Broccolini souhaite réalisé un développement mixte de type TOD sur le site du Centre RioCan Kirkland, à proximité de la station Kirkland du REM. Le promoteur souhaite atteindre une densité de 60 logements par hectare.
Informations
Nom:
Emplacement: 3000-3430, rue Jean-Yves - Lots 2 459 002 et 6 274 879
Hauteur: Indéterminée - Plus de 6 étages
Architecte:
Promoteur: Broccolini
Début et fin de la construction:
Dates importantes:
2020-07-17 au 2021-05-31: Mandat initial du lobbyiste
2020-07-17 au 2021-12-31: Mandat renouvelé du lobbyiste
Autres informations:
La densité recherchée serait 60 logements à l’hectare, tandis que les hauteurs des bâtiments seraient supérieures aux 6 étages actuellement autorisés
Envisage des habitations en rangées, multifamiliales et collectives, des commerces de proximités, des commerces de services.
Représentations auprès de la Ville de Kirkland afin d’obtenir les modifications nécessaires à la réglementation d’urbanisme (règlement de zonage no. 90-58 et plan d’urbanisme no. 01-047) en vue de permettre un projet de développement mixte (résidentiel et commercial) sur le site du Centre RioCan Kirkland, localisé au 3000-3430, rue Jean-Yves et identifié par les numéros de lots 2 459 002 et 6 274 879. Les modifications demandées affecteront notamment l’affectation du sol, la hauteur ainsi que la densité du site, celles-ci sont requises dans le cadre de l’élaboration d’un Programme particulier d’urbanisme (PPU) mené par la Ville de Kirkland afin de créer un quartier TOD (Transit Oriented Development) dans le secteur de la future station du REM-Kirkland. La catégorie d’usage « Industrie » est actuellement autorisée sur le site. La catégorie d’usage « Mixte » est souhaitée. Les types d’usages et de typologies y étant associés comprennent notamment des habitations en rangées, multifamiliales et collectives, des commerces de proximités, des commerces de services. La densité recherchée serait concordante avec celle prescrite au Plan métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement (PMAD) soit 60 logements à l’hectare, tandis que les hauteurs des bâtiments seraient supérieures aux 6 étages actuellement autorisés (hauteur souhaitée à déterminer).
Pour soumettre une question ou un commentaire par rapport au projet, veuillez remplir le formulaire disponible au lien suivant : https://www.ville.kirkland.qc.ca/rem-…. Les réponses à vos questions seront disponibles prochainement sur la page Info-REM du site Web de la Ville. Restez à l’affût!
To submit a question or a comment regarding the project, please complete the online form by clicking the link https://www.ville.kirkland.qc.ca/rem-…. Answers to your questions will soon be provided on the REM Info page, available on the Town’s website. Stay tuned!
Absolutely egregious requirement. The planing program does need to be pretty liberal with parking space (this is the West Island after all), but a lot of people in Kirkland will be fairly close to a station and reasonably don’t need to drive to the site. Parking will really be more about managing car traffic from the outskirts and from Pierrefonds. For the other not-boroughs, the Anse-à-l’Orme and Fairview stations (and exo1) are probably more accessible. I could see a nice park-and-ride on Sainte-Marie right next to the station , but the rest of the site should really be pedestrian oriented, especially with the park and schools nearby.
For passes to the park-and-ride, I’d have people satisfy at least one of the following criteria to qualify:
Living at least 1km away from the closest REM/metro.
Having at least one child under the age of 5 registered in a daycare centre.
Being pregnant.
Living with functional limitations.
Possibility to submit an “exception form” for extenuating circumstances, paid to the borough, but reviewed by the agglo.
Frankly I’d be more interested in just having it paid. The CDPQ’s choice to have some proportion of spots paid at the other stations makes total sense. Let Kirkland Residents make that determination for themselves that driving is worth the amount to park, whatever that price is (with the exemption of those that are lesser abled.) The price does not need to be higher than say $3, but it shouldn’t be 0. Otherwise, you’d probably get far more rides and economic value with an equivalent 8 story apartment.
The challenge would be, as it typically is, is explaining to people that it is not a cash grab but rather the removal of a subsidy that they receive.
Yeah that’s implied, but excluding residents living in the catchment area is still important since there’s only so much space available and parking fees are just not enough to help some people reconsider not driving when they don’t need to.
I’d push it further and frame it as a revenue stream for Kirkland. P&R not having to be used by Kirkland resident and more by visitors is a good thing for Kirkland’s finances and traffic control. Kirkland is lucky enough to not be a terminus or a “hub” station. Instead of freaking out about parking space for residents, Gibson and the council should really see this as an opportunity and reconsider their PPU requirement.
Nice to see that Kirkland is finally waking up and actually looking into making something out of this underutilized land.
That being said, the whole conversation about parking for the West Island REM branch has not been settled yet.
The initial plans were that the regional transit center with a ± 2k parking spots and major bus terminal for off-island busses would be at Anse à l’Orme station, which made sense as this is the end of the line.
The parking at Anse à l’Orme has been reduced to 200 spots to limit trafic on Ste Marie, in the middle of nowhere, and the only other confirmed station parking is at Des Sources with 500 spots.
This is only 700 spots for the West Island branch , compared to 2960 at Brossard and an additional 300 at Panama, totalling 3260 for the south shore branch.
That idea to restrict parking to Kirkland residents would be quite uproductive. We collectively spent 1 billion on a fast, frequent, world class and efficient transit line serving Kirkland and terminating nearby, it is totally normal that residents of surronding cities will also use the station, and thus park there as this is the suburbs afterall.
