http://jtlu.org. 4 . 2 [Summer 2011] pp. 33–46 doi: 10.5198/jtlu.v4i2.176

Montréal’s roots

Exploring the growth of Montréal’s Indoor City

Ahmed El-Geneidy

McGill UniversityaLisa Kastelberger

Plania, Inc.bHatem T. Abdelhamid

McGill Universityc

Abstract: Indoor pedestrian pathways are increasingly common in cities worldwide. Montréal’s Indoor City is one of the most expansiveindoor pedestrian networks in theworld, extending formore than 32 kilometers (19.88miles) and covering an area of twelve square kilometers(4.6 square miles) in the city’s downtown. e bene ts associated with the growth of Montréal’s indoor network are numerous, including:improved access throughout the downtown; shorter pedestrian walking distances; year-round climate protection; and increased amounts ofpublic spaces. e research described in this paper examines the historical growth of Montréal’s Indoor City, with the aim of exploring thefactors that caused its rapid growth. Speci cally, changes in pedestrian access to retail space over time aremodeled in a geographic informationsystem to highlight major phases in the growth of the network. is research develops a theoretical framework, constructs a comprehensivetime sequence describing the growth of the Indoor City’s pedestrian network, and interprets the results to convey the lessons learned fromMontréal’s planning policies towards the Indoor City. e results of this research suggest that a series of plans and administrative policiesadopted by the City of Montréal over the past 45 years have had a signi cant impact on the growth of the Indoor City. At the same time, itis also clear that access to retail and public transit (especially the underground metro lines), as well as a loophole in the Montréal legislativesystem, have had signi cant effects on the growth of the Indoor City.

Keywords: Access; Pedestrian; Indoor City; Underground; Retail

1 Introduction

During the the twentieth century, streets came to be viewedas contributors to the social spaces of the city, and no longeras spaces that people simply pass through (Gehl 1987; Jacobs1961). Planned pedestrian environments received more at-tention in the twentieth century than they had previously.

is was largely a reaction to the motorization of transporta-tion (Zacharias 2001). Althoughpedestrians and automobilesonce shared the public space of the roadway, the introductionof the sidewalk offered pedestrians a protected space of theirown. is segregationwas taken a step further by the introduc-tion of underground walkways and elevated “skyways,” whichgranted pedestrians a space entirely separate from the street-level circulation system (Robertson 1993). e developmentof these systems occurred in response to the heavy concen-tration of automobiles in downtown areas and the associ-

ahmed.elgeneidy@mcgill.ca. Principal contact. list.kastelberger@plani.comhatem.abdelhamid@mcgill.edu

ated decrease in pedestrian activity in these areas. ese in-door networks are distinguished from traditional street-levelconcourses by their functions, purposes, and interaction withother transportation systems.

Around the world, indoor pedestrian networks have devel-oped as important environments that host a wide range of ac-tivities, especially in downtown areas. In Canada, Montréal’sIndoor City, Toronto’s PATH and Edmonton’s Pedway un-derground pedestrian routes have gained fame, as have sim-ilar systems in other countries such as the Forum des Hallesin Paris, Japan’s Crysta Nagahori, and Singapore’s CityLinkMall. Above-grade systems are also common in North Amer-ica, such as the Skyway system in Minneapolis and Calgary’sPLUS 15. At least 85 cities in North America have some kindof skyway or tunnel linkage to isolate pedestrians; 30 of theseare well-developed systems (Maitland 1992). High density,connectivity, and quality of life are three key elements in sus-taining a successful indoor pedestrian environment that is dis-tinguishable from the street environment (Rotmeyer 2006).Underground pedestrian network have several bene ts. From

Copyright 2011 Ahmed El-Geneidy.Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial License 3.0.

.

a planning perspective, one of the most important bene ts ofan indoor pedestrian network is the increase in pedestrian ac-cess to amenities that can be provided along the network, aswell as and to destinations in the city’s core.

