EV 0 LU T.I 0 N 0 F PATTERNS OF LAND SUBDIVISION W I TH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MONTREAL

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH McGILL UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MAS TER OF ARCHITECTURE

by Khor, Ean Lay

School of Architecture, McGill University, Montreal. April 1964 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have been extremely helpful to me in the pre­ paration of this thesis. I owe a particular debt to Professor H. Spence-Sales, Chairman of the Committee on Physical Planning,

and my resee.rch director, for h~s continual advice and aid; and to Mr. Bryn Greer-Wootten, for his careful editing of the text, especially his corrections of my imperfect English spelling and grammar.

I ~hould also like to thank the following: Mr. Samuel Sham, Marshall and Merrette, Architects; Mr. Ivan Feherdy and others in the City Planning Department of the City of Montreal; Mr. J - L. Roy, Montreal Municipal Archives Department; Miss Michelle Trudeau, Department of Geography, McGill University, for help in translating French texts; Misses Kathleen and Sharon Fogarty, and Mr. Allan Y. K. Chow, for their competent and careful typing of the first draft of the thesis; and Mrs. J. L. Barney, for typing the final copy; Miss Thelma Aragon for checking the final draft. Finally, I wish to express an accumulated debt of gratitude to my parents, for their financial support and great encourage­ ment. T A B L E 0 F C 0 N T E N T S, ~ List of Tables found in the text. i List of Figures found in the text. ii Introduction. v

PART ONE: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. Chapter One: History of the Granting of Land in the Province of Québec. 1 Chapter Two: History of the Granting of Land on the Island of Montreal 12 Chapter Three: The Cadastral Division of the Island of Montreal. (i) The Cadastral Divisions (ii) The Classification of the Cadastral Divisions 71

PART TWO: PATTERNS OF LAND SUBDIVISION AliD URBAN GROWTH. Chapter Four: The Subdivision of Long Lots. (i) Unplanned penetration of long lots 75 (ii) P1anned Long Lots 8lt (iii) Comprehensive Plans 90 Chapter Five: Urban Growth on the Island of Montreal. 9lt (i) Land Subdivision in 1932 97 (ii) Land Subdivision in 1952 106 (iii) Land Subdivision in 1961 118 (iv) A Composite View 135 Summary. 142 Bibliography. 1lt8

---········-~~~ i

L. I S T 0 F TAB.LES

N.umber Title! Page

1. Seigniory G:rants in Montreal. 18

2. Dates of Cadastral Division on the Island of Montreal. 38

3· Groups of Municilpalities. 96

4. llrbanized Area in 1932 (Acres). 100 '· Urbanized Area in 195'2 (Acres). 109 6. Changes in Urbanized Area 1932-195'2 (Acres). 111

7· Urbani~ed Area in 1961 (Acres). 122

8. Changes in Urbanized Area. 195'2-1961 (Acres). 123

9. Changes in Urbanized Area 1932-1961 (Acres). 138

1.0. Changes in Total Planned Area. 139 ii

L I S T 0 F F I GU R E S.

Number Title

1. Cadastral Division of the Island of Montreal. 39 2. Cadastral Division Maps. (1) Senneville 42 (2) Pierrefonds 43 (3) Ste. Geneviève and Pierrefonds 44 (4) Roxboro' and Pierrefonds 45 (5) Cartierville and Saraguay 46 (6) Bordeaux, Ahuntsic and Sault aux Recollets 47 (?) Montréal Nord 48 (8) Rivière des Prairies (West) 49 (9) Rivière des Prairies (East) 50 (10) Pointe aux Trembles 51 (11) Montréal East 52 (12) Longue Pointe, Côte Visitation, Maisonneuve 53 and Delorimier

(13) Westmount, Notre Dame de· Grace, St. Pierre, Côte St. Luc, Hampstead and Montréal Ouest 54 (14) Montréal and Verdun 55 (15) LaSalle 56 (16) Lachine 57 (17) Dorval 58 (18) Pointe Claire 59 (19) Beaconsfield 60 iii

(20) Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Ste. Anne de Bout de L'Ile and Baie d'Urfé. 61 (21) Paroisse Ste. Anne and Paroisse de la Pointe Claire (West). 62 (22) Paroisse de la Pointe Claire (Central). 63 (23) Roxboro•, Dollard des Ormeaux and Paroisse de la Pointe Claire (East). 64 (24) Paroisse St. Laurent (North) 65 {25) Paroisse St. Laurent (South) and Paroisse N. D. de Liesse. 66 (26) Montréal, St. Laurent and Mount Royal. 67 (27) Côte des Neiges, Outremont and Montréal. 68 (28) St. Michel de Laval and St. Léonard de Port Maurice. 69 (29) Pointe aux Trembles, Anjou and Montréal East. 70 3. Typical Development of the Range System. 72 4. Development of Urban Use in a River Range. 76

5. Unplanned Penetration - Rivi~re des Prairies. 77 6. Types of Urban Nucleus - the Inland Ranges. 79 7· Early Development of an Inland Lot System. 80 8. Nucleus for Urban Development - Inland Lot System. 82 9. Effect of Long Lots upon Land Subdivision. 83 10. Planned Long Lots - Beaconsfield. 85 11. Planned Long Lots - Cité de St. Laurent 87 12. Planned Development within the Long Lots System. 89 13. Comprehensive Plan- Ville d'Anjou. 91 14. Three Groups of Municipalities on the Island of Montréal. 95 iv

15. Urbanized Land 1932 • 98 16. P1anned Subdivisions in 1932. 103 17. Urbanized Land 1952. 107 18. P1anned Subdivisions in 1952. 113 19. P1anned Subdivisions in 1952. 114 20. Urbanized Land 1961. 119 21. P1anned Subdivisions in 1961. 125 22. P1anned Subdivisions in 1961. 126 23. P1anned Subdivisions in 1961. 128 24. P1anned Subdivisions in 1961. 129 25. Urbanized Land 1932 - 1952 - 1961. 136 26. Changes in Urbanized Area. 141 v

I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N.

The patterns of land subdivision form an essential element in the analysis of an urban area. In this essay an attempt is made to evaluate the importance of these patterns for urban growth on the Island of Montréal. The approach is an historical one, since the understanding of past patterns aids in our comprehension of the present. Thus in Part One the historical background to land granting procedures is examined, firstly in the Province of Québec, and then for the Island of Montréal. The cadastral divisions of the Island are discussed in Chapter Three, and a classification of the long lot systems is proposed. Part Two traces in greater detail the subsequent subdivi­ sion of the long lots for urban purposes. Chapter Four treats the problem in a general way, and three types of subdivision are postulated: the unplanned penetration of the long lot system, the planned long lots, and the comprehensively planned area involving a larger number of lots. With these three types of subdivision as a basic unit of analysis, measurements of land used for urban purposes in 1932, 1952 and 1961 are made(Chapter Five). The situation with regard to each type of subdivision

is fully outlined for each date~ The growth of planned areas is then evaluated, and compared to urban expansion due to un­ planned penetration. The differences between the Central, Western and Eastern parts of the Island are stressed throughout. vi

Using the 1932 map as a base, and making exact measurements of those subdivisions which were planned, enables one to place these subdivisions in their true perspective in the overall picture of urban growth. PART ONE

H I S T 0 R I C A L B A C K G R 0 U N D -1-

CHAPTER ONE

History Qf the granting of land in the Province of Quebec

A comprehensive survey of the development of land settle­ ment is given in a joint thesis by Cobban and Lithgow(l), and this historical summary follows their outline. (I) The Seigniorial System under the French Régime Although there were no less than six forms of land gran­ ting policies used by the crown, the usual form in New France

11 was "en seigneurie , and the subgranting of these lands was "en censive". There were no established rules for the colonial royal officers to determine the size of lands granted. They had to base the grant on a consideration of such things as the rank of the grantee, his services to the crown, his means, the nature of the land and its location. In a thinly peopled re- gion the waterways were the most usual means of communication, and the universal desire for easy access to the waterways led to the elongated form of land subdivision. As Munro said "whatever the area of the seigniorial grant, however, or wherever its location, it invariably assumed the shape of a parallelogram, 2 wi th the shorter side fronting on the river •••••••·• n ( ). Nor­ mally, preliminary surveys for the seigniorial grants were

(1) Cobban, Aileen A., and Robert M. Lithgow, A Regional Study of the Richelieu Valley, unpublished M.A. joint thesis, McGill University 1952, (especially Part Two: Land Settle­ ment in the Richelieu Valley, by Lithgow). (2) Munro, William B., The Seigniorial System in Canada, Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1907, p. 56. -2-

never made, and the new grants were referred to the previous grants. Such vagueness caused many disputes and lawsuits. It is logical to assume that, at the very beginning, the French intended to establish a feudal system of land tenure that was familiar to them. Hence the lieutenant-governor had the right to grant lands "en seigneurie" to suitably qualified gentlemen. Neither of the first two lieutenant-governors, Sieur de Roberval, who was appointed in 1540, nor his successor in 1598, Marquis de la Roche, established a permanent colony. Although, Champlain had succeeded in founding a permanent settlement at Québec in 1608, the policy of granting similar monopolies continued until 1627. Only three seigniories had been granted by that date. The reason was that in this stage of colonization, the holders of such a monopoly proved to be interested more in securing profits of the fur trade, than in bringing in settlers as stipulated in their commissions. In 1627, a new policy to increase the population of the colony was initiated. Cardinal Richelieu suggested the plan of granting to a single company a monopoly of the fur trade, in re­ turn for its responsibility of carrying over four thousand set­ tiers in the following fifteen years. The first company, the Company of One Hundred Associates, made about sixty seigniorial grants. Since the main interest of the Company was in the profits of the fur trade rather than -3-

promoting colonization, the seigniorial grants were mostly under-developed. Furthermore, the inhabitants in the colony were left without adequate protection from the Company and were harried increasingly by Iroquois incursions after 1647. Fin­ ally they had to complain to the King. In 1663, the Company's charter was revoked. The Company of the West Indies then took over the control of the colony, but in 1674, it also had its charter rescinded because inadequate attention was paid to colonizing the land. By 1663 the French government realized that a more active part in the administration of the colony should be taken. The undertaking was described in The Seigniorial System in Canada, by William B. Munro. "The reestablishment of direct royal control over New France made necessary the provision of a new political administration for the colony. This was arranged for by the issue of an edict which, after reciting the fact that the great distance separating the colony from France in­ terfered with the prompt and diligent administration of affairs by the home authorities, provided for the creation of a Sover­ eigb Council (conseil souverain), to be composed of the governor, the bishop, and five inhabitants of the colony to be chosen jointly by these two officials.n(l) The past experience indicated that the seigniors themselves were responsible for the slow progress of colonization as their

(1) William B. Munro, Ibid, p. 29. -4-

sole interest had been in profitable pursuits. By 1663, the King and his ministers started to issue a series of edicts en­ forcing the seigniors to develop their lands more actively. The first stated that "if those to whom grants had been made should begin operations toward clearing them entirely, and should at the expiration of the six months mentioned in the edict of March 21 have cleared a considerable part of them, His Majesty would be willing, on their petition, to instruct the Sovereign Council to allow them a further six months, at the end of which, however, no further extension would be made for any reason whatever."(l) The uncleared seigniorial lands should then be returned to the crown for redistribution. In 1672, the King asked for precise information regarding the clearing of land, and instructed the intendant that one­ half of all the lands granted prior to the last ten years were to be reunited to the royal domain and regranted to parsons who would undertake to clear and cultivate them. In 1679, the edict issued ordered a return to the crown every year of one twentieth of each uncleared land grant. This was followed in 1711 by the important Arrêts of Marly. The first enforced the loss of grants by seigniors who evidently neglected to develop their land. The second enforced the loss of rights in seigniorial domain by those inhabitants who failed to cultivate their holdings within one year.

(1) William B. Munro, Ibid, p. 29 -~

In spite of these definite measures, many seigniors round devious means to evade the provisions of their title deeds. Some seigniories, such as those of Noyan and Foucault on the upper Richelieu were forfeited because of their failure in col­ onizing their properties, but in most cases the original gran­ tees regained possession of their lands. Bence the retrench- ment edicts achieved very little, and the Arrets~ was published again in 1732. The basic obligations of the seignior in possessing his grants were quite well-defined and could be generalized under five clauses: (a) The rendering of fealty and homage before the royal repre­ sentation in Quebec within a reasonable time after coming into possession of his fief (whether by grant, purchase, or succes­ sion). (b) Within a certain specifie time after receiving his grant, to deposit with the proper authorities at Quebec an "aveu et dénombrement", which was a descriptive and statistical account of the individual seigniory. (c) The payment of a mutation fine known as the quint, ren­ dered by the seign~or to the company or the crown, payable whenever the seigniory changed hands, except in direct succes­ sion. (d) The rendering of military service which, though notspecif­ ically stated as a condition of tenure, was expected of the seigniors and taken as unquestionable. -6-

(e) The observation of the reservations and prohibitions in­ serted in the title-deeds, for example, the reservation of timber for use in ships of the Royal Navy. After the issue of the Arrêts 6f 1-Iarly in 1711, a sixth obligation, which,required the seignior to subgrant his lands, was introduced. This obligation had no existence in France and gave the seigniorial system in Canada a character and in­ dividuality. Also, the obligations of the seigniors, in com­ parison with their rights enjoyed, were not harsh and conse­ quently the burdens imposed upon the habitant were not as heavy as those for the peasant in France. Of the seigniorial prerogatives, the most important one directly related to the land grant was the annual rent, known

11 as "cens et rentesu, and the ttlods et ventes , a mutation fine equal to one-twelfth the estimated value of the farm. In Canada, the judicial power was obtained not inseparably with the possession of a seigniory, but by express grant. At any rate, owing to the meagre population, revenue from fines and fees was very little. In the seigniorial system there were various privileges of the seignior known as banal rights. Munro described the term as "the rights of the seignior to control exclusively various public or semi-public services within his seigniory, and to compel his dependants to make use of these at a stipulated -7-

{1) toll or charge." Among the banal rights, the most important one was the mill banality, which was the sole right of the sei­ gnior to build a grist mill. However, this right did not de­ rive much profit until the countryside was more densely settled during the British régime. Another form of banal right was the provision of a central oven for baking purposes. This was practised to the great in­ convenience of the inhabitants and was seldom enforced. The minor rights included: (a) The corvee which was the right of the seignior to demand a certain number of days every year, for working on his own land or public projects; (b) the right to a certain percentage of the fish caught in seigniorial waters; (c) the right to provide the required ferries; (d) the right to make with his dependants in the title-deeds certain reservations, for example, of mill, manor or church sites, and prohibitions such as those against the use of tiro­ ber suitable for building ships in the Royal Navy. During the French Régime the seigniorial system, which was modified from the familiar system of land tenure in France, worked fairly effectively in Canada. The habitant who had the right to appeal for justice from the intendant at Québec was not oppressed. As Munro says, "For more than a century after its introduction into New France it was not unadapted to its

(1) William B. Munro, Ibid, p. 101 -8-

surroundings, and it made substantial headway, its decline and fall coming only when, under British administration, its en­ vironment underwent a radical change.u(l)

(1) William B. Munro, Documents Relating to Seigniorial T~nure in Canada 1598-1854, pp. xxi-xxii, Toronto: The Champlain Society, 1908. -~

(II) The Seigniorial System under the British Administration When New France came under British sovereignty, it was agreed that the existing system of land tenure should be re­ tained, and that all existing seigniorial tenures were valid. Nevertheless, many seigniories, such as those on the Richelieu, were sold for profit to the English newcomers, who were attrac­ ted by the title, the position and the potential rise in value likely with an increasing population. For example, Sorel was bought by the Crown for the purpose of settling Loyalist refu­ gees; Monnoir was granted to Sir John Johnson in 1794; Foucault was bought by Henry Caldwell; General Gabriel Christie pur­ chased Lacelle de Léry, and Noyan, and in association with Moses Hazen, he secured Labrevois and Bleury. However, the seigniorial system did not last longer than the middle of the nineteenth century. Its structure was weak­ ened by the struggles and wars in the latter years of the French rule. These circumstances caused the abandonment of holdings and seigniories, laying waste agricultural lands, and the ne­ glect of seigniorial dues. Under the English rule the situa­ tion deteriorated due to the lack of understanding of the sys­ tem by many English officiais, the difficulty of interpreting French civil law, the attempt to introduce English law and the appointment of inefficient and corrupt judges, and the lack of understanding between English seigniors and the French Canadian habitants. -10-