Also, it will likely be faster for a West Pierrefonds resident who wants to drive to the REM to reach the Fairview station than exiting by Henri Daoust/ St Charles and traking back to the Kirkland station.
What is Kirkland leadership scared of? To be faced with a full parking lot at 7AM like in Laval?
Just build an underground/multi-level faciliy with 2-3k stalls, charge 5$/day for it for everyone, and if they want to subsidise it to their citizens so be it.
We shouldn’t restrict access to the REM, but ease it by giving all options to commuters to reach it easily so we can maximise benefits from our collective investment.
Let’s be realistic, with the current transit budget crisis and govenrment calls to reduce operating costs, we are unlikely to see major improvements in local bus frequency in the West Island, nor from Off-island for a while. In this situation, it is better to focus on the core axis, with a low cost/passenger-km ratio (the REM is excellent at this, metro lines and some main bus corridors as well) and thus ensuring a quality base coverage than trying by all means to fullfill the “last mile” with nearly empty busses truning in circle somewhere deep in Pierrefonds.
In the end of the day, it is still better to have a massive parking in SADB or Kirland, have people from the area and off-island to leave their SUV there and get on the REM instead of having them driving an extra 30 km each way to go gridlock Decarie and downtown streets.
At Panama there were plans to add parking under the bus terminal, but they decided to reduce it to just surface parking so it could be redeveloped in the future.
The thing is the incentive parking shows how inefficient driving is. All the parking at Panama is just a 2 car REM train. The huge parking lot at Brossard only covers 5, 4-car trains.
If the Caisse just wanted ridership, building big parking facilities would be the best option. But by instead investing that money and space into housing, they can get a profit, which can pay off the REM.
Indeed, surface parking is the second worst use you can make of land right next to a transit station, the 1st one being empty fields.
I’m all in for developping this land in the most dense manner possible, and the great thing with an integrated plan is that it is easy to integrate parking in the basements levels, without sacrificing precious above ground real estate.
For real, no one wants to buy a condo, or in most cases lease a store in the second or third basement of a building, thus making it perfect for parking as this space has a very limited use case anyways.
There is still need for a serious parking facility in order to catch ridership driving notably from points west of Morgan, be it at Anse (logically a multi-level above ground one) or at Kirland (underground, integrated with new development) doesn’t really matter that much as long as one of the two exists.
There is a rationale behind having a 3k spots parking lot next to the Brossard station, eventhough it should be something else than surface parking IMO, I just don’t see why there shouldn’t be anything similar on the WI branch given it litteraly follows highway 40.
That being said, no P&R facility should be free where decent and credible bus service is available. The pricing could go down as far from downtown the facility is. By example, parking at Bois Franc or Panama should be more expansive than parking at St Jerome or Vaudreuil.
For the Rio project we’re definitely not talking about 3rd basement parking. The density isn’t that high, but the municipality does seem to favour high parking minimums. Underground parking is actually quite expensive (not that Kirkland is a particularly affordable not-borough) and I can’t see developers building townhouses and medium density multi-family buildings with multilevel basement parking at a sensible cost.
I apologize for having brought up the REM parking in a discussion about this property, based on one quick slide in the consultation video.
Hopefully we get some more concrete news about the Centre RioCan redevelopment soon, as there haven’t been any Montreal announcements from Broccolini recently. The town of Kirkland can tell us everything they would like to be in their PPU, but that will have a little bearing on what Broccolini actually proposes.
The boroughs and towns that make up the suburbs designed their residential areas around the car, and made it virtually impossible to get one’s day to day activities completed without the use of a car. Forcing people to leave their cars at home in order to take the REM will just encourage them to drive to their destinations rather than taking the REM…
What is the alternative then? Wasting prime real estate to build a 1000 place parking, which will only get 1100ish users onto the REM, a fraction of its capacity?
It is much more efficient to enhance last mile transport (small buses, direct and safe bike paths, etc.) for the existing suburb fabric, and build dense TOD within walking distance of REM stations.
I mean as long as the VH line remains as infrequent as it is, It’s probably more logical to leave that as the commuter service with parking, whereas the REM provides priority to Public transit and active mobility and we maximize it’s usage by surrounding it with density. As it stands, when I’ve passed by mid-day the parking lots have plenty of space. Plus, I’m not sure how many additional riders you’d get by having more spots. Sure Jane Doe drove to the station, but would they have otherwise taken the bus? What if we improved that bus service a little because it doesn’t need to go all the way to fairview anymore?
I just feel like we need to draw the line somewhere because we’re in this loop of always needing to build more parking because our population went up so we built more parking so more people drive, and so on. This is the West’s best chance to break the mould and create a legitimate node of density from which we can actually begin to create infill density. Some back of the napkin math would suggest that with 20-25 hectares, with Bois-Franc density, we’re looking at 2000+ units of housing. More if we narrow the streets slightly, go from 3 to 4 floors and really push the height past 12 floors near A40.
I’m not against parking altogether, but it should have a small footprint (either few spaces or a multilevel) and probably should have a modest fee to disincentivize unnecessary use. It could even be variable to the time of day.
What gives me pause is that the station will be fairy accessible by walk or by bus by many Kirkland residents, and that the park-and-ride option would be most useful for a portion of Pierrefonds and Beaconsfield residents who can’t really expect better pedestrians/active connections or reasonable bus service in the medium-long term. Yes parking, but not parking for the sake of parking. It feels like a loss for Kirkland, like they could have negotiated some way more useful stuff.