Zacharias (2001) explains that Asia’s underground net-works are intended to separate pedestrians from car traffic,whereas in North America, they are intended as refuges fromextreme weather (cold or heat). Indeed, the scarcity of spaceis an acute problem in many Asian cities; underground devel-opment is a way to recover part of the high cost of land and touse urban space more efficiently (Barles and Jardel 2005). InNorthAmerica, undergrounddevelopment is away for real es-tate owners to increase pro ts: property values in areas servedbypedestriannetworks tend to increase, and thenetworks alsocreate opportunities to incorporate high-rent retail spaces intoan expanded building base. InMontréal, the IndoorCity ben-e ted from a legislative loophole in which below-grade spacewas not calculated as part of the Floor Area Ratio; this gavedevelopers additional areawithout sacri cing building heights(Belanger 2007). From theCity ofMontréal’s perspective, thedevelopment of the underground pedestrian network posi-tioned the city as an international reference for sustainable de-velopment strategies, while also improving the access to publicspaces, retail areas, and cultural facilities. Moreover, an indoorpedestrian network increases the amount of public space avail-able in a downtown area (Besner 2002).

One of the most interesting aspects of the development ofgrade-separated pedestrian networks is the shi in locationof commerce from ground level to below ground or abovegrade. For instance, in 1965, all of the retail space in Mon-tréal’s downtown was above-ground street frontages; today,however, more than two-thirds of the commercial space in theCentral BusinessDistrict (CBD) is directly accessible throughthe Indoor City walkways (Zacharias 2000). Whyte (1980)reasoned that the main attraction in urban spaces for peopleis, in fact, other people, which can partially explain the shiof retail to the indoor city. In general, it can be said that re-tail locates in areas with higher levels of pedestrian activity(Lorch and Smith 1993). ere is an abundance of literaturededicated to retail location theory and the indoor commer-cial space of themall environment; however, little research hasfocused on the retail activity within underground pedestriannetworks and how these networks have emerged over time.

Research on network growth applied to the transportationeld is mostly oriented towards road networks, which follow

a different logic from indoor pedestrian networks. More in-formation related to growth in transportation networks canbe found in Zhang and Levinson (2007) and Xie and Levin-

son (2009). e literature available is of limited use for thepurpose of the present article. Nevertheless, a few papers werefound to be particularly relevant to this study. Corbett et al.(2009) examine the development of the Minneapolis Skywaynetwork and attempt to identify factors in uencing the orderin which links are generated. e researchers nd that physi-cal, economic and legal factors all played roles in the growthof the skyway network while the levels of access to office andretail space do remain as an important factor in predictingthe growth of the skyway network. Belanger (2007) exam-ines the factors that affected the growth of theToronto under-ground network. A notable point in this paper is the effect ofthe Montréal experience and how it has helped to ignite thegrowth of the Toronto system. e author links the growthof the indoor pedestrian network to the growth of retail andcommercial businesses in the Toronto downtown area.

e research described in the present article examines thegrowth of Montréal’s Indoor City and pedestrian networkwith the aimof determiningwhether knowledge of past eventscan help us understand the network’s potential future growth.

e rst part of this paper presents a discussion of the factorsthat were present during the initial development of the IndoorCity. e second sectionmodels the changes in pedestrian ac-cess to retail space in the Indoor City over the past 45 years.

e paper concludes with a critical look at how the City ofMontréal’s past and present policies have affected the growthof the Indoor City and identi es milestone events during thegrowth of the network.

2 Methodology

Drawing from scholarly articles, newspapers, and maps datingback to 1962, a detailed chronology of the Indoor City’s ex-pansionhas beendeveloped. A total of 66 buildings joined theIndoor City network between 1962 and 2006. In addition,information on links completed a er initial construction wasobtained from the same sources. Asmuch as possible, the yearof a link opening was used as the base in understanding whenthe buildingswere linked to the network. When this informa-tion was not available, the year of construction or opening ofthe building through which a given link runs was used. Dur-ing this process, several variables were recorded for each build-ing linked to the Indoor City: Building Age, Age of Link-age to the Network, Building Square Footage, Retail SquareFootage,Number of Floors,Number ofTowers, Availability ofIndoor Parking, Metro Connections, and Length of Segmentof Indoor City. e Indoor City network was modeled in aGeographic Information System (GIS). A walking matrix was

Montréal’s roots

generated using an origin-destination application in GIS. egenerated OD matrix measures the levels of pedestrian accessto retail from every building in the indoor city as an origin toevery other building as a destination. is was done for eachyear throughout the entire growth period of the Indoor City.

ere are two components to the analysis:

• e rst section of the analysis focuses on the major fac-tors contributing to the establishment and growth ofMontréal’s IndoorCity. Here, factors relating to climate,urban form, planning tools, nancing, and key stake-holders are discussed in detail.