In such a chaotic condition even the French population, especially the seigniors, were inclined to faveur the English freehold tenure. By such a transaction, the seigniors' author­ -ity over the ungranted lands within the seigniories would be changed from that of a trustee to one of full property rights. Thus, a series of acts leading to the realization of commuta­ tion of land tenure held under the seigniorial system, were passed in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1816, the legal problems in respect to the conversion of lands held "en fief et seigneurie" into holdings of free and common socage were seriously investigated. It was not until 1822 that the first act, the Canada Trade Act, was passed to provide the voluntary commutation of the tenure of seigniories and of "en censiven holdings within crowned seig­ niories, but similar provisions for nen censive" holdings in ether seigniories were neglected. The habitants opposed these measures greatly, because they lost their customary rights of acquiring part of the ungranted lands within the seigniories. Consequently, in 182' the Canada Trade and Tenures Act was passed, which required a seignior to give his habitants a similar opportunity to obtain the same advantages during the conversion of his holdings into free and common socage. Ob­ viously, the provision did not appeal to the seigniors, for between 1825 and 1846 only nine seigniorial commutations resulted. -11-

After the union of Lower and Upper Canada, the seigniorial problem was further studied. A new act was passed in 18~5 and modified in 18~9. To substitute for the feudal dues and ser­ vices, the act allowed the habitant to convert his holdings

11 into "en franc aleu roturier , a French form of tenure very similar to the English tenure of free and common socage, by paying to his seignior a mutually agreeable lump sum. This act which failed to consider what was the legal seigniorial claim, and the inability of most habitants to pay a lump sum, led to another act in 185~. The provision of the last act included making commutation compulsory for both seignior and habitant, determining by court decision the valid seigniorial claims, arranging for the payment of annual fixed rentals, with the option of commuting the latter by paying a stipulated lump sum. The differences in land granting procedures under the French and British regimes have been described, and this forms the general background to the discussion of land granting on the Island of Montreal. -12-

CHAPTER TWO

Historx of the granting of land on the Island of Montréal

Montreal, discovered by Jacques Cartier in 1535, was prac­ tically deserted until 1603 when Champlain intended to make the Island his headquarters. Though the Company of New France, the Hundred Associates or Partners, was in possession of the coun­ try from 1627 and had the privilege of making certain conces­ sions, no private person was granted land until after the death of Champlain in December 1635. At the annual meeting of the Associates in January 1636, M. Jean de Lauzon, being at that time the intendant of the Associates, Councillor of State and President of the Great Council, granted and signed the concessions of the Island of Montreal to three applicants: M. Jacques Gérard, M. Chevalier, Sieur de la Chaussée. Shortly afterwards when de Lauzon re­ signed, these three who were his friands and had lent their names for his purpose, transferred the properties to him. At this time, there was a Company formed in Paris which was a purely religions body aimed at converting the Indians. This Company, founded mostly by gentlemen of Saint-Sulpice, had decided to establish its headquarters on the Island of Montreal, and it was known as the Associates of Montreal. In order to procure the seigniory, Pierre Chevrier, Baron de Fancamp and Jerome le Royer, Sieur de la Danversière, rep­ resented the Company and approached de Lauzon who had retired -13-

to France. Accordingly, the cession of the Island was granted by deed on August 7, 164o. This declares that " ••• M. Jean de Lauzon cedes, has given and transferred, purely and simply the Island of Montreal, situated on the River St. Lawrence, above Lake St. Peter, entirely as it was given by the gentlemen of the Company of New France, to M. de la Chausée for them and theirs to enjoy, having regard to the same duties and condi­ tions expressed in the act of the fifteenth of January, 1636."(l)

On De~ember of the same year, the Company of One Hundred Associates confirmed the concession by revoking the grant originally given to de la Chausée·on grounds of non-fulfillment of his obligations within the time ordered. In this new grant, the head of the Island, which was defined by a line drawn from ,, the Riviere des Prairies up to Lake St. Louis to the distance of about four leagues from the mountain, was reserved, but later it was included. Pierre Chevrier, de la Danversiére and their successors were obliged to render their Fealty and Hom­ age, and paid one ounce of gold piece stamped with the seal of the Company of New France, at each change of possession; in conformity with the custom of Paris - a feudal system of land tenure which prevailed for a long time in Canada. This conces­ sion was also ratified by Louis XIV, permitting the Company to appoint Governors and granting them limited autonomy. Hence the Company of Montreal was always a Sulpician enterprise, and

(1) -14-

the gentlemen of the Seminary of Montreal were always the veritable seigniors, and signed all the grants. In May 1677, Louis XIV reconfirmed by an edict, the posi­ tion of the gentlemen of Saint Sulpice of Paris on the Island of Montreal. In this grant the Sulpicians were responsible to the King alone and apparently given powers to regrant the lands

11 "En fief tt or En fief no ble". This seigniory was one of the most developed and success­ ful in the whole of New France. Hence, when the seigniorial tenure was abolished in 1855, it was not designated for commu­ tation by the government. Commuting land tenure of the Island of Montreal was carried out by mutual arrangement. After lay­ ing aside a certain area for Ville Marie, the Sulpicians under­ took to safeguard the Island from Indian attack, by granting at all vulnerable points military seigniories on which the owners were obliged to construct forts. The first grant made in February 1658 was to Lambert Closse who therefore owned the first fortified house on the Island, and was prominent in the Indian fighting and the Comman­ dant of the Town of Ville Marie. The second grant was signed by Monsieur Souart, P. s. s., and was for his nephew Monsieur Hautmesnil. This seigniory ran across the Island towards its eastern end, between the St. Lawrence and the Rivière des Prairies. The Island of Montreal, being situated at the junction of -15-

the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence Rivers, was on the road of all the Indians travelling towards the east and had become a vul­ nerable point for Indian attack. In order to establish a ser­ ies of strong holdings at the ends of the Island, in 1676 the Sulpicians decided to grant seigniories to those officers who had been left behind by de Tracy. The first grant made in this year was at the eastern end of the Island and was to Sieur Picoté de Belestie. The land granted was at Pointe-aux-Trembles, extending as far as Bout­ de-11Isle, fronting both the St. Lawrence and the Rivière des Prairies. The exact location of the areas was not recorded in the "Régistre d 1Intendance". In December 1671, on the northern part of the Island fac­ ing the Rivière des Prairies, two noble fiefs were granted to two officers of Lamottés Company - Lieutenant Philippe de Carion de Fresnoy and Paul de Morel. The areas of these grants were extended the following year. In January 1672, Monsieur Dollier de Casson, in the name of the Sulpicians, granted a fief on the Lake of Two Moun­ tains to Monsieur Sidrac de Gué, who called his grant Bois­ brillant. He later sold this seigniory to Charles Le Moyne de Longueuil and Jacques le Ber, his brother-in-law. Finally, it was possessed by le Ber, a wealthy marchant of Montreal who bought his way into the untitled noblesse and had assumed the name of Monsieur de Senneville. The seigniory became known as -16-

the seigniory of Senneville. In June 1672, a seigniory adjoining that of d'Ailleboust de Mousseaux was granted to two brothers and was known as Bel­ lette. Another adjoining seigniory was granted to Claude Robutel de Saint-André. The seigniory of Lachine was granted provisionally in 1667 to René Robert Cavelier de la Salle, the :tExplorer of the ltlest", and was co!J.firmed in 1669. Later, La Salle managed to sell most of his seigniory back to the Sulpi­ cians and the remaining land to Jean Milot and Jacques le Ber at a very profitable priee. "The Seminary granted lands to other people, and to two Religious Institutions, and at the time of the Conquest, the Island contained the seigniories of Carion, Morel, Verdun, Boisbrillant, Saint-André, d'Ailleboust, Bellevue, Saint­ Augustin, Lachine, Lagauchetière, Saint-Joseph, Nazareth and the Hôtel-Dieu. This completes the Sulpician grants. Of the land owners resident in Montreal, Jacques le Ber was the most prominent. Basides his seigniory at Senneville and the land which he had bought from La Salle, he received as a grant two-thirds of the Island lying to the south of Montreal, which is commonly known as the Nun's Island, and the real name of which is Ile Saint-Paul. His possession was confirmed by an order from the King, dated the 23rd of April 1700. The other third of this Island was granted to Claude Robutel, the owner of the Seminary grant of Saint-André. Ano­ ther Monsieur le Ber, a descendant of this one, owned the -17-

seigniory of La Salle, situated on the south shore of the Saint Lawrence.n(l) Most of the information in this section has been taken from Thomas Guerin, Feudal Canada, Montreal, 1926. The his­ tory of land grants on the Island of Montreal has been largely the story of subdivision of the original holding of the Sul­ picians. (Seigniory grants on the Island have been given in 2 Table I. ( )) The Seigniories were further subdivided into cadastral units for land registration, and this forms the sub­ ject of the next chapter.

(1) Guerin, Thomas, Feudal Canada, Montreal, 1926 pp. 21?-218 (2) Massicotte, E.Z., "Concessions de Terre'à Montréal." Proceedings and Transactions, The Royal Society of Canada Series III. Vol. VIII. December 1914. pp. 215-229. -18-

TABLE ONE SEIGHlORY GRANTS IN MONTREAL 16lf8 January 4th Grant to Pierre Gadoys Quantity and locality: 40 arpents •••• "the first post of alignment being planted at 23 rods from the middle of the bridge on stilts near the fort •••• on the small river joining the fort." At the end of the Act: The acceptation of the said grant before the notary Jean de Saint-Père. Nota: This piece is the oldest grant Act as well as the most ancient notarial act that is in the Montreal Law-Courts. It is also the first act mentioned in the Montreal regis­ ter of notary drawn up by Basset in 1674. January lOth Grant to Jean Desroches Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• "starting 20 rods in front, near the place determined for the town." Neighbours: Augustin Hébert and Urbain Tessier. January 13th Grant to Simon Richomme Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• "starting 20 rods near the little river •••• bordering the mountain." Neighbours: Blaise Juillet and Léonard Lucault. 1649 No Grant 1650 March 30th Grant to Baise Juillet surnamed Avignon Quantity and Locality: 30 arpents ••• "starting 20 rods at tl).e edge of the Villemarie communes. t• Neighbours: Gilbert Barbier and Simon Richomme October 22nd In the marriage contract of Louis Prudhomme and Roberte Gadois, before Jean de Saint­ Père, Mr. de Maisonneuve concedes a grant to the intended. -19-

November 7th Grant to Gilbert Barbier. Quantity and locality: 15 arpents, near the commune and 40 arpents, in a convenient place •••• Neighbours of the 15 arpent property: Louis Prudhomme and Blaise Juillet. November 8th Grant to Jean Descarris Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the Saint-Joseph region and one arpent in the enclosure of the town. Neighbours of the property: Henri Perrin and 1\ntoine Primot. 1651 September 18th Grant to Urbain Tessier surnamed la Vigne. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents near the place designated for the town. Neighbours: Jean Desroches and Jacques Archambault. September 18th Grant to Jacques Archambault. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• on the edge of the corners •••• joining the land reserved for the town. Neighbours: Urbain Tessier and Lambert Closse. Nota: It is by this Act that we have placed in our list of the settlers, that appeared last year in these reports, the arrival of Archambault, to Montreal in 1651. Other documents showed us, since then, that this is inexact. Three days sooner, September 15, 1651, J. Archambault had received a grant in Quebec and he could not have been in Montreal, on the 18. Moreover, in examining the act carefully, we see that the date is of another ink and must have been added later. See our study about this in the Bulletin des Rech. Hist., 1914,. p. 316. September 23rd Grant to Nicolas Godé. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the place named Grande Anse, starting 20 rods along the domain reserved for the lords. Neighbours: Jean de Saint-Père and Jean Millot. -20-

October 2nd Commune contract to Jean de Saint-Père, trustee, in favour of the inhabitants of Montreal. Quantity and locality: 40 arpents •••• "along the big and the little river that pass joining the fort.n 1652 No grants - Mr. de Maisonneuve is in France. 1653 December 23rd Act of putting in possessions to Jean de Saint-Pere, of a property mentioned in his marriage contract. Quantity and locality: 4o arpents •••• "near the big river, at the corner of the mouth of a little brook •••• to a place named the Grande Anse •••• near the Saint-Pierre meadow." December 29th In the marriage contract of Jean Milot before Lambert Classe, ~~. de Maisonneuve gives a property to the intended husband and wife as.well as a piece of ground. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• to the Saint-Pierre meadow and one arpent to the place destined for the town. Neighbour· of the property: Nicolas Godé 1654 January 17th Grant to Jacques Beauvais surnamed Saint­ Jamme. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents ••••• in the Saint-Joseph region. Neighbours: Louis Prudhomme and Henri Perrin. January 17th Grant to Eloi Jarry surnamed la Haye and Henri Perrin. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the Saint-Joseph region. Neighbours: Jacques Beauvais and Jean Descarris. J anuary 23rd Grant of a site to Nicolas Godé Quantity and locality: 2 arpents •••• "in the place designated for the town and where he had a house built •••• 11 -21-

January 24th Grant to Jacques Picot surnamed Labrie and Jean Aubuchon surnamed Lespérance. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents "near the place designated for the town and one arpent in the said town.u Neighbour of the property: Simon Després. January 24th Grant to Sébastien Audiot surnamed Laflesche. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, near the place designated for the town and one arpent in the town. Neighbours of the property: Jean Aubuchon and Estienne Bouchard. Fèbruary 2nd Grant to Pierre Gaudin, carpenter. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents under the St-Louis slope. Neighbour: René Bondy. February 2nd Grant to Marin Jannot. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents under the St-Louis slope. Neighbour: Pierre Gaudin. February 12th Grant to Gabriel Le Selle. At the bottom: Acceptation before Lambert Closse. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, near the fort, on the edge of the commune. Neighbour: Simon Richomme. July 23rd Grant to Simon Desprès. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents "near the St. Louis slope and on the side facing the mountain." Neighbours: Jacques Picot and Jean Aubuchon. Nota: This property passes on the Jean Auger, in 1656. -22-

July 23rd Grant of land to Charles LeMoyne. Quantity and locality: 9o arpents •••• "the property called the 11 Pointe St. Charles, near the Grande Anse , plus one arpent "in the enclosure of the town, near the hospital, on which he had a bouse built." Nota: The grantee puts himself under the obliga­ tion of giving the use of half of his pro­ party to Antoine Primot and his wife, parents-in-law of LeMoyne. July 24th Grant to Toussaint Hunault. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• near the Saint-Louis slope. Neighbour: Jean Lemerché, named Laroche. July 24th Grant to Jean Lemerché Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• "under the Saint-Louis slope." Neighbours: Toussaint Hunault and Mathurin Langevin, named the little LaCroix. July 24th Grant to Mathurin Langevin named LaCroix. Quantity and localtty: 30 arpents •••• under the Saint Louis slope. Neighbours: Jean Lemercher and Lewis Loisel. July 24th Grant to Simon Galbrun. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• under the Saint-Louis slope. Neighbours: Louis Loisel and Gilles Bastard. July 24th Grant to Bertrand de Rennes. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents •••• near the Saint Louis slope Neighbour: Simon Després. August 8th. Donation of half of the small farm of Hôtel-Dieu, plus 1100 pounds so that Miss Mance established her residence in Montreal. Nota: This piece belongs to the Seminary. -23-

October 24th Grant to Robert Le Cavelier, named Deslauriers, charged with nourishing the children of late Augustin Hébert, named Jolycoeur. Quantity and locality: 40 arpents •••• near Villemarie at 1? rods of the little river joining the fort. Neighbours : Pierre Gadois and Jean Desroches. 1655 January 26th Grant to Jean Milot, edge-tool maker. Quantity and locality: Half an arpent with a house near the fort. In margin: December 11, 1661 - Another grant of half an arpent joining the site above. March 30th Grant to Jean Gervaise. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents under the Saint-Louis slope Neighbour: Marin Jannot. April 7th Grant to André Charly Quantity and locality: 30 arpents under the Saint-Louis slope Neighbour: Jean Gervaise. April lOth Grant to Jean Desroches. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents near the place reserved for the city and one arpent in the enclosure of the city, on the edge of the commune. Neighbours of the property: Robert LeCavelier and Urbain Tessier. Neighbours of the site: Nicolas Godé and Jean Milot. Nota: A clause of the Act reads as follows: 11as for the property that the called Desroches has cleared from the top of the hill to the bottom, it cannot be taken away from him unless one pays him 200 pounds to the arpent. 11 In 1667, his grant of April 10 is passed to Sir de Robutel. -24-

