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.