• e second section identi es the key cycles of growthand combines that with an analysis of the change inpedestrian access to retail space over time. Access is in-terpreted as a measure of the amount of retail space thatcan be reached bywalking through the IndoorCity. issection includes a visual representation of access to retailspace over time.

3 The Indoor City case study

Montréal is home to one of the most expansive indoor pedes-trian networks in the world. irty-two kilometers (19.88miles) in length, the indoor public walkway network cov-ers an area of 12 square kilometers (4.6 square miles) in thecity’s downtown core. e network consists of tunnels, cor-ridors and atriums linking 66 real estate complexes. Withinthese complexes, pedestrians can access offices, retail busi-nesses, hotels, government institutions, cultural facilities, res-idential areas, recreational opportunities, and transportationservices (ten Metro stations, two commuter rail stations, andtwo regional bus stations). Used bymore than 500,000 pedes-trians every day, the underground network connects approxi-mately 80 percent of downtown office space, 35 percent of re-tail space, 1600 housing units, and 10,000 indoor public park-ing spaces (Besner 1997; Sijpkes and Brown 1997). Until re-cently, Montréal’s indoor walkway was o en referred to as the“Underground City” or “Ville Souterraine”; however, this is amisnomer because the network is only partially below ground.In fact, about half of the network is located at or above groundlevel, so the term Indoor City is more accurate. In 2004, thedowntown portion of the underground system was brandedas the RÉSO (from the French réseau, meaning “network”).Figure 1 shows the growth of the Montréal Indoor City be-tween 1962 and 2006. It is clear from the layout and contin-ual growth of the pedestrian system that its development wasnever based on a master plan—the network grew organically

over a period of 45 years (Besner 1997; Shostack 1978). Fig-ure 2 is a set of photographs taken within the Indoor City tohelp the reader understand the Indoor City’s network and en-vironment.

3.1 Factors surrounding the conception of the Indoor City

e evolution of the Indoor City began well before the con-struction of Place Ville Marie in 1962. In reality, there werenumerous factors and policies at play in Montréal prior to thebirth of the Indoor City.

Visionary thinkers

Above all, it was the decision by the Canadian National Rail-way Company (CN) to develop a large tract of its land, andthe local government’s support of that decision, that providedthe crucial impetus to the creation of the Indoor City. eoriginal concept of underground corridors to connect build-ings was made in a proposal to the CN put forward by HughJones in 1929. e location of the current downtown is basedon the fact that between the years of 1912 and 1918 the CNRailway company put in place a rail line that tunneled throughMount Royal and straight through the heart of the island,leaving an enormous open trench from the south of CathcartStreet to Central Station (90000m2; 968750 sq. .) bro-ken over three quadrilaterals). e development of the In-door City was only realized through the coordination of NewYork promoter Bill Zeckendorf, architects I.M. Pei andHenryCobb, and urban Planner Vincent Ponte, who has been right-fully recognized as the driving force behindMontréal’s indoorscheme.

Additionally, the policies of politicians including JeanDra-peau, Jean Lesage, and Jean Doré made the Indoor City pos-sible. During the 1960s, the newly elected Liberal govern-ment of Jean Lesage instituted reforms that encouraged fran-cophone uébecers to engage in business, therefore increas-ing the political and economic in uence of the francophonecommunity. e policies of Montréal’s Mayor Jean Drapeau(1954–1957; 1960–1986) were largely oriented around in-ternational grand events, such as Expo 67 and later the 1976Olympics and the 1980 Floralies. Essentially, Drapeau al-lowed the Indoor City to ourish by bringing aid to severalinternational events and megaprojects (Augustin, 1996); thisperiod saw the construction of many of Montréal’s skyscrap-ers, as well as the Metro system that had a signi cant impacton the growth of the Indoor City.

Montreal’s original downtown area is now known as the “Old Port.”

.

Figu

re1:

Gen

eral

grow

thof

Mon

tréa

l’sIn

door

City

.

Montréal’s roots

Figure 2: Photographs of the Indoor City.

uebec’s economy experienced hardships in the 1970s and1980s, as political unrest in the province encouraged busi-nesses to shi from Montréal to Toronto. e 1980 vic-tory of the separatist Parti uébécois and the rst referen-dum on uebec sovereignty led to an exodus of capital; busi-ness head offices moved elsewhere (particularly Toronto), asdid 300000 English-speaking uébecers. Faced with subur-ban competition and an uncertain economy, it was feared thatfurther expansion of the Indoor City along the east-west axiswould siphon business from above and be detrimental to Ste-Catherine Street, the city’s main commercial artery. eseconcerns, coupled with claims that the downtown retail mar-ket had become saturated, led the 1990s city administration toenact a moratorium on further extensions of the Indoor City.