August 20th Grant to Toussaint Hunault. Nota: To the seminary. August 20th Grant to Louis Loisel. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents under the Saint-Louis slope. Neighbours: Mathurin Langevin and Simon Galbrin. August 20th Grant to Pierre Chauvin. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents near the Saint-Louis slope. Neighbours: Toussaint Hunault and Jacques Mousseaux. August 20th Grant to Gilles Lauson. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the Saint-Louis slope and one arpent in the enclosure of the city. Neighbour· of the property: André Charly. Neighbour of the site: Jacques Archambault. August 20th Grant to Jean Leduc. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the Saint-Joseph region and one arpent in the enclosure of the city, on which Leduc had a house built, the so called arpent having been promised to him earlier. Neighbours of the property: Jean Grimart and Marin Heurtebise. August 20th Grant to Marin and André Heurtebise. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the Saint-Joseph region. Neighbours: Jean Leduc and Jean Descarris. Nota: 11 Provided that Charles Lemoyne, Messier and Antoine Primot be satisfied with the clear­ ing of the said land. 11 August 20th Grant to André Dumay. Quantity and locality: One arpent with a house and 15 arpents near the Saint-Pierre river. Neighbour : Jean Chappeleau. -25-

August 20th Grant to Jean Dumay N'ota: To the Seminary. August 20th Grant to Nicolas Hubert, named LaCroix. Quantity and locality: 15 arpents, under the Saint-Louis slope and half an arpent in the City. Neighbour of the land: Gilles Lauson. Neighbours of the site: Jean Simon and André Charly. August 30th Grant to André Charly, named St-Ange. Quantity and locality: Half an arpent in the enclosure of the city. Neighbours: Jean Chappeleau and Nicolas Hubert named LaCroix. August 31st Grant to Jean Simon. Quantity and locality: Half arpent in the enclosure of the city. August 31st Grant to Jacques de Laporte. Quantity and locality: Half arpent in enclosure of the town. August 31st Grant to Jean Gervaise. Quantity and locality: Half arpent in the enclosure of the town. 1656 December lOth Grant to Louis Guerestin

11 Quantity md locality: 30 arpents, in the place of "lance fondue • Neighbours: Nicolas Hubert and Christophe Gaillard. Mr. de Maisonneuve was then in France, how to explain this date? The manuscript is truly in Mr. de Maisonneuve•s writing; but the words that follow thousand, being "six hundred and fifty-six':' were obviously added later and the year must have been misunder­ stood or else there were reasons for the Act to carry this date. 1657

No grant - Mr. de Y~isonneuve comes back from France at the end of the summer. -26-

1658 January 22nd Donation, to the name of the Associates of Montreal, of a stone building of 36 feet x 18 reet, near the hospital with a piece of ground of 48 rods to serve for the instruc­ tion of the girls of Montreal. Nota: Disappeared fragment - quoted by Faillon, II, 285, according to the archives of the Hotel-Dieu and of the Notre-Dame Congregation. January 27th Grant to Nicolas Millot, named the Beauceron. Quantity and locality: 20 arpents, near the St.-Pierre river. Neighbours: André Demers, Jean Millot and Widow Godé.

January 27th Grant to the wido~r of Nicolas Godé Quantity and locality: 10 arpents, near the St-Pierre river, on which land Jean Chappeleau did some work. Neighbours: André Demers, Jean f.11lot and Nicolas Milet. February 2nd Grant of a fief to Lambert Closse. Quantity and locality: 100 arpents, starting at 10 rods from the big river, with 40 rods wide. Neighbours: Jacques Archambault and Etienne Bouchard. 1659 May 8th Grant to Guillaume Estienne. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, in the St-Joseph region. Neighbours: Mathurin Jouanneau and Honoré Dansny. May 9th Grant to Mathurin Jouanneau. Quantity and locality: 15 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbours: Simon LeRoy and Guillaume Estienne. May 9th Grant to Honoré Dansny named le Tourangeau. Nota: Disappeared piece - quoted in Basset, June 17, 1664. -27-

May lOth Grant to Jacques Testard. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the St. Louis slope. Neighbours: Laurent Archambault and Paul Benoist. May lOth Grant to Simon LeRoy. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbour: Mathurin Jouanneau. May lOth: Grant to Silvestre Vacher named Saint­ Julien, carpenter. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the St-Louis slope. Neighbours: Paul Benoit and Jean Valliquet named Laverdure. Nota: This property passes to Dollard Desormeaux, then to Pierre Picoté de Belestre. May 12th Grant to Michel Théodore. Quantity and locality: 15 arpents in the St-Joseph region.

Neighbour • Michel Louvard, miller. May 12th Grant to Léger Haguenier. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents under the St-Louis slope. Neighbours: Simon Galbrun and Pierre Godin named Chatillon. May 12th Grant to Laurent Archambault. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents und er the St. Louis slope. Neighbours: Urbain Geté and Jacques Testard named Laforest. May 12th Grant to François Roisnet. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the St. Joseph region. Neighbours: Honoré Dansny and Michel Louvard. May 12th Grant to Paul Benoist, carpenter. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the St. Louis slope. Neighbours: Jacques Testard and Silvestre Vacher. -28-

May 12th Grant to Christophe Gaillard named the prior. Quantity and locality: 15 arpents, under the St. Louis slope. Neighbours: Louis Guerestin and Urbain Geté. May 12th Grant to Michel Louvard, miller. Quantity and locality: 15 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbours: Francois Roisnay and Michel Théodore, named Gilles. May 15th Grant to Jean Valliquet named La verdure. Quantity and locality: 22 arpents and half under the St-Louis slope. Neighbours: Silvestre Vacher and Jacques de la Porte. May 15th Grant to Jacques de la Porte named Saint­ Georges. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the St-Louis slope. December 23rd Grant to the Reverend Mothers Hospitalières. Quantity and locality: 100 arpents at the little lake, Neighbours: Fiacre Ducharme named Lafontaine. 1660 May 3rd Grant to Michel Guibert. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the St-Pierre river. August 22nd. Grant to Jacques LeBer and Charles Lemoyne. Quantity and locality: A piece of land of 76 reet x 60 feet, near the Saint-Joseph Hospital, on which the named LeBer and Lemoyne had a bouse built of 36 reet x 23 reet. Neighbour: Jacques Testard. August 27th Grant to Jacques Testard named Laforest. Quantity and locality: A piece of land of 47 feet x 60 feet, on which the named Testard built a house of 22 f~ x 16 reet. Neighbours: Jacques LeBer and Charles Lemoyne. -29-

November 23rd Taking in possession of 200 arpents of land for the Villemarie Hotel Dieu. Quantity and locality: 200 arpents at the "Loutre lake. 11 Neighbours: The Reverend Mothers Hospitaliéres. Ensemble: Grant of March 8th., 1650, signed by Louis Séguier in Paris, by which the Montreal Society gives 200 arpents of land to be chosen later. 1661 May 2nd Grant Pierre Picoté de Belestre.

Quanti ty and loc ality: 30 arpents •••• "ne ar Saint-Marie. rt Neighbours: Jean Valliquet and Paul Benoit. Nota: This land had already been granted to Silvestre Vacher on May 10, 1659, then it had passed to Adam Dollard. December 3rd Grant to Jacques LeBer. Quantity and locality: 20 arpents at the Saint-Pierre meadow. Neighbours:: Héritiers of Jean de Saint-Père and of Nicolas Godé. 1662 August lOth Grant to Urbain Geté Quantity and locality: 15 arpents at the place named Sainte-Marie. Neighbours: Christophe Gaillard and Laurent Archambault. August 16th Donation for the church site. Quantity and locality: A piece of land joining the commune on one side, the property of the late Nicolas Godé on another side •••• at one end the land of MM. the priests and at the other the road that passes along the grant of Sir Robutel de St. André with 4 arpents that adjo1n 1t. This p1ece of land counted 2 arpents granted before to the late Nicolas Godé, one arpent to Nicolas Godé's son and one arpent to the late Jean de St-Père, provided that the church-wardens pay 200 pounds by the arpent to the proprietors as well as the buildings erected. -30-

August 20th Grant to Guillaume Chariter of 6 arpents of land •••• mentioned in the grant Act made by Mr. l'abbé Souart to the same, on February 5, 1667. August 25th Grant to Louis Prudhomme. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents near the mountain •••• adjoining his previous grant. August 25th Grant to Marin de Niau named Destallys, of the land having been owned by Mrs. Dailleboust. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents at the St-Pierre river. Neighbours: La Louaire and the Saint-Gabriel land. August 25th Grant to Benigne Basset. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents near the city and 25 rods in the enclosure of the city at the place where he had a house built. Neighbour of the land:Jean Desroches. Neighbour of the site: Jean Gervaise. August 25th Grant to Louis Chevallier. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the St. Joseph region. Neighbour: Jean Descarris. August 25th Grant to Jean Gasteau. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbour : Jean Leduc. August 25th Grant to Jean Auger named Baron. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents at the end of Urbain Tessier's grant. August 25th Grant to Pierre Péras named Lafontaine, barrel-maker. Quantity and locality: 24 arpents on the edge of the St-Pierre meadow. Neighbours: Pierre Malet and Jacques Beauchamp. -31-

August 25th Grant to Jacques Beauchamp Quantity and locality: 10 rods wide to the land granted before. Neighbours: Pierre Péras and Estienne Laire. August 25th Grant to Guillaume Chartier. Quantity and locality: 6 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbour: Mathurin Jouanneau. August 25th Grant to Oliver Charbonneau. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbour: Honoré Dasny. August 25th Grant to Mathurin Lorrion. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the St-Joseph region. Neighbour: Simon LeRoy. August 25th Grant to Jean Leduc. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the St-Joseph region, joining his preceding grant. August 25th Grant to Estienne Laire. Quantity and locality: 10 rods wide to the land granted before on the edge of the St-Pierre river. Neighbours: Jacques Beauchamp and Guillaume Gendron. August 25th Grant to Pierre Malet. Quantity and locality: 10 rods wide to the land granted before on the edge of the St-Pierre river and joining the Saint-Gabriel land. August 25th Grant to Gilbert Barbier. Quantity and locality: 6 arpents near the mountain, joining a property belonging to him. August 25th Grant to François Bailly named Lafleur, mason. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents at the end of Jacques Archambault's land. -32-

August 25th Grant to Claude Robutel de Saint-André Quantity and locality: 24 arpents. Neighbours: Gabriel le Sel named Duclos and Pierre Richomme September 4th Grant to Pierre Lorrain. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the Saint-Joseph region. Neighbour: Henri Perrin. September 4th Grant to Mathurin Thibaudeau. Quantity and locality: 12 arpents in the Saint-Joseph region.

Neighb~ur: Guillaume Estienne. September 26th Grant to Clàude Robutel de Saint-André Quantity and locality: 1 rod wide along the land previously granted to him. October 31st Grant to Marguerite Bourgeois. Quantity and locality: 60 arpents towards the Saint-Joseph lake (Loutre Lake?) Neighbours: Reverend Mothers Hospitalières and Michel Théodore named Gilles, François Roisnet and Michel Louvart named Desjardins. October 31st Grant to Fiacre Ducharne, called Lafontaine. Quantity and locality: 20 rods wide, at the Saint-Pierre meadow. Neighbours: Jean Milot, Jacques LaBer and Marguerite Bourgeois. December 2lst Putting in possession, by the Governor, of a property granted to Charles D'Ailleboust by a mandate of the Montreal Society, dated March 30th., 1653. Quantity and locality: 100 arpents as following: 2 arpents x 29 joining and at the end of Jean Aubuchon and Jacques Picot•s grants, plus one arpent x 14, at the end of Sebastien Audiot's grant; one arpent x 14 at the end of Gilles Lauson's grant, and one arpent x 14 at the end of Honoré Langlois' one. -33-

1663. No grant, Conflict between the Sovereign Council and the lords of Montreal. 1664. January 12th Grant to Mathurin Goyer, named la Violette. Nota: This piece is at the Seminary. January 23rd Grant to Charles Le Moyne. Quantity and locality: A piece of land joining the site that he already owns, to permit him to lengthen his house of 23 reet. May 19th Grant to Lady Catherine Gauchet. Nota: This piece is at the Seminary. June 4th Grant to André Charly. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents joining the property that belongs to him. June 13th Grant to Jean Baudouin. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, under the St-Louis slope. Neighbour: Jean Gervaise. 1665. March 4th Grant to Claude Fézeret. Quantity and locality: 30 reet in a square on the edge of the Commune, to build a house. Neighbours: The Daughters of the Congregation. Nota: On February 15th., 1666, Marguerite Bourgeois gives up for nothing,to the Fézeret widow, 2 feet x t foot of land by 36 long to finish the 36 reet square. April 2nd Grant to Antoine Courtemanche, named Jollycaeur. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, in the place called Saint-Martin, under the little brook. -34-

April 3rd Grant to Antoine Baudry, named Lespinette. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the place called St. Martin. Neighbour: Antoine Courtemanche. April 4th Grant to Pierre Lorrin named Lachapelle. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the place called St. Martin. Neighbour: Antoine Baudry. April 5th Grant to Jean Mée, named du Meslier. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, in the place called St. Martin. Neighbour: Pierre Lorrin. April 6th Grant to Nicolas Giar. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, in the place called Saint Martin. Neighbour: Jean Mée. Nay lst Grant to Simon Cardinal. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, over the St. Pierre river. May 2nd Grant to Suzanne Guillebaut, widow of Claude Fézeret. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, in the place called St. Martin. Neighbour: Jacques Mousseaux. May 2nd Grant to Estienne Campot. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents over the St. Pierre river. Neighbour: Simon Cardinal. May 2nd Grant to Jean Roy. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, over the St. Pierre river. Neighbours: Estienne Campet and Pierre Gadoy's son. May 3rd Grant to Pierre Desotels named Lapointe. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the place called St. Martin. Neighbours: Suzanne Guillebaut, the widow Fézeret and René Fézeret, her son. -35-

May 3rd Grant to Jacques Mouceaux named Laviolette. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents in the place called St. Martin. Neighbours: Suzanne Guillebaut, the Fézeret widow and her son René Fézeret. May 3rd Grant to Elie Joseph Beaujeau. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents, in the place called St. Martin. Neighbour: Estienne Hardouin. May 3rd Grant to Jean Chicot. Quantity and locality: 2 arpents wide, near the St. Pierre river, to the land already granted, plus 4 arpents joining the said grant. Neighbour: Estienne Lair. May 3rd Grant to Pierre Caille, named Larochelle. Quantity and locality: 44 feet x 35 feet in the town. Neighbours: Jean Gervaise and Mrs. Dailleboust. May 3rd Grant to Michel Guibert. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents above the St. Pierre river. Neighbour: Pierre Gadois 1 son. May 9th Grant to Pierre Perusseau. Quantity and locality: 30 arpents above the St. Pierre river. Neighbour: Gabriel LeSel named LaClos. Nota: Mentioned in the Basset Act, February 13th., 1668. -36-

CHAPTER THREE

The Cadastral Division of the Island of Montreal,

Cil The Cadastral Divisions The original aims of the cadastral division in the Province of Québec were to open up the land for settlement, and to secure a system of taxation. In France the need for a universal tax base led to the public registration of land. The Canadian cad­ astre was different, in that investors in the new country had to be given assurances that their real astate was governed by a good system of land registration. This was provided by the Cadastre Law{l), introduced by Sir Georges E. Cartier in 1857, These ordinances were later improved - Chapter 37, sections 68 and following - and were introduced into the Civil Code by article 2166-2167. It was not until November 1866 that any serious actions were taken however. At that time the 1 cadastrage 1 of the County · of Laprairie was begun, and then the Commissioners "repaired to the County of Chambly and subsequently undertook the 'Cadastrage' of the City of Montreal beginning in St. Ann 1 s Ward, Montreal West.n{2) Sainte-Foy(3 ) points out that three of the Commissioners - L.W. Sicotte, M. Blaicklock and M. Lionais - conceived of the

(1) Consolidated Statutes of Lower Canada, Vict 23, Chapter 59, 1857. (2) City Surveyor's Office. Official Book of Reference of the City and PîSish of Montreal Published by L.W. Sicotte, Esq., Advocate. 1 72. p. 3· · (3) La Presse 12 Janvier 19~8 -37-

idea of publishing a complete listing of the owners of land in the City and Parish of Montreal. (l) As Sicotte says: "Maps, plans and books of reference have been prepared with the greatest oare, and for the futur (sic) real astate shall be described by no ether designation than numbered lots. Thus the dangers aris­ ing from the multiplication of mortgages and the subdivisions of 2 land shall be avoided."( ) The listing is a lengthy one and need not concern us here. Instead a list is given (Table Two) of the dates of carrying out the cadastres on the Island of Montreal. {3) This provides the base for further discussion. The Cadastral divisions are shown in Figure 1. This is the key map for the 29 maps that comprise Figure 2. Reference to any one of these 29 maps will be made in the following way: Figure 2 - 1 refers to the map of Cadastral division 1, in the series of Figure 2. The location of each map in Figure 2 is shown on Figure 1. The 29 maps show the original Cadastral divisions. Superimposed on these lots is the extent of the built-up area in 1932 (grey outline) and 1961 (black outline). Throughout the following discussions the directions - north, south, east, and west - will be used in their local connotation. For example, Pointe aux Trembles, is referred to as being loca­ ted at the eastern end of the Island, whereas its •true' loca­ tion would be nearly north.

