Renaming the block of de la Gauchetière in front of the Bell Centre is an example of how street renaming should be done. It isn’t the whole street that will be renamed and the only address on the new Maurice Richard Avenue will be that of the Bell Centre. No other residents or businesses will be affected. Most importantly, the historic name of de la Gauchetière will be preserved for 95% of the street’s length, including where it counts the most, in the crowded business district of Chinatown.

The following guide was prepared by an urban geography professor.

The decision of the Montréal City Council has to be approved by the CTQ. Contrary to the “miserabilist” editorial published in the Montreal Gazette on Nov. 29, appealing to the CTQ is not a lost cause, and this body has a rigorous set of criteria for judging the merit of proposed place name changes. The City’s request will be evaluated according to the Politique de designation toponymique commémorative (sec. 1.6. of the Politiques Toponymiques; http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/poltopo5.htm

The Commission will receive, study and take seriously all letters received from individuals and groups, contesting the City’s decision and/or asking for the Commission to hold public hearings on the matter – as long as the writers of these letters provide valid reasons for their concerns. In other words, petitions and form letters will not cut much ice. Some groups are taking legal advice in order to strengthen their presentations to the Commission. That’s good, but individuals shouldn’t feel that they have to have legal advice to write an effective letter! To make your letter effective all you need to do is show how your concerns relate to any or all of the specific criteria that the CTQ is required to use when it evaluates name-change requests. Here are some key extracts from the Commemorative Toponymy Policy, with my unofficial translation in square brackets, and some observations of my own that may be helpful:

1.6.1. Cadre d’application [Framework for Application]

Choix des lieux [Choice of places]

‘On attribue une désignation commémorative à des lieux sans nom ou à des lieux dont les noms sont tombés en désuétude.’ (…) ['Commemorative designations are attributed to places that do not already have a name or to places whose names have fallen into disuse/have become obsolete.']

- This particular extract of the policy was left out of the email sent around from Dimitri Roussopoulos the other day, but I think it’s crucial. This clause of the policy allows for place names to be changed if they have fallen into disuse, but the clause can also be interpreted to mean that a name can be changed if it is no longer relevant, if it no longer has resonance for today’s population. I remember that this was the argument used  (successfully) to change the name of Boulevard Dorchester to Boulevard René-Lévesque – the argument being that Lord Dorchester is not really relevant to contemporary Montréal and its citizens.
- So, as regards Park Avenue, your letters need to explain why the name has relevance, significance, symbolism for you in the present day.
Saying that it’s a historic name is not enough – you need to say why it is still important to recall this history through the name of the street.
Your letters can address this point with respect to all or all of these: residents; businesses; ‘neo-Montrealers’ (!!!); the identity of the
adjoining neighbourhoods; the link with Parc Mont-Royal; the prestigious association with New York; tourists, etc.).
- Also, some of you might have heard an interview a few weeks ago on CBC Daybreak with M. François LeBel, a nephew of M. Bourassa, in which he
argued that Montrealers should be willing to “sacrifice something important” in order to commemorate his uncle. By this comment M. LeBel
revealed that he recognized that the name of Park Avenue is indeed important to many people! His notion that it should be “sacrificed” is
totally contrary to the policy of the CTQ.

Consultation du milieu [Consultation with the milieu]

‘L’attribution d’une désignation commémorative nécessite la consultation à ce propos de la communauté qui vit à proximité du lieu
choisi, de même que la consultation, le cas échéant, de l’entourage immédiat de la personne dont on veut honorer la mémoire et celle du milieu
concerné par son action.’ ['Attributing a commemorative designation requires consulting the community living in proximity to (in the vicinity
of) the place to be renamed, as well as, when relevant, those close to the person whose memory one wants to honour and that of the milieu affected by that person's actions.']

- Letter-writers wishing to address this point will need to give their opinion as to whether Mayor Tremblay’s way of consulting the
‘community living in the vicinity’ of Park Avenue was adequate. What he did was: 1) allow councillors to have what he said would be a free vote
and saying that those councillors could do consultations; 2) say that the statutory question period at City Council meetings was a means of
consultation. What he did not do was arrange for any kind of organized consultation process for those ‘living in proximity’ to Park Avenue.