Drapeau’s successor, Mayor Jean Doré (1986–1994), en-gagedmore activelywith the planning and coordination of theIndoorCity, proposingmeasures to ensure a better balance be-tween street-level businesses and those in the IndoorCity (Au-gustin 1996). By the late 1990s, Montréal’s economic climatehad improved, and the city attracted several international or-ganizations to move their secretariats to the uartier Interna-tional de Montréal (QIM).

e 2004 Montréal Master Plan (City of Montréal 2004)adopted a new tone towards the Indoor City by emphasizingsystem consolidation rather than further expansion. is planadvocated improving interaction between the indoor and out-door systems, providing universal access throughout the sys-

tem, further expanding the way- nding signage in the RÉSO,implementing design standards, and capitalizing on the In-door City to increase the modal share of public transporta-tion. In other words, the city chose to focus on improving thequality of existing links rather than generating new ones.

Most recently, Montréal’s 2007 Transportation Plan (Cityof Montréal 2007) indicates that the City has adopted a posi-tion that once more favors the expansion of the Indoor City.

is plan recognized the need to seize the opportunity to helpconsolidate the underground network further, including ex-tensions to link it to the new QIM and the extension of the“cultural axis” in the eastern part of the Indoor City as partof the new uartier des Spectacles development. Despite thepreparation of several Master Plans for the downtown area,there has yet to be a development plan for the Indoor City.

Climatic factors

Montréal’s climate has o en been cited as a prime motivationfor the development of the Indoor City. e indoor walkwayscreate an arti cially climate-controlled space that is capableof overcoming local temperatures that reach 30 ◦C in summerand −30 ◦C in winter. In tracing the history of the IndoorCity, Anderson (1976) praises the walkways for the protec-tion that they afford from the weather outdoors. However, asBarles and Jardel (2005) explain, climate was certainly not theprincipal motivation for developing the Indoor City; rather,

.

climate protection was a gained advantage. e original mo-tivation behind the creation of the Indoor City was CN’s de-sire to get additional value out of its properties, as previouslymentioned. Evidently, the argument concerning climate pro-tection is only applicable during periods of extreme tempera-tures. Still, climate is one of the factors that encouraged theIndoor City’s growth.

The compactness of the city

e unusual pattern of urban functions in Montréal’s down-town served as an enabling factor for the development of theIndoor City. e gridiron street pattern of the city is quiteconsistent. Montréal’s downtown, bounded by the MountRoyal to the north and the St. Lawrence River to the south,covers a rectangular area of approximately 12km2 (4.6 squaremiles). e fact that it is bounded by two geographic featurescontributes to the city’s high density and congestion. Mon-tréal’s building boom in the early 1960s heightened this con-gestion: as the amount of office space increased, so did thenumber of pedestrians in the CBD (Shostack 1978). It is thispattern of activity that allowed for the viability of Montréal’sMetro system, which attracted a large pedestrian populationin the downtown area. Today, more than three million peo-ple inhabit Montréal’s metropolitan region, and daily passen-ger activity on the Metro is estimated to be around 700000riders. e bene ts of access to the Metro encouraged almostevery new building between 1967 and 2006 to be linked atconstruction to at least one station through the Indoor City.

Montréal’s downtown still has many vacant and underusedlots, many of which currently serve as surface parking. Severalplanning documents have emphasized the high number of va-cant lots and highlighted the potential to develop additionalhousing units. e 2004 Montréal Master Plan indicates thatthere remains 0.6 square km (0.37 square mile) of vacant lotsin downtown Montréal (Barles and Jardel 2005).

Planning tools

Planning tools such as density bonuses and zoning incen-tives facilitated negotiations between building owners, devel-opers and the local government. e advent of the densitybonus made it advantageous for developers of large projectsin Montréal to include open plazas in their complexes be-cause a “plaza bonus” permitted four to six square feet of ad-ditional built area in a complex for each square foot (0.09square meter) of plaza space provided. Additionally, the FAR( oor area ratio) factor, which limited the density of develop-ments, favored underground constructions: FARs were calcu-

lated from the “mean grade level,” meaning below-grade shop-ping concourses were not included in the FAR calculations.

e City of Montréal also encouraged developers to provideconnections to the Indoor City through zoning incentives.

is planning tool allowed developers to exceed their allottedFARs if they provided a desired amenity, such as a connectionto the Indoor City (Shostack 1978). In addition to the FARfactor, the presence of the Metro system and the number ofpeople it carried to and from the CBD every day has playedan important role in the growth of the Indoor City. Most,if not all, of the links in the Indoor City connect to a majorMetro or rail station, and the rest of the pieces grew aroundthese stations.