(1) Sicotte, op, cit. (2) Ibid. p. 3. (3) Archives of the City of Montrea:J,.. "Mise en force des Cadastresn Unpublished manuscript. No date. -38-

TABLE TWO.

Dates of Cada§tral Division on the Island of Montreal.

Ste. Arme District - January 3rd. , 18 70

Montreal West: St. Antoine District - September lst., 1870 Centre District If If If West District lt n If

Montreal East: East District - February 17th., 1870 St. Laurent District - November 4th., 1869 St. Louis District -May 31st., 1870 St. Jacques District - November 2nd., 1870 Ste. Marie District -April lst., 1871

Hochelaga County

Municipality Q! th~ Parish Qf MQntreal - July 15th., 1873

Incorporated village of Hochelaga - November 25th., 1872

u 11 u Côte des Neiges Il Il If

If Il Il Côte St. Louis Il Il fi

Il tl Il Côte-Visitation Il Il tl ft Il Il St. Jean Baptiste - Il Il Il

Pointe aux Trembles Parish -April 30th., 1874 Longue Pointe Parish u tt tt Rivière des Prairies Parish Il Il tl Sault au Récollet Parish fi n -39-

DIVISION DIVISION

MONTREAL MONTREAL

: :

OF OF

T T

1 1

T T

• •

1 1

-

CADASTRAL CADASTRAL

ISLAND ISLAND

:j:.IGUR-"' :j:.IGUR-"'

27 27

. .

26 26

~ ~

_(\ _(\

13 13

• •

Î Î

1 1

-~ -~

\ \ ---- ->+o-

The basis of the cadastral divisions shown in Figure 1 is the 1940 map issued by Ministère des Terres et Forêts, de la Chasse et la Pêche. This map shows the "ancient city of Mon­ trealn without the lot divisions, since most of the area was built up. It has been excluded from this discussion. The boun­ daries of the divisions in most cases follow those of the parish or town shown on the 194o map. In certain cases, however, the boundaries have been redrawn for the purposes of this enquiry. The main consideration has been the direction of the long lots within a cadastral unit. The long lOts facing the river are generally drawn at right angles to the shore, for example at Cartierville and Saraguay (Figure 2 - 5). At the inland limit to the river range, the direction of the long lots may be en­ tirely different. The best example of this is in the western part of the Island between Pierrefonds and Pointe Claire. Figure 2 - 3 shows the north - south direction of long lots facing the Riv­ ière des Prairies, and it may be contrasted to the division immediately to the south, Figure 2 - 23. Here the municipality of Dollard des Ormeaux and the eastern part of the parish of Pointe Claire have a long lot system that has an east - west direction. To the south again in division 18 (Figure 2 - 18), the long lots bordering on Lac St. Louis have a north - south orientation. Thus the cadastral division of Dollard des Ormeaux, Roxboro', and the eastern part of the parish of Pointe Claire (number 23) -41- is made up of one of the cadastral units shown in the 1940 map (Dollard des Ormeaux), and parts of two others. Similarly the central part of the parish of Pointe Claire (with a small part of the parish of Ste. Geniève) is considered another separate division for our purposes (number 22), and the western part of the parish of Pointe Claire is grouped with Ste. Anne parish (number 21). On occasion the parish boundaries eut across long lots, and this is another reason for the redrawing. In the central and eastern parts of the Island the differ­ ence in direction of long lot systems is not as noticeable. It varies between northwest and north. Indeed where the Island narrows at its eastern extremity, the river-fronting long lots meet directly. For example Pointe-aux-Trembles (Figure 2 - 10) impinges directly on the eastern part of Rivière-des-Prairies (Figure 2 - 9). To the west of these two divisions the Island attains enough breadth to warrant the existence of another long lot system. This is division number 29 (Figure 2 - 29), and its slight change in direction may be compared with the situa­ tion to the north (Figure 2 - 8), and to the south (Figure 2 - 11). A distinction may then be made between river long lot systems, and those that lie inland. -42-

. )

'.. -lf L \

•

Figure 2: C'adastrai D.lvlsion . . 1 /

1i I·C , 1 1 :_. -- p .... _ S c.ALC .• 1/30Q<"/. -43-

1 1

1 1 \· 1'--. ~ l 1 1 1 ~> j 1 1 i 1 " ~ _/ /," Lj J 1

•

2: Cadastral Division f Figure f 2 /

5 C.A-LË : '/3-coo • -44-

0 0 0 ,<11

tJ ...!

t 1 1\ \ . -..

s:: 0 ·ri r.JJ •ri :> ·ri Çl uJ ri cù > H +J LJl r.JJ - racù > J1 cù t.JJ 0 u z ~ z /""\ ul 'v .. h- (\j 0 w c2 Q) H cl ;j LU llO l..\1 ·ri t-- r:... C") (j) 0... -45-

Figure 2: Cadastral Division 4

P lf:..R k1 .rOND ~ -46-

•

Figure 2: Cadastr~ Division 5

CC\ i-2-Tl G r--- V 1LL 12.

SA~ AGU,L\Y. 1 1 5C.AL.E : / 3000 • -47-

c ,.; c r"l '

<:: J (F

J'; >:: 0 1- ·ri Ul Lll ·ri ....J :> •ri ___! ~ c .-! m u H .j-) Ul Ci m 'd m u x x v __) .. ~ <1 0J <[ rJ) Wl 1 7 (l) c ~ H ;:J 01 :J" b.J) 1 ·ri \_ -;- <[ r:r., '-0

1 1 1 1 1 1

. ·•t • il --+ :-

2; Cadastral Figure Division ,, 7 \ / -49-

i 1 1 1 i 1 1 --1

1 j 1 1 ,,fi 1 1 .f-t' ___ ..J

Figure 2: Cadastra l Division 1 8 1 ' R_IV ! kRJ-_

• -50- ~

v u- ~ 0 cl •rf U) ·rf ·rf f Ç) - ri cù H +> U) \.. 1 cù ..-a ~ cù 0. u

.. 1 (\] ..... ~

..J_

(j) :_j H ~ b.!J > • •rf Ç:r.. o. -- . .. -51-

< 0 ~ 0 1 '"' \ \ tJ .J

.---- ~ 1.M \--BLJ \ ~

1 ( ~ 1 ~l _ _ji 1 1 / \: r-- L F (- - If_,_ \_ r ~-----

.. C\J ....

(]) H 7 :::l -· - b.D '\ ·ri 0 Çz.. • - -52-

•

Figure 2: Cadastral Division 1 1 \ r f\~ -.."J N r c)_L;_\ \_ -53-

0 c 0 ~

41 ...1

• L ·'v f- 1 -- r ~ "\ u. V• • 1 r:: -.. -- 0 --- > L " ·ri Cf) 1 cl ·ri ....;) p. - ~ ·ri 1- c q 1 ...J L--._,---- LV ri {"\ cU u __, H <>-L +J Cf) --, cU '\j r UJ 1• cU - -· -l ~ u 1 / --..J I L_ 1 :::J u ~ ,- - ~ (\j z 2 ------Lj /\ Q) H - ., l9 ;::s 7 b.D N ~-

0 c ç ~~ ~ 1 w JJ ~ V1 \ ,.-- \ 1 r.' f ...' l - f \('' l}) -·j ~ î J-' ;_.j • J' ~k ~~ 1 ~~ .; o)_ --:~ ~~- tt " l l) .J \t.... 1 ~ ('L. _j -55-

Figure 2: Cadastral Division 1 4 1 1-.)1 1

Sc. A-Le -56-

·.

Figure 2: ~adastral Divisiqn 1 5 1 LASALLk. ScAL& : Y3 ooo -57-

Ir

J Î/~ 1 1 1 1

•

Figure 2 : Ca dastra l Division 1 6 1 LAC~+ I Nf~ -58-

Ftgure 2: Cadastral Division 1 7 1 .- -59-

Figure 2: Cadastral Division / /~ 1 1 8 1

li p.,_) tl k: C'. LA IRJ:~ ScALE : Y~ooo -60-

1! ~1/ .' 1 1 1

Figure 2: Cadastral Division f 1-L 1 9 1

BCACON :).ç: 1h L D S c A L.E : Y3ooo -61-

•

Figure 2 : C adastra l Division 20

----_ T ~-= - 1\ t'-1 L - Df.: - B LL L l_ VLI

1 • - Cl\lr : 3 ooo

1 1

1 1

~ ~ 1\) 1\)

• •

\ \

a a

1 1

3oo

/

1 1

~ ~

1 1

1 1

1 1

·j

1 1

: :

1 1

---

l :

J J

/ /

-

-~~TjJ_ -~~TjJ_

A t

1 1

------

Sc

~

~~' ~~'

'• '•

~

------, ------,

h_~ h_~

__ __

---: ---:

. .

: :

/'"~ /'"~

-

.. ..

......

----

Jf Jf

! !

.__ .__

• •

--~ --~

. .

'-'--

·c ·c

:...::::::_

' '

•

r r

1 1

_ _

._____ ._____

. .

C_AI

~ ~

_ _

' '

1-

-,

1 1

--i--:=_-

--:-

~~NL

;--

1'-JTC 1'-JTC

! !

~'

1\

_/ _/

c)

P

Division Division

=-

: :

-c:--

~, ~,

al

1 1

L/

str

[)})/ [)})/

~T[ ~T[

a

1 1

. .

'/~), '/~),

.

, ,

ad

t~=--~ t~=--~

Dl Dl

!( !(

'1

C

-

1 1

......

y'l y'l ' '

.

l

1 1

i---l i---l

C C

~ ~

. .

<.

-

-

~ ~

~L ~L

--

i-

2: 2:

. .

1 1

C)

IS

., .,

! !

1 1

. .

>

C

.C) .C)

r e

2

r

P

'!-

\ \

igu

2 2 1

F

rA rA P/ -63-

/ l - ~ J ---J ~~ " .. J ·~"'"'":"'""" "'Il:"'::~"':1\"'hiP:: .1 - ~~ .... t'U't. • .:.. M' ... _ • ,., .., ..

., l_

Figure 2: Cadastral Division 2 2

PJ\k' <_"JlSS+- L • / J· L Sct>,LE ·. '/ >oco -64- r 1 i' tr:- ~~______, 1 ,_-m l 1 0

\ \ _/

Î l

)

-- 1 ~·

Figure 2: Cadas tra l Division 2 3

Dt LLA '). 1 1

• -65-

0 0 0 "1

u .J <1; v tl)

l 1 \' ., )\ 1 1- - - JI 1, - i ji---t------1-

~ ~--;~- r"'0!/7 -t 1 • -- ff-·· 1 ~.a r 1 1L- I 1-- { - 1 L 1 ~

J 1

1l ·--· .. L C\J f LI-- Q) H c ;:J 01 bD ·ri • ~ li. N Cl.= -66-

0 0 {j "

IJ _J <1: J t/Î

! . ~..n t •. c 0 _j ·ri ' (/) _) ·ri ' :> ·ri ç:) _"l c..

ri ('j H {. ~ \- (/) Ctl (f: '"Cl Ctl L u

~· (\j ) /"\ Q) l H _.._) ::J Il) 1-1. Ct 0.0 ·ri <"" / Çz.; c--4 r -67-

0 0 a '"

...J \ < 1

/ ~ ' \ ./ .J

!:! /- 0 ·ri Cil ,- ·ri > ,. ·ri ~ ~ - r-1 cO H +> til cO 1-- 'd cO z 0 ~ _l C1 .. :J l C\J • < (1) . .. H ~ r- ~ \/) -68-

c' / '"'

1 1 '-'; u J 1-

1 ./' -69-

, ,, ;n r-

141111 1

1 1 ' 1

;

/

Figure Cadastra l Division 2 8

/

Sc.A-LE- ·• Y3c>OO -?o-

0 0 0 "l

j

1 ;( t t -

1

> '

,..-- '..

·q 1 J 0 •r-f UJ V) •r-f ;:,. Ll! J 1 "r-I -.1 q ! ~ 1

r-f <. qj .._1 .-J. [.:.; 1"- ~ Î UJ cu 1-- 2 '0 ,./ ' cu <-·' tJ /' .c:. j \ ~ (\j ·r fï . !_J f (]) t" 1- ,_,; .;---- [.:.; t; .....-.:. -7 • ~ .._ •r-f () ~ Q -71-

{ii) The Classification of the cadastral divisions, As indicated above, there are some essential differences in the direction of the long lots in thosedivisions bordering in the river, and those that lie inland. The distinction goes beyond this however since the original development of settle­ ment, and the subsequent subdivision of the lots, also differs between the two. In Figure 1, divisions 1 to 20 can be consid­ ered as river long lot systems, numbers 21 to 29 as inland long lot systems. Barkham(l) has outlined the typical development of the range system (see Figure 3). The first line of settlement (Figure 3, stage I) is aligned along the early penetration by the river road, or 'chemin du Roi'. In this way a continuous string of houses faces the river. As the river became of lesser importance for access, and the population increased, a demand for new land resulted in the development of a second road, or 'chemin du rang'. Access between this range road and the river road is provided by the lot roads (stage II). The 'double range' occurs in later stages (III and IV) when further pene­ tration of the hinterland results in the 'back-bushlands' of the ranges becoming joined together. Again a virtually continuous line of farm houses faces the roads, and a distinctive feature of Québec landscape has been established. Because of its island character, Montreal has a ring of

(l) Barkham, B. Development of Land Settlement and Rural Architecture in the Province of Quebec. Unpublished M.Arch. Thesis. McGill University, 1955. -72-

, \ ç-·. · •.• ~

I

.. "" "' ...... JI.

j . ·· .... -)

/(1 v E.l( ][ -.

' ·.

- .

-. , ' . - . . . -~ - . - . - ~...... - ...... J ·.~·)

.1

TYPIGAL- Df:VELOPMG.NI OF SYSTE.M -73-

river range systems of long lots skirting it. The 'chemins du Roi' completely encircle the Island: Notre Dame Street used to be Chemin Hochelaga, and Chemin Ste. Geneviève has become Gouin Boulevard. Maps 1 to 20 in Figure 2 have similar characteristics. Lots are roughly perpendicular to the river frontage, and in general they are smaller in size than the inland lots. The question of size of lot is a difficult one however. A random selection of areas was taken and the lots measured gave a typical result, as follows: in division number 6(Figure 2 - 6) a part of the western area, measuring 270 acres, had 30 lots - an average size of 9 acres. At the'eastern end of this division, an area of 300 acres had 6 lots - an average of 50 acres. The inland situation is sean in the western part of division number 23(Figure 2 - 23), which has an area of 1325 acres with 24 lots - an average of 55 acres. The resulting picture is a complex one. River systems may contain large lots, but in general the lots are smaller in size; inland systems may contain small lots, but generally they are larger than the average lot size in the river range. The smaller size of the river lots may be due to their earlier development, and to the fact that demand for land is greatest along the 'Chemin du Roi'. The inland lot systems on the Island of Montreal are shown in Figure 2, maps 21 to 29. They have one or more range roads, and are linked to the river roads by lot roads. For example in the western part of the Island, Chemin de la Côte Ste. Marie (present-day Ste. Marie Road) is the range road, and the lot -7~-

road - Montée Ste. Charles (St. Charles Road) - provides access to the 'Chemins du Roi' on the north and south shores. The junction of range and lot roads provided, in this case, the nucleus of any further development. The question of the sub­ sequent subdivision of the long lots for urban uses may now be discussed. PART TWO

P A T T· E R N S 0 F L A N D S U B D I V I S I 0 N

AND URBAN GROWTH -75-

CHAPTER FOUR.