- Also, there is the question of how does the CTQ interpret the concept of living ‘à proximité’ [in the vicinity]? In my view (as an urban
geographer by profession!) this should be interpreted as including all of the neighbourhoods that border on Park Avenue.

- Concerning consulting those ‘close to the person’ to be honoured, we know that the Bourassa family was consulted and that they like the idea
of renaming Avenue du Parc although it might not have been their first choice.

- The requirement to also consult ‘the milieu affected by the person’s actions’ is wide open to interpretation. The word ‘milieu’ does
not have a geographical connotation, more of a sociological connotation, and could be interpreted very broadly. So it could be more difficult to
address this point in a letter to the CTQ.

1.6.2 Normes et critères de choix

Choix non controversé

‘Le choix du lieu et du nom devant faire l’objet de commémoration (…) ne doit pas être de nature à susciter la controverse.’ ['The choice
of place and the name to be commemorated should not be such that it creates controversy'].

- Obviously the proposal in question has created enormous controversy. What letter-writers need to stress is that the controversy is about the obliteration of a name that is very meaningful (for you personally; for certain groups of Montrealers; for Montrealers in general…). The Executive Committee claimed that it believed that the name Park Avenue was a ‘generic’, ‘neutral’ name without strong heritage associations and that people did not care about. The Toponymy Commission knows that many people do care, but they need to get lots of letters explaining all the reasons why.

- At the same time, the letters need to say that the principle of choosing a significant place or piece of infrastructure to name after the
late Premier is not controversial. It just should not be done at the expense of an existing name that is very meaningful to many people and
vital to the identity of your neighbourhood (be it Park-Extension, Mile-End, Lower Outremont or Milton-Parc).

WHERE TO SEND THE LETTERS

Madame Danielle Turcotte
Directrice et Secrétaire
Commission de Toponymie du Québec
750, boulevard Charest Est, rez-de-chaussée
Québec QC
G1K 9M1

Fax : 418 644-9466
email : danielle.turcotte@gouv.qc.ca

WHEN TO SEND THE LETTERS

Soon! Some media reports say that the CTQ will decide on 16 January
2007, while other reports say it will not be until March – but the sooner
you write, the better!

Hope this is helpful. Best to all,

Damaris Rose
Professeure titulaire / Professor (urban and social geography)
INRS-Urbanisation, Culture et Société
Institut national de la recherche scientifique
Continue to page 2
The postings of extracts from the Commission’s policy document have
left out one very important point that people need to look at and use in
their letters:

1.6.1. Cadre d’application [Framework for Application]

Choix des lieux [Choice of places]

‘On attribue une désignation commémorative à des lieux sans nom ou à
des lieux dont les noms sont tombés en désuétude.’ (…) ['Commemorative
designations are attributed to places that do not already have a name or to
places whose names have fallen into disuse/have become obsolete.']

- This clause of the policy allows for place names to be changed if
they have fallen into disuse, but the clause can also be interpreted to mean
that a name can be changed if it is no longer relevant, if it no longer has
resonance for today’s population. I remember that this was the argument
used (successfully) to change the name of Boulevard Dorchester to Boulevard
René-Lévesque – the argument being that Lord Dorchester is not really
relevant to contemporary Montréal and its citizens.

- So, as regards Park Avenue, letters need to explain why the name has
relevance, significance, symbolism for you in the present day. Saying that
it’s a historic name is not enough – you need to say why it is still
important to recall this history through the name of the street.

Please spread the word! Can you post it on the site somewhere, in the
blog maybe (I don’t know how to join/log on).

Damaris Rose 514 271-6888, damaris_rose@ucs.inrs.ca

http://urbanphoto.net/cafeurbanite/viewtopic.php?p=1032#1032

A suggestion I heard while listening to the radio yesterday: name one of the two new superhospitals after the premier. Failing that, I have no objection to them changing St-Joseph Blvd as originally planned — he’s already got the Oratory, right?

“It is pointless trying to decide whether Zenobia (Montréal) is to be classified among happy cities or among the unhappy. It makes no sense to divide cities into these two species, but rather into another two: those that through the years and the changes continue to give their form to desires, and those in which desires either erase the city or are erased by it.”

– page 35, Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, translation by William Weaver, 1972.