Financing

e central role of the private sector in the development andnancing of the Indoor City has been well documented (Au-

gustin 1996; Besner 1997)(Augustin, 1996, Magder, Febru-aury 29, 2008, Besner, 1997). According to Boisvert (2002),public investments and guidelines have played a minor role,since the underground space is considered private rather thanpublic, with the exception of areas beneath public land. How-ever, Barles and Jardel (2005) and Augustin (1996) questionwhether the development of the Indoor City has completelyescaped the control of the public sector. In 1964, the City ofMontréal began searching for developers to erect buildings onthe lots it hadpurchased during the construction of theMetro.According to Barles and Jardel, the projects directly attachedto Metro stations were much more complex because they in-volved emphyteutic leases between the owners of the build-ings and the City, taking on a form of public-private develop-ment partnerships. is form was the rst incentive used bythe City of Montréal to encourage the growth of the IndoorCity (Besner 1997). By offering the air rights above Metrostation entrances, ten buildings were already connected to thesystem by the time the Metro was inaugurated in 1966, in-

An emphyteutic lease is de ned in Canadian civil law as a long-termlease of land or buildings (99 years or similar, or even in perpetuity. eCivil Code of uebec, at §1195, 1197 and 1200, de nes emphyteusis as:“the right which, for a certain time, grants a person the full bene t andenjoyment of an immovable owned by another provided he does not en-danger its existence and undertakes to make constructions, works or plan-tations thereon that durably increase its value.” “ e emphyteutic lessee hasall the rights in the immovable that are attached to the quality of owner,subject to the restrictions contained in this chapter and in the act consti-tuting emphyteusis.” “ e term of the emphyteusis shall be stipulated in theconstituting act and be not less than 10 nor more than 100 years.” Source:www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary.

Montréal’s roots

cluding all entrances to the Peel,McGill, Guy-Concordia, andPlace d’Armes Metro stations (Shostack 1978).

Augustin (1996) believes that the planning of the initialsegments of the Indoor City was generally aimed at bene-ting the promoters and developers of the complexes con-

nected to the new pedestrian network. However, he is notconvinced that this is true for the cultural-governmental axiseast of downtown. Built a er the initial business segment ofthe network, the portion of the IndoorCity encompassing thePlace des Arts, ComplexeDesjardins, ComplexeGuy Favreau,and Palais desCongrès ismade up of buildings geared towardscultural and governmental functions. Nonetheless, themajor-ity of the network has been the realization of private invest-ments and this trend continues to the present day. In 2007,the city owned approximately 10 percent of the Indoor City,with the remaining 90 percent split betweenmore than 60 pri-vate owners (Magder, Februaury 29, 2008).

3.2 Lessons learned

Interestingly, much criticism has been directed at the Cityof Montréal for their planning polices related to zoning andFARs. According to Anderson (1976), zoning and FAR con-trols are to blame for “a rash of projectswhich pay lip service tothe original concept of an enclosed or interior public environ-ment but which negate or eliminate the traditional qualitiesof the surrounding streets.” Speci cally, he notes that shop-ping has been siphoned to the underground to take advan-tage of the FAR rule, resulting in blank facades and lifelessstreets above ground. Additionally, the city’s requirementsfor direct off-street truck loading facilities and parking en-trances have produced blank facades that extend for entireblocks. In regards to parking requirements, Anderson claimsthat city regulations havemade large complexes evenmore op-pressive. Speci cally, the practice of placing shopping levelsunderground to avoid any negative effects on the FAR hascaused parking to be elevated above the street level, creatingblank boxes four to six stories tall. Sijpkes and Brown (1997)attest to this, claiming that many of the buildings built duringthe 1970s were essentially “boxes built in the banal late mod-ernist style of the time.”To them, a fascinationwith the “mega-building” aspect of the indoor city resulted inminimal consid-eration for the deteriorating outdoor streetscape. ey notethat certain streets in particular were victims of this style, suchas President Kennedy Avenue and Cathcart Street (Figure 3),which is lined with blank walls and garage entrances. is isa noteworthy illustration of the impact of the Indoor City onurban morphology and architecture. However, this simple or“poor” architecture style was the modern style worldwide, for

many other reasons, and perhaps was ampli ed in Montréalby the presence of the Indoor City network.