The Subdivision of Long Lots.

An urban area grows mainly by lateral extension of its residential area. Thus on the outer fringes of the built-up land one can find farmland in use, or lying idle under specula­ tion. The original system of land subdivision - the long lots - establishes the framework for residential expansion, since the builder has to buy the land in these original parcels. The man­ ner in which urban growth has been accommodated within the long lot system may now be examined in greater detail. The discussion in this chapter is a general one, and serves as the basis of the investigation into urban growth and land subdivision on the Island of Montreal. Three major types of lot subdivision have been distinguished: (i) the regular, unplanned penetration, (11) planned long lots, and (iii) the comprehensive plan for a larger number of lots. (1) The unplanned penetration of the long lots by urban developments is the regular, or most common, form of residential extension. In the case of the river-fronting long lots, growth primarily takes the form of an expansion in housing along the lot roads, as in stage II of Figure 4. The nucleus, then, is at the junction of the lot road and the 'chemin du Roi'. Later growth (stage III) takes the form of fingers of urban use pro­ jecting into the rural landscape. An example of this is seen in Figure 5, and its location is -76-

ltlvE.R

I

1

RIIIS.I{ ------::::,.-

CHI&"ftN .Lw llo 1 J 1[

l

l-OT (I(ORD

][

L..OT RO~()

J="I~UR..E 4

DE.VE LO PME:NI U12.e,AN U5E. IN A R1VEI2. i"ANGE.

- 77 - -78-

at Rivière des Prairies(West) (See Figure 2 -8). The 'Chemin du Roi' is seen clearly at the top of the photograph, and the lot road joins it at the early nucleus of the village(Figure 2 - 8). The general impression from this is that development has been piecemeal; that there is no overall evidence of any attempt at subdividing the long lots with respect to the future linking of the 'fingers'; the general form of development is in an elongated grid, with the access roads in most cases leading back to the chemin; that undeveloped land between thè housing areas may lie idle, or it may be farmed. The influence of the long lot system in this situation is very striking, and the developers have been forced to stay within the rigid framework of the lots. There is no evidence of the desire to control such sporadic growth. Development of the inland lot systems differs in its initial nuclei of settlement. Figure 6 shows four possible variations on the theme: the nucleus is at the junction of the range road and the lot road. One immediate consequence of the inland posi­ tion is that further developments can take place in any direction. Two photographs are included that show stages in the development of inland lot subdivisions. Figure 7 shows the earliest stage of nucleation. It is taken in the western part of the Island in the parish of Pointe Claire (Central) (see Figure 2 - 22). The north-south road is Montée St. Charles, and the junction is with the eastern end of Chemin -79-

FIC.U~E 6

NUCLEUS T'-IE IN LAND Fa-ANGES

-81-

de la Côte Ste. Marie. Farm houses front on the roads, but at the junction the nucleus of further urban development is seen in the greater density of housing. Figure 8 shows well the im­ portant nucleation effect of range and lot roads. This is at St. Martin on Ile Jesus, and although the overall plan shape of the town is different from the river developments, there are some similarities. The extension of the urban area is again piace­ meal - for example, the penetration into the two long lots to the north-west. One can also find lots in agricultural use, or lying idle, between fingers of urban development. In the oase of Riv­ ière des Prairie we saw that the 'fingers' of residential exten­ sion were of necessity away from the Chemin and the river, but in the inland situation these 1fingers 1 can extend in any direction. Again, the form of development has been guided by the framework of long lots, and there is no evidence of planning. The general effects of the long lots upon land subdivision, when there is no evidence of planning, is shown in diagrammatic form in Figure 9. Spence-Sales has pointed out the essential features:(l) "As urban growth expands outwards the agricultural use of the land begins to change. At first the farmer finds it profitable to sell small parcels of his land to builders, without wholly upsetting the economy of his farm. Ultimately a point is reached at which his land has no further agricultural value. In very few cases indeed is a farm purchased as a whole for

(1) Spence-Sales. H. How to Subdivide. Community Planning Association of Canada. 1950. p. 3· - 82- -83-

~:. .:Y.: .- .--. ··~· :: .··.0: &&.15H ...... - . • • ,c ~<· :. ~ 0 : 1 • . . . . 'c: ,:. ·.:_t~~ . HDT #JilfLT

• :l::::j... hollf(elloi"'L. ST~-TS

1 C~f,..IN -~=====:

1L :m.

$0&.0. ~D 11<1 1

LOT PA~TL..Y S.UBDIVI DED IC A-TTENUAT~l>

OF LON<; U PON LAND SUBr:>IVI$10N -84-

subdivision purposes. As a rule development takes place in the form of a gradual penetration into farmland ••••••••• the ulti­ mate pattern is one of long rows of development extending far back from the frontage road and reaching the opposite boundary of the enclosure ••••••• so long as development penetrates bit by bit within individual farm fields, a gridiron pattern is in­ evitable.11 (11) Planned long lots have the same base as the subdivi­ sions referred to above as 'unplanned penetration'. The striking difference visually is found in their street pattern, with its freer form and greater amount of open space. The real differ­ ence, of course, is found in the conception of the subdivision, where the developer bas employed an architect or a planner with definite aims at providing a planned environment. Figure 10 shows an early stage in the development of a planned subdivision in Beaconsfield. It is located between Beaconsfield Boulevard and the Ste. Ann 1 s Highway, with a connec­ ting road (Lakeview Boulevard) between them. The photograph shows the street pattern at this stage of development: later, another •square cul-de-sac• was added nearer to the Highway. These dis­ tinctive squares are called locally •crescent• and 'court•, and the siting of individual houses around them can also be seen. A small park was added immediately south of the Highway, when the development was completed. It has been designed to form a more comprehensive unit within three long lots - an area of 121 acres. Even so, as with all planned long lots, the difficulty of - 85- -86-

designing within a small number of lots reduces the potential effectiveness of a planned subdivision, and one finds this poten­ tially only in the larger comprehensive plans. A larger number of lots were available to the planner in the case of one subdivision in the city of St. Laurent - see Figure 11. This is located between O'Brien Boulevard which runs north­ south to the right of the photograph, and Laurentian Boulevard. Beth of these are on the periphery of the area, so that there is relatively little danger from traffic. The street plan is also noticeably different from the regular subdivision - compare with lower right of photograph. It involved six lots and is more com­ pact than the first example - its area is slightly larger at 130 acres - and accordingly the design reflects the larger unit. Four culs-de-sac elaborate on the semicircular design, and each has a small park area. Immediately to the south of the develop­ ment another park is found. The two large buildings seen in the centre of the area are schools. To the east of this development, another planned subdivision was being made at the time the photo­ graph was taken (April, 1954). However, these two are not linked organically into one plan, as all the land was not available to

~ developer, and the city had not laid out a master plan to guide developers within any one unit of lots. This is the essen­ tial difference between the planned long lots and the comprehen­ sively planned area. A final example may be taken of planned long lots. It is the Sunny Acres development, located in Baie d'Urfé, and local - 87- -88- knowledge(l) of this area gives a better insight into the aims of a developer who wishes to plan his subdivision. The land, bought by Mr. R. E. Connolly in 1950, was a plot of 66 acres - two long lots of the southern part of Vallee's farm. Connolly asked John Bland, an architect who was engaged in drawing up a master plan and zoning by-law schema for Baie d'Urfé at the time, to design a subdivision plan that would measure up to the future demands of the municipality. Figure 12 shows the final plan as drawn up by Bland. Connolly had some ideas of the type of development he wished to pursue from experience in Levittown, Long Island. The plan's winding streets, cul-de-sac, and open spaces fit into these ideas, and to the zoning laws - 15,000 square feet as a minimum lot size with a frontage of 100 to 120 feet. From 1950 to 1952, Connolly sold 38 of the lots(see Figure 12), developed two of the park areas, and built fifteen houses. For financial reasons he then sold the rest of the subdivision to the Argus Development Corpora­ tion. Thus, even with planned long lots, the ownership of parts of the unit may change. The differences here, compared to the 'unplanned penetration' is that the basic street plan, lot size, frontage etc., has already been fully worked out. Development then can hardly be said to be peicemeal, and the element of con­ trol is very strong.

(1) Bridger, M.K. Urban Change and Deyelopment: Sunpy Acres, a suburpan housing development. Unpublished essay. McGill University. 1963. -89-

2 t 0 LV i= r- ~ (/) ~ 0 0 )- 1- ~ tl If) >- 0 .J ~ \J .J 1) <{ 0 1- ~ .J a ca ~ cf} > t >- ~ \- 0 ..J 2 0 0 I J .J 0 a () ~ z > _j 2 0 tll ~ o. .J Q .J 0 0 0 \J .r. t/1 0 :l 0) t/1 \Il "' 1- ~ 0 ~ • z Al rL ~ <{ ~" 0 _j

0 ~ lU ~

z I si-

~ UJ 2 ~ 0 _j ~ ~

('! o. ùJ 7.. ~ z ::J ~ ..1 "u. (l. -90-

(iii) The Comprehensive plan involves a larger number of lots, and the conception - as viewed for the purposes of this essay - is also on a larger saale. In fact there are only two areas considred as comprehensively planned, in this respect, on the Island of Montreal. These are the Town of Mount Royal, and Ville d'Anjou. Certain other areas, notably Pierrefonds, also have sorne elements of a comprehensive outlook on planned develop­ ment. For survey purposes the extent of urban growth is consid­ ered up to 1961 only (see Chapter 5), and only the Town of Mount Royal and Ville d'Anjou had reached a sufficiently advanced stage of development to be considred as units of comprehensive planning. The Town of Mount Royal was designed by F.G. Todd, and was incorporated in 1912. The unit of land (in the residential area) comprised 26 long lots - 1292 acres - and was originally pur­ chased by the Great Northern Railway. The town grew in fact from the station outwards, but followed the lines laid down by Todd. Essentially this is a formal symmetrical pattern, with diagonal boulevards to the town centre (see Chapter 5 for plan). There are 35 acres of public open space, but the spacious gardens and landscaping give an impression of a typical 1 garden city'. Ville d'Anjou did not start from absolutely undeveloped land as did the Town of Mount Royal. Before incorporation in 1956, it was mainly a farming area with about 750 people. Some •unplanned' penetration' had taken place in the eastern part of the area, but the major development stands out in contrast to this - see Figure 13. The area under development shown in Figure 13 - taken in - 91 - -92-

1959 - was some 300 acres. The outline of the future extension to the north, and its lack of conformity to the existing long lot system is easily seen in the photograph. It was designed by C.E. Campeau, and according to Kentridge(l) it shows sorne of the better features of modern town planning: "The town bas been laid out in such a way that main traffic arteries do not penetrate residential areas. These traffic routes are on the periphery. In the town itself a logical gradation of roads according to traffic volumes has been achieved." In general the comprehensive plan covers a larger area than other types of subdivision. There can therefore be a greater con­ cern for a complete master plan of the whole area, and any devel­ opments within the municipality have to correspond to the master plan and zoning regulations. Provision may be made for schools, public open spaces, a town centre for shopping and administrative purposes, complete schemas for sewerage disposa! and water supply - in fact for all of the basic aims of planning, that are also round on a smaller scale in the planned long lots. In the com­ prehensive plan, a large unit area of land has to be available, and in this way it differs from the planned long lot since they may have to base their design on the necessity to link up with the existing system of roads. In this chapter three types of subdivision of the long lots have been described. The aim of

(1) Kentridge, Leon R. A Suryey of New Towns about Metropolitan areas, with special reference to Montreal. Unpublished M. Arch. thesis. McGill University 1961. p. 179. -~-

this investigation is to discover the basic patterns of land subdivision, and to see how these fit into patterns of urban growth on the Island of Montreal. The distinction between 'unplanned penetration•, 'planned long lots', and 'comprehensive plans' has been established. The part that each of these types of land subdivision has played in the patterns of urban growth on the Island of Montreal, for the years 1932 to 1961, may now be considered. -94-

CHAPTER FIVE

Urban growth on the Island of Montreal,

The analysis of urban growth on the Island follows that of a recent study by the City Planning Department(l), in its base (2) maps and definitions. Maps have been drawn to show the ex- tant of the urbanized area in 1932, 1952 and 1961. The follow­ ing definition of urban development is given: ••••• The area of land devoted to residential, commercial, industrial, or recrea­ tional functions, and it includes parks, golf courses, quarries, and cemeteries, transportation facilities, airports, and roads and streets in developed areas. The areas of developed urban land were measured by planimeter. In order to make the analysis of urban growth more meaningful, the Island has been divided into three groups of municipalities. These are the Central Eleven (11 municipalities), Island West (19 municipalities), and Island East (6 munieipalities). They are shown in Figure 14, and the munieipalities that make up each of the groups are listed as Table 3. For the purposes of this essay these groupings are referred to as Central, West and East, respectively.

(1) City Planning Department, The Rate of U~ban D~v§1opment, t952 - 19~~· Bulletin Technique Number • Unpublished March 19 ) • (2) Series of three maps: L nd for Urban Pu ose - 1 2, 1952, and 1961. City Planning Dept. Nov. 19 2. Figures 15, 17 and 20). -95'-

1.... ·, / g"' 1./.._

,

( en Lu t- ....J ~ u z => l: lL. lL. 0 0 c z .. Cf) <{ a.. _j -.r => Cf) ex:0 ~ w :r. Ill w 1- rl w J ex: r z ~ u."- t- 0 -96-

TABLE THREE

GROUPS OF MUNICIPALITIES

I. CENTRAL Montréal Côte Saint-Luc Ou tremont Montréal-Ouest Westmount Saint-Pierre Mont-Royal Saint-Michel Hampstead Saint-Jean-de-Dieu Verdun II. WEST Senneville Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Pierrefonds Sainte-Anne-du-Bout-de-I'lle Kirkland Baie d'Urfé Beaconsfield Sainte-Geneviève Roxboro' Ile Bizard Dorval Dollard-des-Ormeaux Sara guay Pointe-Claire Lachine Saint-Laurent Ile Dorval Notre-Dame-de-Liesse Lasalle III. EAST Montréal-Est Pointe-aux-Trembles Anjou Rivière-des-Prairies Montréal-Nord Saint-Léonard-de-Port-Maurice -97-

(i) hand Subdivision in 1932 The extent of urbanized land isshown in Figure 15, with planned areas in red. An examination of the pattern of urban development reveals its basic structure. The most urbanized area is the nucleus of the present-day metropolitan region - the City of Montreal. From this highly developed area the urbanized land can be described as falling into three basic patterns. To the west there is a line of settlement stretching along the 'Chemin du Roi' bordering Lac St. Louis. It is not a contin­ uous line, and although there is sorne penetration inland away from the chemin, the overall pattern is one of scattered develop­ ment. A second line stretches away from the nucleus to the east, following the line of the old Chemin Hochelaga. Urban develop­ ment in this direction is limited to a greater extent than to the west. Both have the same structural features however. The third element in the pattern is along the northern 'Chemin du Roi', facing the Rivière des Prairies. Again it is limited in extent, and it centres on the junction of the chemin with the most important lot road leading to the City of Montréal - Montée St. Laurent. The developments spread out (east and west of this junction) to an equal extent, but they do not penetrate far inland. Most of the unurbanized land is found in the western and eastern parts of the Island, but the link between the nucleus and the northern chemin developments is a narrow one. The basic structure of the area then is easily recognized in Figure 15: -98- 1 l

'

NCN1962

I'C)NTrtt.Al.

