. Trying to untangle this misguided web of rhetoric leaves me feeling hung over, but the progressively inclined have no choice but to imbibe each time we’re confronted with the spastic outbursts and double-speak of so many glossy-eyed young Conservatives, fed talking points by master puppeteers.

A guy about my age accosted me at a restaurant about a week before the last election when he overheard me talking about my NDP leanings with several similarly minded individuals. He was clearly looking for a fight, and was agitated, as though he felt compelled to exorcise my socialist sympathies for fear of my own damnation. It was frustrating and very off-putting. But what could we do, we had to step up to the trough of life and take in a big sip of crazy.

A modest proposal, Economic commentary, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Montréal Architecture, Montréal Landmarks, Perspectives on the City, Social commentary, Urban Redevelopment, What were they thinking?

Wait, what? Explain this to me like I’m five {Planetarium Edition}

1 Comment

Rio Tinto Alcan Planetarium – conceptual drawing

So this is the new Planetarium. It is (apparently) being built right now adjacent to the Big O and is already considerably over-budget, and won’t be open until some time in 2013.

Have you ever noticed that, in this city, nothing ever opens on time?

I passed by a new Moore’s location on Ste-Cat’s a day ago and noticed the sign saying the store would be open at the beginning of the new year. That was a month ago and it seems like it won’t be ready for a while yet). A poor example perhaps – who cares about a Moores? Better examples would be the Olympic Tower (about 10 years to complete) or the MUHC Superhospital (which is sticking to its guns design-wise, and thus will serve as a local triumph of hospital planning from the early-1980s). Behind-schedule and over-budget may as well be compounded into a new word for use in this city (behindschedoerbudge? Sounds like German!)

It’s amazing to me that the Métro was completed ahead of schedule and on-target budget wise. Keep this in mind folks – 26 stations, all independently designed, plus signalling and ventilation equipment, tunnels, access points & rolling stock all delivered in four years, my how motivated we were back then!

So why is the new planetarium over-budget? And why did they close the existing Dow Planetarium last October if the new one won’t be open until sometime in 2013? Would it not have made more sense to keep the existing planetarium open until the new one is completed? What happened to all the employees in the meantime? And was it necessary to build a new one in the first place?

Furthermore, where is Rio Tinto Alcan in all of this? You’d figure if they got the exclusive naming rights they’d be ponying up the majority of the dough, right? According to this recent Gazette article, the project is now going to cost $48 million, a 45% increase to the cost estimate from just one year ago. Moreover, the city has taken out three loans so far to finance the project totalling $48 million, above the $41.4 million price-tag touted just over a year ago.

Apparently, the new price tag reflects, among other things, adjustments for inflation, contingencies and the City’s goal to seek LEED Platinum certification. Alan DeSousa further indicated that the new facility should be able to attract 200,000 more visitors per annum than the old planetarium, and this project is part of a larger $189 million re-vamp of the ‘Montreal Space for Life’ entertainment, leisure and education complex located around the Olympic Stadium. Other parts of this major face-lift program include the Insectarium, Biodome and Botanical Gardens.

Now I’m certainly not saying we shouldn’t be investing in our leisure sites and museums – of course we should, these institutions are our pride and joy, and I would hope generations of local school children will benefit as I did from the new planetarium. But the provincial and federal governments are apparently supporting the project too – so why is the city taking on so much financial burden? And once again – what is Rio Tinto Alcan investing in the project to get the exclusive naming rights? If the City of Montréal has to pony up all the start-up funds, then we should choose a more appropriate name (at least). Is there not one single famous Montreal astronomer or astro-physicist we could name it after? Or why not name it the Galileo Planetarium, or the Kepler Planetarium of Montréal. Hell, I’d be ecstatic if they called it the Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse-Tyson Planetarium.

And what’s the logic behind closing the existing planetarium more than a year before the new one opens? What happened to all the people who worked there – were they fired? Is the old equipment no longer operational? Unless the building is at risk of a major structural failure, I really can’t understand why they would proceed in this manner – it should be kept open and fully operational until the opening day of the new one.

And finally, the issue of LEED platinum status. I remember discussing LEED accreditation with Jonathan Wener when I was an executive VP of the Concordia Student Union (Mr. Wener is a local real-estate magnate, the head of Canderel Real Estate and a member of the Concordia Board of Governors. From what I understand, he had something to do with the re-design of the Forum and doesn’t talk much about it these days). He was insistant that all new Concordia buildings (including the proposed conversion of the Faubourg) should be so accredited. At the time I was in full agreement – obviously all buildings should be designed to be as energy and resource efficient as possible. However, about a year ago I was attending an exhibition opening at the Canadian Centre for Architecture where I had an opportunity to discuss the matter of LEED certification with a handful of bona-fide urban planners and architects, who were all of the opinion that the LEED process is little more than a way for real-estate developers and construction firms to pat themselves on the back. In other words, environmentalism-light. I’ve heard the whole system derided as little more than green-washing for the masses.

So are we paying for four letters or are we going to have an exceptionally efficient landmark we can show off to an international audience?

Somebody please, explain this to me like I’m five.