Figure 3: Blank walls and garage entrances.

3.3 Phases in the growth of the Indoor City

Atotal of 66buildingswere linked to the IndoorCity networkbetween 1962 and 2006. e network growth curve shownin Figure 4 serves as a visual representation of the cumulativegrowth (length in meters) of the Indoor City over the past 45years. e shape of the growth curve indicates that the IndoorCity has grown at a fairly steady pace, with intermittent peri-ods during which few network extensions were made.

A summary of the growth in the number of linked build-ings by year is presented in Table 1. It is clear that there werethree years where several buildings were linked to the IndoorCity. e three biggest expansions of the Indoor City, duringwhich several buildings were linked to the network in a singleyear, occurred in 1967, 1977 and 1992. ese three years ofsigni cant growth mark the three phases in the growth of theIndoor City: Conception, Expansion, and Maturity. esephases also re ect the evolution of the economy of the city ingeneral. e 1960s and 1970s were prosperous decades, coin-

.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Net

wo

rk L

engt

h in

Met

ers

Year

Figure 4: Network Growth of the Montréal Indoor City

ciding with the development of many infrastructure compo-nents. en, in the 1980s, the accumulated debt slowed downthe pace of economy, which became progressively stronger inthe 1990s.

It is important to note that not all buildings constructedwere associated with an increase in retail space. Some of thebuildings were mainly government facilities with office space,or university buildings with no office space established at thetime of construction.

e remainder of this section comprises an overview of keyevents that occurred during the three major phases of the In-doorCity’s history (Conception, Expansion, andMaturity) aswell as an analysis that can help in understanding these phasesand their importance in the growth of the Indoor City. evalue of key events in every phase is demonstrated by changesin the level of access to retail space as new areas are added tothe network. Access is measured as the amount (in squareme-ters) of retail space that can be reached by walking inside theIndoor City at the end of a year, and the change in access iscalculated as the difference between the levels of access at theend of a year and the end of the previous year. Figures 5, 6,and 7 depict a series of maps measuring the change in the levelof access to retail space in the Indoor City during three differ-ent time periods (1962–1967, 1973–1977, and 1992–1995).

is part of the analysis is focused on changes in the level ofaccess to actual retail space, which includes active and inactivespace. Modeling active retail space only would require track-ing every store in the entire Indoor City over a period of 45years, which is beyond the scope of the present study.

Phase I: Conception (1960s)

e spine of the Indoor City was initially created by the link-ing of the Place Ville-Marie complex, the CN Central Stationand headquarters, the ueenElizabethHotel, Place Bonaven-ture, the ChateauChamplainHotel, and the Place duCanadabetween the years of 1962 and 1967. e origins of this seg-ment of the Indoor City can be traced back to 1959, when theCN Company decided to develop the air rights above theirrail lines by building a train terminal in the heart of down-town Montréal, as discussed previously. e trench createdby this project remained open until the 1950s, when CN de-cided to build their head office in the location occupied to-day by the Place Ville-Marie complex (Besner 1997; Boisvert2002; Boivin 1991). e second phase of CN’s redevelop-ment scheme involved a six-acre parcel to the south of thePlace Ville-Marie complex, on which the Place Bonaventureconvention center was constructed in 1967 (Shostack 1978).

Figure 5 covers 1962–1967, a period in which severalMetro lines associated with Expo 1967 were constructed. Weconsider this time period as the birth of the Indoor City. Be-ginning in 1966, the construction of theMetro system createdthe spine upon which the Indoor City took shape.

Phase II: Expansion (1970s)

A second portion of the Indoor City debuted with the 1976construction of the Complexe Desjardins on the eastern edgeof the downtown area. is portionwas constructed as part ofthe City of Montréal’s preparation for the summer Olympics.

e 1973–1977 map shows the change in access to retailspace a er the 1976 Olympic Games. It is clear that access toretail space increased on the eastern side of downtown, whereseveral buildings devoted to cultural uses were constructed.