·

4

96

1

1

~$ML

AIII'Y

KR'J'C[

rtaiW

DA,ot.'l')l

50UAC[

QtJ[

1932

LAND

_

~

_..

15"

~

~

..

.

---;-:

'

0 .

.~

r-'

,'

-

m:

-~

'

~

~

~"'-·

•:l';

;>

RBANIZED

U

...... 'LI'

.I=IGURk:..

{

-

'-----:...- -99-

the nucleus has developed and spread out along linas established in the original cadastral division of the Island. In other words, apart from the City of Montreal, the main elements in the pattern of the urbanized area are linas given by chemins, with some con­ nections given by the lot roads. This description is borne out by the data presented in Table 4. The Central area has 35% of the total land area on the Island, but nearly 78% of the total developed land area; in comparison the West has 46% of the total, but only 17% of the developed land area, and in the East the figures are 19% and 5% respectively. Even so only 24% of the total area had been developed for urban purposes in 1932. In comparison, over one half of the land in the Central area had been developed in this way. Table 4 also gives data in the extent of planned areas on the Island. As can be seen, only 717.7 acres were planned and developed in 1932 - a meagre 2.4% of the total developed land area. The West had all planned long lot areas - 327.6 acres - and the Central area had all the comprehensive planned area (Town of Mount Royal) - 390.1 acres built up in 1932. Thus, with respect to total developed land area, even at this early date the West had the largest share (6.4%). The location of these planned areas is shown in red in Figure 15. Since such a small area of actual planned subdivision is evident in 1932, can we say that this figure, subtracted from the total developed land area, will give us 1unplanned 1 land? TABLE FOUR Urbanized area in 19~2. (acres)

Island of Montreal Central West East 1. TOTALAREA 121,700 42,700 56,000 . 23,000 %of area 100.0 35.1 46.0 18.9

2. Developed land 29,586 23,061 5,098 1,427 %of total area 24.3 54.0 9.1 6.2 1 1-1 0 %of total developed land area 100.0 77-9 17.2 4.9 0 1 3. Planned long lots 327.6 o.o 327.6 o.o %of developed land area 1.1 o.o 6.4 . o.o

4. Comprehensive Planned area 390.1 390.1 o.o o.o %of develoned land area 1.3 1.7 o.o o.o

5. Total planned area 717.7 390.1 327.6 o.o % total developed land area 2.4 1.7 6.4 o.o

Sources: 1 and 2: PlanninP Denartment of Montreal. 3, 4 and 5: Personal Survey. -101-

Unfortunately we cannot make such a straight-forward deduction at this time. Suffice it to say that the majority of residential developments in 1932 that were not planned, were the result of speculative penetration into the long lot system. or greater significance is the fact that we shall use the 1932 map as the basis for measuring changes in the elements of the pattern of land subdivision. In this way sorne estimates of the importance of the planning of subdivisions, as compared to unplanned pene­ tration in the last thirty years, can be made. Since the 'unplanned' developments in the pattern of urban­ ized area form such a large element in the total picture, it would appear important that these be described with several examples. As indicated in Chapter Four (i) above, however, these areas have a remarkable similarity in such features as the attenuated nature of the street 1 grid-iron', the lack of provision for public open space, the piecemeal and sporadic nature of such development, etc. Such descriptiqns might only vary in pointing out the different patterns that can result when two long lot systems, different in direction, meet and are devel­ oped. Such an example might be taken from Figure 2 - 14, where the street orientation is changed through nearly 90° in that part of Montreal just north of the Aqueduct at Verdun. The sub­ sequent description for 1932, 1952 and 1961 would therefore be very repetitive, and it is not carried out here. The planned subdivisions are more important for this inves­ tigation, though they occupy such a small part of the total -102-

developed area. Figure 16 shows the planned subdivisions that were built up in 1932, and their location can be traced back to figure 15. Each of the areas in Figure 16 also shows the origi­ nal number of lots that were used in the subdivision. Informa­ tion given at the end of this, and the subsequent two sections, enables the reader to place these lots in the context of the cadastral divisions given above as Figure 2, and serves as a key to the diagrams. The three planned long lots have a total area of 327.6 acres, and they are all located in the West. They were all designed for a unit of two long lots, and show some interesting variations in street plan. This ranges from the cul-de-sac pattern of 16(a), the crescents, winding roads and diamond­ shaped enclosures of 16(b), to circular enclosures and creseents of 16(e). All show a conseious desire on the part of the devel­ oper to create a more pleasant residential environment - for example in the provision of public open space, the interesting siting of cul-de-sac housing, or the different vistas obtained in a winding road. The comprehensive plan of the Town of Mount Royal (Figure 16(d)) is shown at an early stage of development. Two of the diagonal boulevards are nearly completed, as well as the centre of the Town around the railway station. The pattern is basic­ ally a grid, but the imposition of diagonals naturally causes some adjustments in the street plan. Of the total 1292 acres in the residential part of the municipality, some 390 acres -103-

(a) ( b) ( c )

PLA-NN~D LONG LOT5

• ( d.. )

COM PJ:U:.w.t.NSIVE PLANNI,;.D AR.k.A

F I GUQ..t. 16

PLAt'J N .b.D SUBDIVIS IO NS IN \9 32. -104-

KEY TO FIGURE 16

F ots 2

(a) 84.7 2 2 - 19 Beaconsfie1d (b) 146.4 2 2 - 17 Dorval (c) 96.5' 2 2 - 17 Dorval (d) 390.1 2 2 - 26,27 Town of Mount Royal -105-

were completed in 1932. Thus in 1932, although the actual area in planned subdivi­ sions was small, at least sorne start had been made. The compre­ hensive unit of the Town of Mount Royal served as an example to many subdividers, and must be considered a very important plan in the evolution of land subdivision on the Island. -106-

{11) Lana Subdivision in 1952. The urbanized area increased by one half again from 1932 to 1952. The resulting pattern is shown in Figure 17, with planned areas shown in blue. Although there is a notable lateral expan­ sion of the central area the basic structure in the pattern that was noted above still is evident. Again there are three main elements outside the nucleus. The development along the northern chemin has become wider in extent away from the river, but it has not spread noticeably to the east and west. There is some urban development to the west at Roxboro' and Pierrefonds, and some to the east at Riv­ ière des Prairies. This is scattered and discontinuous, and is not joined to the main block of urban land which has its nucleus at the junction of the chemin and Montée St. Laurent. This 'block' is comprised of Cartierville, Bordeaux, Ahuntsic and part of Montreal Nord. The expansion of Ville St. Laurent has resulted in the virtual connection of another part of this nor­ thern area with the nucleus. In this way the importance of Mon­ tée St. Laurent as the main link between the urbanized area of the north and the nucleus has been diminished. The western element now has a nearly continuous line of settlement along the lakeshore chemin. In this area it seems that the joining up of the urban developments has been more sig­ nificant than inland penetration, although typical 1fingers 1 of development are still a noticeable feature. Also noteworthy is the fact that the degree of infilling increases as one approaches -107-

t011962 t011962

r[~19W r[~19W

D'YIŒ~4Î'toeOfrrmllllAL D'YIŒ~4Î'toeOfrrmllllAL

JalWH JalWH

.SOURC[ .SOURC[

t».Tt. t».Tt.

1952 1952

LAND LAND

~ ~

17 17

_, _,

-

0 0

-

til til

VI VI

1 1

ltS2 ltS2

0 0

t t

tOGO tOGO

T T

URBANIZED URBANIZED

FIGU~ FIGU~

ri~ ri~

MIUI MIUI

- - -108-

the Centre. The eastern chemin is now joined up to the nucleus com­ pletely, and the line of urbanized land extends to the most eas­ tern part of the Island. Again there has been a certain amount of infilling which increases towards the city, but the penetra­ tion into the long lots seems to be more prevalent here than along the western chemin. The nucleus itself has expanded out to meet the three main lines of urbanized land. It is still the most powerful force in the overall pattern of urban growth, and its extension tends to mask the original structural elements. The largest area of unurbanized land near the Centre is located between the northern chemin, Montée St. Laurent, and the growing towns of Mount Royal and St. Laurent. The western and eastern parts of the Island still have the largest areas of undeveloped land. Measurement of the extent and nature of the urbanized land have been made for 1952, and are presented in Table 5. The Is­ land now has nearly 45,000 acres of urbanized land - sorne 37% of the total area. The Central municipalities are still most impor­ tant in this respect, with over 68% of the developed land area. The figures for the planned subdivisions show a noticeable in­ crease, but as can be seen from Table 5, the total planned area was only 4.6% of the total developed area for the whole Island. In the west, again, the proportion was higher at 7-3%. The changes can now be estimated on a sound basis - using the 1932 map. These are presented in Table 6. The highest TABLE FIVE Urbanized area ~in 1952 ((âcres)

Island of Montreal Central West East

1. TOTALAREA 121,700 42,700 56,000 23,000 %of area 100.0 35.1 46.0 18.9

2. Developed land 44,800 30,800 9,600 4,400

1 %of total area 36.8 72.0 17.1 19.2

1 %of total developed land area 100.0 68.7 21.4 9.9 ,...., 0 'Ü 1 3. Planned< long lots 1,275.8 579.8 696.0 o.o % of developed land area 2.8 1.9 7.3 o.o

4. Comprehensive Planned area 800.0 8oo.o o.o o.o %of developed land area 1.8 2.6 0.0 o.o

5. Total planned area 2,075.8 1,379.8 696.0 o.o %of total developed land area 4.6 4.5 7-3 o.o

---·-·········-·---·-··- Sources: 1 and 2: Planning Department of 11ontreal 3,4 and 5: Personal survey. -110-

growth in land deve1oped for urban purposes was in the East, with over 208% increase from 1932 to 1952. But, as one may note from Figure 17, there are no p1anned subdivisions here, so that the inerease of 2973 acres a11 occurred as 'unplanned penetration'. In the Central area and West, however, the position is not as serious with regard to planned areas. The Central municipalities increased by 7739 acres from 1932 to 1952, an increase of 33.6%. Of this 989.7 acres were planned subdivisions, and over half of this amount was in long lots (Table 6). The developed part of the Town of Mount Royal (com­ prehensively planned) doubled in extent. 12.8% of the total change in the urbanized area in the Central part of the Island, was due to planned subdivisions - most of which was due to the great increase in planned long lots. More important, over 87% of the increase in the total developed area was due to unplanned penetration. This is, however, the lowest proportion due to un­ planned growth on the Island. In the West for example, nearly 92% of the increase in the total developed area was due to unplanned penetration. This is partly due to the lack of any comprehensively planned area here. Viewed as a whole, the change in the area that was planned from 1932 to 1952, was quite remarkable. Planned long lots, for ex­ ample, increased by over 289%, although their contribution to the total change was only 6.2%. For the Island as a whole, 91.1% of the change in the urbanized area from 1932 to 1952, was due to unplanned penetration. TABLE SIX Changes in Urbanized area 1932 - 1952 (acres)

Island of Montreal Central West East

1. Developed land 15',214 7,739 4,502 2, 973

%change 5'1.4 33.6 88.3 208.3

2. Planned long lots 948.2 5'79.8 368.4 o.o

%change 289.4 112.5' o.o 1 - J--1 J--1 J--1 % change due to planned long lots 6.2 7.5' 8.2 o.o 1

3. Comprehensive planned area 409.9 409.9 o.o o.o % change 105'.1 105'.1 o.o o.o % change due to comprehensive plans 2.7 5.3 o.o o.o

4. Unplanned lots 13,85'5.9 6,749.3 4,133.6 2,973 % change due to unp1anned lots 91.1 87.2 91.8 100.0 > l Sources: 1 : Planning Department of Montreal. 2,3 and 4 : Personal Survey. -112-

Figures 18 and 19 show the subdivisions that had been planned as units between 1932 and 1952. Again a key table follows these in the text. The Town of Mount Royal (18 - g) shows at this stage further elements in its comprehensive plan. The area to the south and east of the Town centre has filled up, and the four di­ agonals are now evident. Some Boo of the 1292 acres in the resi­ dential part of the Town had now been developed. All other subdivisions shown in Figures 18 and 19 are exam­ ples of planned long lots. There are severa! noteworthy features similar to those planned long lots discussed above in the first section. 18(a) for example shows the enclosure created by oper­ ating within a single lot of only 53 acres, whilst an increase in size to 70 acres(with a greater degree of compaction in the unit of two lots) resulted in the different pattern seen in 18(c). Both of these and 18(b) are in Pointe Claire. The latter is an interesting example of planning for a specifie purpose - in this case the two long lots were bought for building houses for Veterans. The very open street pattern, with five culs-de-sac and a park area, results in a low density of housing. Two subdivisions incorporate planning principles developed by Clarence Stein: 18(d) - Crawford Park, Verdun, and 19(c) - Cité Jardin, Montreal. Stein developed his ideas of the 'superblock' with reference to Radburn, New Jersey, in 1928. His principles of the segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic by means of a system of culs-de-sac, with parkways -113-

r r~cuJ rl ! ~ · ...____ -

(a.) lb) ( c )

( d.. ) C..e)

PLANNE."O LONC> I...OTô r 1 1 '

COM PR..E.l-H:: NSI VE... PLANNE.D

ç:: 1GURt: IS SC-A-LE·. 1/3000

PLANNf:D SUBDIVISIONS IN 1952 -114-

( ~) ( b ) ( c )

PLANN~D LONG LOTS

F I GURE 19

PLANN.Ç"_D SUBDIVIS IONS IN 1952. -115-

KEY TO FIGURES 18 and 19.

ots No. of Fi 2 (a) 53.4 1 2 - 18 Pointe Claire (b) 115.0 2 2 - 23 Pointe Claire (c) 70.0 2 2 - 18 Pointe Claire (d) 82.0 1 2 - 14 Verdun (e) 8;.; 2 2 - 13 Cote St. Luc Montreal West (f) 130.0 6 2 - 26 St. Laurent

(g) 8oo.o 26 2 - 26,27 ~o~ofoya Mount

(a) 220.0 9 2 - 13 Hampstead (b) 106.0 6 2 - 27 Montreal (c) 86.0 5 2 - 12 Montreal -116-

leading to common open space, has become known as the "Radburn superblockn. Of the two examples here, Cité Jardin probably suceeds to a greater degree in attempting to develop Stein's ideas. Although the subdivisions are approximately the same size, Cité Jardin has seven culs-de-sac, which allow a larger common parkway area. We may note that both do, in fact, fall short of Stein's original conception in that some 'ordinary' roads are found in the plan, and there is no large periphery road ali around the development. This was intended by Stein to keep traffic away from the superblock, and in these two cases this was achieved by other routes which already existed. Apart from these considerations, Crawford Park and Cité Jardin are the two outstanding examples on the Island of an attempt at develop­ ment based on certain planning theories - in this case, the segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic that was achieved in the Radburn superblock. In comparison, most of the other developments, except the Town of Mount Royal, certainly are planned 1departures' from the traditional grid-plan, but they do not show to the same degree such concern for planning principles. The other examples shown here(Figures 18- e,f, 19- a,b) similarly show a concern for those features of planned long lots that were noted above: public open spaces; a street pattern that was developed with as great a degree of sophistication as possi­ ble within the confines of a given number of lots; the winding streets affording greater opportunity for a pleasing environment -117-

with different vistas, and a flexibility in the siting of houses within the plan. Figure 18(f) has also been described as Figure 11. We have seen that the position as regards planned subdivi­ sions within the urban growth area, had changed substantially since 1932. The area which was planned had increased by 289%, but even so only 4.6% of the total urbanized area was developed in this way. The West had the greatest proportion(7.3%) of its urbanized area in planned subdivisions, but the greatest increase had taken place in the Central area. This compared to the area of greatest actual urban growth - the East - which had no planned areas by 1952. The average size of the area taken up for planning purposes actually decreased slightly over the twenty-year period (109 acres in 1932, compared to 105 acres in 1952), but a noticeable trend from the key to Figures 18 and 19 is the larger number of lots that are being encompassed within any one planned subdivision. -118-

(iii) Land Subdivision in 1961. Between 1952 and 1961, a much shorter time period, the urbanized area again increased by nearly one half, so that in 19.61 over 54% of the total Island area was used for urban pur­ poses. Figure 20 shows the resulting pattern of urban land in 1961, with the planned areas indicated by their respective col­ ours. Immediately noticeable is the increased number of links between the 'northern chemin' area and the nucleus - caused by the rapid growth of Ville St. Laurent, St. Michel and Montreal Nord. In fact the northern element in the pattern is now best rep­ resented in its eastern and western extensions. In the western part the line of urbanized land is continuous around St. Geneviève and Pierrefonds, along the chemin facing the Rivière des Prairies and Ile Bizard. Nearer the main built-up area, large develop­ ments sueh as those at Pierrefonds, Roxboro' and Dollard-des­ Ormeaux, serve to create the impression of a completely contin­ uous line of development. To the east the line of urbanized land is also nearly continuous, but is more attenuated inland with 1 fingers• of penetration. The central part of the 'northern chemin' is now almost non-existent as an entity separate from the nucleus. The •western chemin' is now continuous all the way to Ste. Anne de Bellevue. The infilling and backfilling of this area has proceeded extensively, especially in Baie d'Urfé and Beaconsfield. The greatest degree of inland penetration is round at Pointe -119- 1

1

J

''llu1

.._..