Phase III: Maturity (1980s to present)

e late 1980sushered in anewphase of growth for the IndoorCity. During this period, three major shopping centers wereconnected to the Indoor City via the Peel and McGill MetroStations, establishing a strong east-west retail axis. e 1980swere also important years for the institutional function of theIndoor City, withMontréal’s University of uebec (UQAM)connecting several of its main pavilions to the Indoor City viathe Berri-UQAM Metro. In the 1990s, several megaprojectswere undertaken in the downtown area; most of these projectswere connected to the Indoor City. A newly constructedtunnel between the McGill and Square-Victoria Metro sta-tions was nally completed in 1995 (Boisvert 2002), connect-ing the two major Metro lines. e 2003 redevelopment of

Montréal’s roots

Figu

re5:

Cha

ngei

nac

cess

tore

tailsp

acem

easu

redin

squa

rem

eter

sbet

wee

n19

62an

d19

67.

.

Figu

re6:

Cha

ngei

nac

cess

tore

tailsp

acem

easu

redin

squa

rem

eter

sbet

wee

n19

73an

d19

77.

Montréal’s roots

Table 1: Summary of Indoor City growth.

Year Number ofBuildingsLinked

Percentage ofTotalBuildings

Office Space Retail Space

Sq. Meters Sq. Feet Sq. Meters Sq. Feet

1962 6 9.09 347680 3742391 22840 2458531967 14 21.21 1261037 13573694 160197 17243501973 2 3.03 235919 2539408 6782 730001977 9 13.64 678539 7303732 108789 11710001980 3 4.55 81940 882000 0 01983 5 7.58 417075 4489354 0 01988 3 4.55 125699 1353017 42658 4591691989 2 3.03 25719 276833 6503 700001992 10 15.15 382736 4119738 7459 802901995 3 4.55 122152 1314835 2973 320001999 4 6.06 88628 953988 4831 520002002 2 3.03 215347 2317977 0 02006 3 4.55 232742 2505209 0 0

Total 66 100 4215213 45372176 363034 3907662

the uartier International de Montréal (QIM) strengthenedseveral segments of the network. For example, the construc-tion of the InternationalCivil AviationOrganization (ICAO)headquarters created a link between Place Bonaventure andthe Square-Victoria Metro station. Montréal’s new construc-tion boom in the eastern portion of downtown and a newTransportation Plan that envisions capitalizing on opportuni-ties to expand the network are good indications that the In-door City’s next growth spurt is about to begin.

e creation of an additional walkway below 1253 McGillCollege in 1995, which linked the two “subsystems” of the In-door City, dramatically increased the amount of retail spaceaccessible north of the new connection. e series of mapspresented in this article demonstrates that there has been acontinual increase in access to retail space over time. isgrowth has been tied either to major events in the city or tothe construction of critical network links. Perhaps most im-portantly, this analysis indicates that changes in the level ofaccess over time in the Indoor City can serve as an indicatorof the performance of past and present policies. Also, it showshow these policies have had signi cant effects on the growthof the Indoor City, leading to major changes in the amount ofretail a person can reach by walking through the Indoor City.

e power of a single link that was constructed in 1995 isclearly shown in Figure 7. e creation of this link changedthe level of access to retail space in the Indoor City . is linkwas the product of public-private partnership that took sev-

eral forms prior to the construction of the link in question.Although this link is closed a er the operating hours of stores,it is an important part of the Indoor City.

4 Conclusions

e Indoor City was primarily developed by the private sec-tor; consequently, its growth has been linked to the economicdevelopment of Montréal. However, a series of policies overthe past ve decades—including emphyteutic leases over newMetro stations, FAR exemptions for underground construc-tion, and, more recently, the development of the QIM andthe improvement of RÉSO signage, have also had signi canteffects on the pace at which the Indoor City has grown. It ap-pears that a series of policies and events explain the exponen-tial function of the network growth model. For instance, thenetwork growth curve’s rapid rise in the 1960s can be associ-ated with what has been called the uiet Revolution in ue-bec, under which Jean Lesage encouraged francophone ue-becers to engage in business. Additionally, Montréal MayorJean Drapeau’s ability to attract large international events andsupport for the Metro allowed the Indoor City to ourish.

is was followed by a series of expansions in 1970s that ac-companied the Olympic Games in 1976. e relatively sta-bility or inactivity seen in the network growth curve duringthe 1980s can be explained by the hardships that the uébececonomy experienced as a consequence of debt and political

.

Figu

re7:

Cha

ngei

nac

cess

tore

tailsp

acem

easu

redin

squa

rem

eter

sbet

wee

n19

92an

d19

95.