•

-

,a.

~,Tq~

œ

u

<~

·

.tJh .

u

&R

5LR'Ict

n

~

~·-w~ qtf~

VRC.[

,

SO

t»!L

------

•

1961

LAND

:

2.0

tan

r.._

ao

c -

2

1

0

e c

5

lill

9 3 2

VJ

9

9 6

td

1

1

1

o

fti'

1

Gll

GUR..~

1

1 1

t!t

..

URBANIZED

W

rrr'

F-1

'

--

..

H -120-

Claire. Undoubtedly this is due mainly to the existence of a large industrial park here, and to the future completion of the Trans-Canada Highway. For this discussion, however, it seems that there may be some degree of similarity between the situation at this point, and that existing earlier when Montée St. Laurent linked the nucleus and the 1 northern chemin'. In Pointe Claire,

Montée St. Jean lin~s the municipality with Pierrefonds, and it 1s interesting to think that this link may become one of the major structural elements in future urban development of the western part of the Island. Dorval and Lachine, as well as most of LaSalle, have now become joined to the main body of urbanized land extending from the nucleus. In a similar way the extension of urbanized land in the 'eastern chemin' has proceeded rapidly, and again the amount of infilling increased nearer to the nucleus. The nucleus itself has expanded so rapidly that such an area as the Town of Mount Royal, which could still look northward to undeveloped land in 1952, is now almost completely surrounded by the urbanized area. The unurbanized land in the eastern part of the Island again appears to surfer more from 'unplanned penetration' compared to the West. In the latter area, however, there are larger scale developments in inland situations, as well as numerous small parcels of urban land. 'Fingers' of penetration are not entirely absent from the western area, an indication of the continuing influence of the long lot system since the area under planned -121-

control here is greater than elsewhere(see Figure 20). The reatures of the situation in 1961 are brought out strikingly by Tables ? and 8. In Table ?, as we have noted above, over one half or the total Island area is now used for urban pur­ poses. The distinction between the Centre and East and West is less marked: The Centre had in 1961 over 56% of the total urban­ ized area (a decrease of 22%) but the West's share had increased to over 32%. The planned area now totals some ?451 acres, over 11% of the total built-up area or the Island. The greater dis­ parity between the various parts of the Island is now brought to the fore: 6% or the Central area's urbanized land was in planned developments, 8% in the East, but over 21% in the West. Table 8 shows the changes in this nine-year period. The greatest rate of urban growth was in the West(l21.9%), with an increase of 65.9% in the East, and only 21% in the Central area. This is mainly due to the lack of available land in the Central area, as nearly 88% of the land was used for urban purposes. The dbanges in the area under planned subdivisions exceeded the great rates of growth in the period 1932-1952. For example, planned long lots in the Island increased by over 359%. More noticeable (Table 8) is the fact that in the West this increase was nearly 558%. The development of many planned long lot subdivisions led to this great growth more than the increase in the comprehensively planned areas. The Town of Mount Royal was completed, and another comprehensive plan- Ville d'Anjou- was created in the East, but 1

1

1'\) 1'\)

1-'

i

1

23,000

294.5

East 594.5 7,300 18.9 32.0 8.1

4.0

11.1 4.1 300.0

•

.

est

56,000

21,300

21.5 21.5

46.0 32.2

38.0 o.o

~·J

4,578.5 4,578.5 o.o

(acresl

277.7

Central

56.7 2.6

2,

985.7

42,700 37,400 6.1

35.1 87.6

3.5

1,292.0

.

1961

in

of

area

Hontrea1

66,000

54.3

5,858.7

2.4

8.9

121,700 100.0

11.3

1,592.0 7,450.7

100.0

Island

of

Montreal

Urbanized

survey.

area

Department

area

area

land

area~; area

land

Planninf" Persona1

:

land

land

Planned

area

lots

5

2 :

area

develoued

land

and

long

deve1oped

-················----·-

and

AREA

planned

total

area total

3,4

1 develoued

developed

SEVEN

total

of

of

of

of

of

TOTAL

Planned

Comprehensive

Total

Developed

%

%

% % % %

2.

TABLE

5.

3.

1.

4.

Sources:

.

'-- •

1

[\)

......

w

East -

-

294.5

2,900

2,305.5

10.3

65.9 300.0

10.2 ?9.5

West

55'?.8

o.o

33.2

o.o 3,882.5

?,81?.5 o.o 66.8 11,?00

121.9

(acres)

1261

-

21.4

Central

61.5

6,600 405.9 5,?02.1

86.3

6.2

492.0 ?0.0 ?.5

1952

area

of

Montreal.

21,200

99.0 21.6

359.2

4,582.9

?4.?

4?.3 3.?

?92.0 15,825.1

Island

Montreal

of

Urbanized

in

plans

lots

Department

survey.

Changes

lots

long

area

Persona!

Planning

comprehensive

planned

unplanned

4 :

~lanned

to

lots

to

to

land lots

and

due

due

due

long

2,3

1 :

EIGHT

change

change chan~e change

change

change

Planned

Developed

Comnrehensive

Unplanned

% % % % %

%

2.

TABLE

3.

4. 1.

Sources:

- -124-

these are non-existent in the West. Taken as a whole the pro­ portion of the increase in urbanized area, 1952-1961, that was due to planned subdivisions, was 25.3% compared to only 8.9% in the previous twenty-year period. This is immediately evident from an inspection of Figure 20. In fact the proportion of ur­ ban growth due to unplanned penetration had become greatest in the Central area by 1961 - some 86%. Compare this with the West (67%) and the East (80%). In the previous period it had been the area least affected by unplanned accretion. The actual increase in the number of planned lots in this short period is also significant - 34 new units were established Their street plans and the original lot linas are shovn in the series of diagrams in Figures 21, 22, 23 and 24. The compre­ .hensively planned area of the Town of Mount Royal has now been completed (21-h), and it can be seen that some modifications in the remainder of the area(492 out of total 1292 acres) result in a lack of symmetry in the overall plan as it appears now. North and north-east of the centre, for example, one finds the most recently developed part of the Town, with a larger number of circles and crescents in the street plan compared to the older areas. The other comprehensive plan area - Ville d'Anjou - has been described above in Chapter Four (iii), together with the characteristics of these areas. Many of the planned long lots are of a large enough extent to warrant possible inclusion as comprehensively planned areas, but they are thought to lack the conceptions governing the -125-

PLAI-..INE.O L ONG LOTS

(a.) ( c)

( ~)

( d. )

r.~ ~- r . - . 1 " ~ 1-' 1 , r~~ :-----, ll~ 1 1· . i ~ ~2ap} . ':)( .A. fi , __ ]p):: : ~ . 7"'i ~ K . _1--

PL-ANNE.Q AR..lë: A

~ !GUR..E 2f SCALE : '/ ?>000

PLANNI;D SUBDIVISIONS IN 196 1 -126-

PLANNED LONG LOTS

------

. (_ct )

•

FIGURE 2.. 2. : Su:> L-E ·. 1/~ 0 0 0

PLANNED SUBDIVISIONS IN 1961 -127-

KEY TO FIGURES 21 anQ 22

ts • 2 (a) 143.6 4 2 - 26 St. Laurent (b) 80.5 2 2 - 7 Montreal Nord (c) 141.6 3 2 - 28 St. Michel (d) 214.0 3 2 - 28 St. Leonard de Port Maurice (e) 69.0 2 2 - 12 Montreal (f) 300.0 10 2 - 29 Ville d'Anjou {g) 95.8 1 2 - 15 Lasalle (h) 1292. 26 2 - 26,27 Town of Mount Royal

Fi ure 22 No Size , (a) 238.0 4 2 - 20 Baie d'Urfa (b) 66.3 2 2 - 20 Baie d'Urfe (c) 177.0 3 2 - 20 Baie d'Urfa (d) 121.2 2 2- 19 Beaconsfield (e) 164.0 4 2 - 19 Beaconsfield (f) 91.0 2 2 - 18 Pointe Claire (g) 162.0 3 2 - 18 Pointe Claire (h) 286.0 7 2 - 23 Pointe Claire (i) 184.0 2 2 - 17 Dorval -128-

PLAN N t:: 0 LONG L OTS

[-·~

(a..) c b ) ( c )

...

( d) \_Q)

(ft_ ) ( ;_)

PLANNt:;D SUBD IV' 5 1 Oî-JS IN 1961

D D PLANNk.. PLANNk.. I N N I S S ON SI IS SUBDIV 6 1 1 6 19

2..4 2..4

;_ ;_ ) ) ( (

-(; -(; ( ) ) .e. .e. ( ( ) )

i J i • · · •

c) c) ( ( (a..) (a..) ) ) b b ( (

~ ~ '

~ ~

TS TS D D LO Né- PLAN LONG LONG -129- -130-

KEY TO FIGURE3 23 and 21+

of lots 2 (a) 62.0 4 2 - 3 Pierrefonds (b) 297.0 11 2 - 3,22,23 Pierrefonds (c) 82.7 2 2 - 3 Pierrefonds (d) 112.5 8 2 - 3 Pierrefonds (e) 110.2 6 2 - 3 Pierrefonds (f) 278.1 8 2 - 3 Pierrefonds (g) 304.0 3 2 - 23 Do11ard des Ormeaux (h) 55.2 1 2- 4 Roxboro' (i) 72.5 2 2 - 5 Montreal

ze No (a) 48.3 2 2 - 4 Pierrefonds (b) 324.0 6 2 - 4,23 Roxboro• (c) 45.5 5 2 - 13 Cote St. Luc (d) 178.0 3 2 - 25 St. Laurent (e) 4o.5 2 2 - 25 st. Laurent (f) 22.1 1 2 - 26 St. Laurent (g) 77-3 3 2 - 5 Montreal (h) 81.0 2 2 - 5,26 St. Laurent (i) 158.0 4 2 - 26 St. Laurent -131-

planning of such a unit as the Town of Mount Royal. Some, in fact, fit into a larger master plan, but this is hindered in its development by land held in speculation. Thus some planned long lots are the completed parts of a larger master plan. We may cite two examples of this on the Island - Figures 2l(d), part of St. Léonard de Port Maurice, and (g), part of LaSalle. The proposed street plan for St. Léonard is shown on many recent maps, but only 3 long lots north of the Trans-Canada Highway had been completed by 1961. This is the explanation for the seemingly haphazard street plan in 2l(d). All the streets that "lead nowhere" will eventually be tied into the overall mas­ ter plan. As can be seen development is therefore still sporadic in this example, and greatly under the control of the long lot system. Similarly in LaSalle, the street plan represented in 21 (g) is an incomplete one, although the position here is not as serious as at St. Léonard since two of the through roads were already built by 1961. The difference between planned long lots that are a part of a larger master plan, and those that have been developed as entities to fit into the number of lots available is a striking one. Another example from Figure 21 - diagram (c) - will suffice. This is the centre of St. Michel, a symmetrical pattern of streets radiating from the octagon. The latter is a park area, and also contains the City Hall and a school, but the whole development contrasts with the rest of St. Michel which has the typical form of an 'attenuated grid 1 • Another example of this feature can -132-

be seen in 24(d), the Alexis-Nihon Boulevard area in St. Laurent, west of the Laurentian Boulevard. Designed by Charles Campeau, this plan exploits the rigid formality of the crescent in a sym­ metrical mannar. This is large enough (178 acres) to aontain one park and several smaller green spaces, as well as three schools. As an aside we might note that in this development, the later construction of houses has not maintained the principles outlined in the street plan. One of the greatest difficulties faaing planners today is the need to exercise some form of architec­ tural control, as well as the established preparation of a plan. An example from Pointe Claire shows another feature in the recent planned subdivision of long lots. Figure 22(h) shows the area north of Ste. Anne's Highway, immediately north of the Veteran's development noted in Figure 18(b) above. Most of this subdivision was planned by Louis Magil, ·and the builder desired a high density of housing. This has resulted in a different, more closely knit street plan compared to the cul-de-sac and crescent plan of the Veteran's housing. Although the texture of the plan is therefore different, both are the result of a aon­ scious desire to achieve a more pleasant residential environ­ ment. Pointe Claire may, in faat, serve as an example of many of the municipalities on the Island. There are a large number of planned subdivisions, but the city lacks an overall road layout. As Kentridge says(l): uNo planning ideals have been

(1) Kentridge, Leon R. A Survey of New Towns about Metropolitan Areas, with special reference to Montreal. Unpublished M. Arch. thesis. McGill University. August 1961. P. 155. -133- involved in the building of the city. The growth and development has resulted in and been the result of successful land specula­ tion." Figure 23 presents examples taken from Pierrefonds (a - f) and Dollard-des-Ormeaux(g). A comprehensive master-plan for these municipalities exists, but the developments as of 1961 are similar in their spread to the situation in St. Léonard de Port Maurice. 23(a), {b) and (c) are all located to the south, and 23(d), (e) and (f) are north of Gouin Boulevard. The same fea­ tures noted for St. Léonard and LaSalle apply here: the streets are obviously meant to link up with others, when the intervening areas are opened for development. This is especially the case in the north eastern corner of Dollard-des-Ormeaux(21 - g). Com­ pared to many other planned subdivision these areas have few parks, and at present do not appear as units with a distinctive street plan. The form, in fact, is a much freer one than encountered in most other planned areas. By 1961 the area under planned subdivisions of all types was over 11% of the total developed area. The highest proportion of this was in the West (21.5%), and the noticeable increase in planned long lots was strongest here. But now all the Island has some land developed by a plan. The average size of the unit planned also increased notably in the nine-year period - from 105 to 138.8 acres. The average number of long lots in any one subdivision also increased to nearly four lots. We have seen that in the great diversity of examples available for discussion, -134-

some general features are apparent. For example, some of the larger areas are at the moment sean as developed parts of a master plan (St. Leonard, LaSalle, Dollard-des-Ormeaux); some are distinctly 'self-enclosed' (St. Michel, Alexis-Nihon Boule­ vard area); and some can almost be described as 1planned accre­ tion' (examples from Pointe Claire). All in all, we appear to have good reasons to be optimistic about the future importance of planned subdivisions in the urban growth patterns on the Island of Montreal. -135-

(iv) A Composite View, This section presents a summary of the discussion in Part Two. A map has been drawn which superimposes the extent of urbanized land in 1932, 1952 and 196l(Figure 25). It serves as a useful reminder that the major structural elements in the ur­ ban pattern were established in 1932 (red line), and in turn that these lines were developed from the cadastral division. Thus we were able to distinguish a 'northern chemin' line of growth along the Rivière des Prairies, an •eastern chemin' line stretching to Pointe-aux-Trembles, and a 'western line' along the chemin bordering Lac St. Louis. In time urban growth has tended to mask this original pattern. The area where it was most masked by urban development - the nucleus of the City of Montreal - also provided the major part of the later growth that has increased the observer's difficulty in establishing the structural framework of development. This is evidenced in Figure 25 by the later growth in a north-south direction on either side of Montée St. Laurent. It is possible that future developments in the West will similarly be guided by Montée St. Jean, linking Pointe Claire and Pierrefonds. Such features of the urban growth pattern therefore have their basic roots in the original cadastral division. On the Island of Montreal this has meant that the nucleus has expanded radially to some extent, but that the major lines of development have been guided by the existence of the 'chemins du Roi'. The changes in the urbanized area from 1932 to 1961 are -136- NO'V1Ml

MONTR[AL.

N~St«.

...

19M

d'-"'

'f'(llltUAIIY

S[RVIC[

DI'AYN

SOURCE

wt

1932-1952-1961

ND

LA

:

«XXl

2.5

Gm

0

IIID

1932

1952

1961

V2

0

1

tOOO

URBANIZED

lroiiL.IS

.I=!G.UR.E:. 'UT

.

J

1

1

1

1

1

~

1

1 -13?-

presented in Table 9. Over the Island as a whole the developed land area has increased by 123%, but the variations within the Island are more significant. The East has grown most rapidly - nearly ~12% increase, whilst the West has also increased - by nearly 318%. In comparison the Central area increased only 62%, as a result of the lesser amount of land available for building here. That proportion of the change in urbanized area due to unplanned penetration may now be put into proper perspective for the twenty-nine-year period. 81.5% of the change for the whole Island was due to this unplanned accretion, with a 1 low• of 73.8% in the West and a 1 high' of 89.9% in the East. Corres­ pondingly the amount of planned growth has been greatest in the

West, where over ~250 acres of land was subdivided according to some plan. For the Island, then, 18.5% of the growth in developed land was due to planning - and we have noted that most of this has occurred most recently. Table 10 summarizes the changes in the total planned area itself for the three periods 1932-1952, 1952-1961 and 1932-1961. Over the latter period the planned area increased by 938.1% for the whole Island; in the Central area by 483.9%, and in the West by 129?.6%. The comparàtive figure for the East cannot be calculated since there was no land planned prior to 1952 there. The last rows in Table 10 show how much of the change in the developed land was due to planning. The rapid increase from 1952-1961 was most noticeable in the West and East, whereas the TABLE NINE Changesin Urbanized area 1932 - 1961 {acre§l

Island of Montreal Central West East

1. Developed land 36,414 14,339 16,202 5,873 " % change 123.1 62.2 317.8 411.6

2. Planned long lots 5,531.1 985.7 4,250.9 294.5 %change 1,688.4 - 1,297.6 - 1 1 %change due to planned long lots 15.2 6.9 26.2 5.0 wJ-1 co 1 . 1 3. Comprehensive planned area 1,201.9 901.9 o.o 300.0

1 %change 1 308.1 231.2 o.o - 1 %change due to comprehensive plans 3.3 6.3 1 o.o 5.1 Î 1 1 4. Unplanned lots 29,681.0 12,451.4 11,951.1 5,278.5 % change due to unplanned lots 81.5 86.8 73.8 89.9

...__ - ~- Sources: 1 : Planninr-- Department of Hontreal. 2,3 and 4: Personal survey. 1

•

,......

...0

w

1

- -

East

594.5

20.5

594.5

o.o

o.o 10.1

o.o

est

\v

26.2

557.8

3,882.5

368.4

33.2 8.2

1,297.6 4,250.9

112.5

(acres)

Area

989.7

65.1

253-7

897.9

13.7

1,887.6 483.9 13.2

12.8

Central

Planned

Total

of

ln

•

258.9 25.3

5,374.9 938.1

6,733.0

8.9

18.5

189.2 1,358.1

Island

Montreal

Chanees

area

change

survey.

~

as

ylanned

land

in

Personal

area

area

1952

1961 1961

TEN 1961 1961

1952

1961

1952 1961

- - -

-

- -

- -

-

change

Planned

TABLE

Planned

deve1oped

1932 1952 1952 1932 1932 1932 ~

1932 1932 1952

Source: -14o-

Central area had been the most important area in the period 1932- 1952. Overall the West has had the greatest amount of planning. The changes in the urbanized area are summarized graphically in Figure 26. Lines joining the respective divisions of the Island give the reader a visual impression of rates of growth. In this way one can see how the Island as a whole has maintained a rapid rate of growth, the Central area has decreased slightly in its growth rate, the East has maintained a relatively regular rate of growth, but the very rapid increase for the West is out­ standing. Similarly, the planned area(shown in black) has be­ come more significant in recent years, especially in the West. The aim of this part of the essay has been to observe and measure the patterns of land subdivision and urban growth on the Island of Montreal. It is not intended to explain these to any great extent. Suffice to say here that the rapid rise in the rate of urban development on the Island has a marked variation in considering the Central area, the West and the East. This variation is also seen in the amount of planned growth that has taken place. It is obvious that the last ten years have witnessed changes that are unprecedented in the history of urban growth on the Island. Yet the analysis of this growth presented here has shown that its basic structure can be described with reference to the cadastral division of the Island, and accretion can take two basic forms - the planned subdivision, and the unplanned penetration of the long lot system. Knowledge of these facts holds many lassons for the future development of the Island. -141- AC. R •.'ES 67500

4100000 .J ct ~ .... z 52.500 0 l

~ 0

4-5000 0

.J~ 1ft

37500

30.000 ...J

.J ~ z)- ~.... v 2..::&.500 z "" 0 .J .J ~ w

1932 1952 19(.1

.1=-IGUR.t. 2.6 C~ANGt=S IN U R..BAN 1Z.{; D AR..EA (wJTH-- PLANNED AR.tA SJ..l.OWN IN e.l.4c.~) -142-

SUMMARY

This thesis has attempted to describe the evolution of patterns of land subdivision on the Island of Montreal. The understanding of this reature of the present urban landscape is an important one for the planner, since his work is then placed in an historical perspective. The procedure of land grants in the Province of Québec was first studied, and the differences between the French régime and the British administration were outlined. The French seigniorial system was essential in New France for establishing settlements, but the holding of land by individuals in a free­ hold tenure basis was established by the British in the first half of the nineteenth century. On the Island of Montreal, the early land grants were made after 1636 by the Company of the Hundred Associates. Later the grants were made largely by the Sulpicians, who were given powers to regrant land by the King in France by an edict in 16?7. The Island developed into one of the most successful Seigniories in New France. Even so the land was not properly surveyed and reg­ istered until the Cadastral Law was passed in 1857. The work began in earnest on the Island in November 1866, and the resulting cadastral division provided the framework of this study. An analysis of the cadastral map led to the classi­ fication of the lots into (1) river long lot systems, and (2) inland long lot systems. The lots bordering the rivers were generally the first to be developed, they are usually at right -143-

angles to the shores, and a continuous line of settlement devel­ oped along the 'chemins du Roi'. They forma ring around the Island. The inland lots are joined to the river lots by means of accession or lot roads, and the nuclei for settlement here provided by the junctions of lot and range roads. Given the basic framework of the cadastral divisions on the Island, the importance of the long lot system for urban development was described. The lateral extension of a city's urbanized area takes place by means of building in available lots at its fringes. This process has been broken down into three major types for this discussion: (1) unplanned penetration of long lots; (2) planned long lots; (3) comprehensive plans. In general the size of the area undertaken for building in­ creases from (1) to (3). More important, the conscious desire to provide a more pleasing residential environment is lacking in (1), and increases in degree of success through (2) to (3). The control of the lot system on the patterns of urban growth is greatest in {1), but is still evident in {2). The distinctions between these three types of land subdi­ vision for residential purposes have been described in relation to urban growth on the Island for the years 1932, 1952 and 1961. For each of these dates a description of the extent of the ur­ banized area was made. An attempt to evaluate the structural elements in the urban pattern followed, and the relative amounts of the three types of subdivision werè measured. Changes between the dates were calculated from these measurements, and the whole -1~-

analysis was related to a regional division of the Island (Central, West and East area) proposed by the City Planning Department. The basic structure of the urban pattern on the Island is thought to be related directly to the original cadastral divi­ sion. The elements in the structure show this most clearly in 1932, but even at this date the nucleus of the City of Montreal was so built up as to mask the main lines of development. Away from the nucleus three major elements in the pattern were shown to be the 'Northern chemin', linked to the nucleus by Montée St. Laurent, the 'Western' and 'Eastern' chemins, growing dir­ ectly from the nucleus. The 'Northern chemin' line of development was centred on the junction of riverand lot roads, and shows up clearly in 1932. By 1961 the extension of other lines of urban land from the nucleus to the north shore bad masked this element in the pattern. It is now best represented by its Western(Pierrefonds) and Eastern(Rivière des Prairies) extensions. The 'Western chemin' was discontinuons in 1932, but by 1961 a complete line of development as far as Ste. Anne de Bellevue fringes Lac St. Louis, 'Infilling' and 'backfilling' characterizes this feature, and is especially noticeable at Pointe Claire. Here, it was noted, the link between north and south shores of the western part of the Island (Montée St.Jean), may become as important in the urban growth pattern as Montée St. Laurent was in the Central area at an earlier date. -145-

Similarly the 'Eastern chemin' line of development has become continuons since 1932, and the degree of 'infilling' increases towards the nucleus. The nucleus itself already had too great an area of urban­ ized land by 1932 (78% of the total) to exhibit any structural features at this general level of enquiry. Undoubtedly it also had developed along basic lines established by the cadastral division. Its lateral expansion by 1961 further masked the original lines. · The measurements of the urbanized area concentrated on the extent of planned subdivisions in the total picture of growth. The Island as a whole increased its land developed for urban purposes by 123% from 1932 to 1961. The regional differences are very important: the Central area increased by 62%, the West by 318%, and the East by 412%. The share of this growth due to unplanned penetration is very high: for the Island, nearly 82%; the Central area, 87%; the East, 9o%; and the West, 74%. Thus planned subdivisions amounted to a relatively small proportion of the total urban growth, being least in the East, and most in the West. Even in 1932 the West had the largest share of the total developed area due to planned subdivisions - over 6%. By 1961 this had risen to over 21%. As a direct contrast the East had no planned subdivisions in 1932 or in 1952. Moreover the number of planned areas increased very rapidly from 1952 to 1961, so that most of the comparisons between 1932 and 1961 should keep -146-

this in mind. A1so, a1though we can say that planned areas increased from 1932 to 1961 by 938% for the Island(and 1298% in the West!), these only contributed 18% to the total change. Since most of this has occurred very recently, however, it seems that we might be optimistic about the future of planned subdivisions in the overall picture of urban growth. At each date an evaluation of the type of planned subdivi­ sion was a1so made. It was sean that many planned long lots are internally consistent with planning principles, but, in relation to the unplanned area surrounding them, they may appear to be 'out of place'. In other words, a complete master plan for the municipality is in most cases non-existent. As an example we may quota the octagonal central area of St. Michel, or any of the individually successful subdivisions in Pointe Claire. In some cases the developed planned long lot can be fitted into a master plan which is in the process of execution, for example at St. Leonard de Port Maurice, or in LaSalle. The comprehensively planned areas exhibit a greater degree of success in the application of planning principles. The best example on the Island is the Town of Mount Royal. Two subdivi­ sions - Crawford Park, Verdun, and Cité Jardin, Montreal-show

~he principles of the 1Radburn superblock' developed by Clarence Stein. They are, however, at variance with their surroundings. Severa! problems for the future of the planning of residen­ tial subdivisions on the Island have not been examined in this thesis. One of the most important is the degree of architectural -147-

control that can be established for any subdivision. Another might be the type of regulations necessary to achieve this con­ trol and other ends. Ultimately the degree of control is based on the desires of society, since planning has both technical and social objectives. The aim of this essay has been to place in focus the importance of the existing patterns of land subdivision, and their control of urban growth patterns. The relative position that planning has had in the evolution of the urban complex on the Island of Montreal has been described, and an understanding of this evolution has a significance for those concerned with the future urban environment. -148-

B I B L I 0 G R A P H Y

(1) Books and Articles Adams, Thomas, Rural Planning and Development; Commission of Conservation, Ottawa, 1917. Archives of the City of Montreal, "Mise en force des Cadastrestt; Unpublished manuscript, No Date. Atherton, William H., Montreal 1535- 1914, Voi: ~: Uidei the F~en7h régime 1535 - 1760 V_____ B_it~sh ru1_ 1_60 - 191Y; The s.L. Clark Publishing Company, Montreal, 1914. Barkham, Brian, The Development of Land Settlement and Rural Architecture in the Province of Quebec; Unpublished M. Arch. thesis, McGill University, 1955. Bouchatte, Joseph, A Topographie Dictionary of the Province of Lower Canada; Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1832. Bridger, M. K., Urban Change and Development, Sunny Acres: A suburban housing development; Unpublished essay, McGill University, 1963. City Planning Department, Montreal, The Rate of Urban Deve~opment 1952 - 1961, Bulletin Technique No, ~ Unpublished manuscript, (March 1964). City Planning Department, "Metropole" Les Cahiers d'Urbanime No. 1; Montreal, January 1963. Cobban, Aileen A. and Robert M. Lithgow, A Regional Study of· the Richelieu Valley; Unpublished M. A. joint thesis, McGill University, 1952. Dunkin, Christopher, !ddress at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly of Canada on behalf of certain proprietors of Seigneuries in 1Qwer Canada; Canada Gazette, Quebec, 1853. Gordon, George E., An jnalysis of Regulations and Standards Relatin~ to Building; Unpublished M. Arch. thesis, McGill University, 1953. -llt-9-

Guerin, Thomas, Feudal Canada, The Story of the Seigniories of Ney France; Montreal 1926 Heneker, Dorothy A., The Seigniorial Regime in Canada; LS-A. Proulx, Quebec, 1927. Inrormation respecting the Eastern Townships of Lower Canada in which tbe British American Land Company intend ta commence operations for the sale and settlement of landg in the ensuing spring; w. J. Ruffy, London, 1 33. Kentridge, Leon R., A Suryey of New Town about metropolitan areas with special reference to Montreal; Unpublished M. Arch. thesis, McGill University, August, 1961. Lower, A. R. M., Colony to Nation; Longmans, Green, and Company, 1951. Massicotte, E. z., 11Concessions de Terre à Montréal", Proceedings and Transactions, The Royal Society of Canada. Series III. Vol. VIII. December 1914, pp. 215 - 229. Munro, William B., The Seigniorial System in Canada, A Study in French Colonial Policx: Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, 1907. Munro, William B., Documents Relating to the Seigniorial T§nure in Canada 1597 - 1854; The Champlain Society, Toronto, 1908. Sainte - Foy, "Notre Cadastre" La. Presse; January 12, 19lt-8. Sicotte, L.W., Esquire, Advocate, Official book of reference Qf the City and Parish of Montreal; City Surveyor's Office, 1872. Sicotte, L.W., Esquire, Advocate, Ca4astKal reference Bgok, Përish of Montreal 1 72. Spence - Sales, Harold, How to Subdivide; Community Planning Association of Canada, Ottawa, 1950. Stein, Clarence s., TQxard New Towns for America; New York, 1957. Taché, J.c., The Seiineurial Tenure in Canada, gpd a plan of commutStion; Lovell and Lamoureux, Quebec, 1 54. -150-

(2) ~ Ministère des Terres et Forêts de la Chasse et de la Pêche, L'Ile de Montréa (Map of Cadastral Divisions) Scale: ln/3000 1 , Quebec, 1940. Service d'Urbanisme de Montréal, Land Used for Urban 1 pur~oses 1932 (Scale: 1"/4167 ), November, 156 • Service d'Urbanisme de Montréal, Land Used for Urbap purposes 1952 (Scale: 1"/4167'), November, 1962. Service d'Urbanisme de Montréal, Land Used for Urban purposes 1961 (Scale: 1"/4167'), November 1962.

(3) Photographs Photographie Surveys (Quebec) Ltd., Montreal Mosaic (Scale: 1 11/1000'), Flown April 1954. Sheet number 19 {Fig. 5). Sheet number 3 (Fig. 7). Sheet number 8 (Fig. 8). Sheet number lA (Fig. 10). Sheet number 9 (Fig. 11). Photographie Surveys {Quebec) Ltd., Job P/1044/t9' Flown April 1959 (Scale: 1"/33')Fig. 13). (4) Interviews Arcand, L. J., Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal. Baintner, I., City Hall, Town of Mount Royal, Province of Quebec. Cooper, J. I., Associate Professor, Department of History, McGill University, Montreal. Feherdy, I. L., Service d'Urbanisme, Montreal. Laliberté, P., Service d'Urbanisme, Montreal. Parlee, R. J., Secretary and Treasurer, Canada Institute of Surveying, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa. Roy, Jean-Louis, Municipal Archives Department, City Hall, Montreal.