Montréal’s roots

change during that period. By the late 1990s,Montréal’s econ-omy had improved, in part due to the success of the uartierInternational de Montréal (QIM). ese events are repre-sented on the network growth curve. In order to continue theupward trend of the network growth curve, attentionmust bepaid to the policies set in place by theCity ofMontréal, and inparticular to those policies related to land use and transporta-tion, such as FAR policies.

e comparisonof access levels in the IndoorCity over timeindicates that access to retail has increased quite consistentlyacross the network over time. e number of buildings expe-riencing a change in the level of access to retail has increasedover timewith every link added, especially the links developedin 1995.

Acknowledgements

e research described in this article was funded in part bythe Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ofCanada (NSERC) and the Canada Foundation for Innova-tion (CFI). e authors thank Andrew Matheson for hiscontribution towards the digitizing of the network. JulieBachand-Marleau and Nithya Vijayakumar helped in proof-reading and nalizing this contribution. Finally, we wouldlike to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their valuablefeedback and comments on an earlier version of this article.

About the authors

Ahmed El-Geneidy (ahmed.elgeneidy@mcgill.ca) is Assis-tant Professor in the School ofUrbanPlanning atMcGillUni-versity, Montréal.

Lisa Kastelberger (lisa.kastelberger@plania.com) is em-ployed by Plania, Montréal and received a Master of UrbanPlanning degree from McGill University.

Hatem T. Abdelhamid (hatem.abdelhamid@mcgill.ca) is aPost-doctoral researcher in the School of Urban Planning,McGill University.

References

Anderson, B. 1976. Making the city more usable: An evalua-tion of weather protected public spaces in Montreal. Jour-nal of Architectural Education, 29:20–22. 3.

Augustin, J. 1996. Le Réseau souterrain de Montréal:Aménagement et espace public. Etudes Canadiennes,

40:65–78. URL http://www.afec33.asso.fr/ftp/revue/pdf/n40.pdf#page=65.

Barles, S. and S. Jardel. 2005. L’Urbanisme souter-rain: Étude comparée exploratoire. Technicalreport, L’Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme. URLhttp://perso.univ-mlv.fr/www-ltmu/groupe_documents/doc_pdf/APUR_barles_0505_light.pdf.

Belanger, P. 2007. Underground landscape: e ur-banism and infrastructure of Toronto’s downtown pedes-trian network. Tunneling and Underground Technology,22:272–292. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2006.07.005. 3.

Besner, J. 1997. Genèse de la ville intérieure de Montréal.URL http://www.aftes.asso.fr/contenus/upload/File/Espace%20Souterrain/Documents/Jacques%20Besner.pdf.

Besner, J. 2002. e sustainable usage of the undergroundspace in metropolitan area. In Urban Underground Space:A Resource for Cities, pp. 1–8. Torino, Italy.

Boisvert, M. 2002. From connexity to connectivity: Enhanc-ing the efficiency of interior walkways with the current ex-tensions of Montreal’s Indoor City. InUrban UndergroundSpace Technology: A Resource for Cities. Torino, Italy.

Boivin, D. 1991. Montreal’s underground network: A studyof the downtown pedestrian system. Tunneling and Under-ground Space Technology, 6(1):83–91. doi: 10.1016/0886-7798(91)90007-Q. 1.

City of Montréal. 2004. Montréal master plan. URLhttp://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=2762,3099656&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.

City of Montréal. 2007. Transportation plan: Consultationdocument.

Corbett, M., F. Xie, and D. Levinson. 2009. Evolution of thesecond-story city: Modeling the growth of theMinneapolisSkyway network. En ironment and Planning: Part B Plan-ning and Design, 36:711–724. doi: 10.1068/b34066. 4,URL http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/Skyways.pdf.

Gehl, J. 1987. Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nos-trand Reinhold.

Jacobs, J. 1961. e Death and Life of Great American Cities.New York: Vintage Books.

Lorch, B. J. and M. J. Smith. 1993. Pedestrian move-ment and the downtown enclosed shopping center. Jour-nal of American Planning Association, 59(1):75–86. doi:10.1080/01944369308975846. 1.

Maitland, B. 1992. Hidden cities: e irresistible rise of theNorth American interior city. Cities, 9(3):162–169. doi:10.1016/0264-2751(92)90012-T.

.

Robertson, K. A. 1993. Pedestrians and the American down-town. Town Planning review, 64:273–286. 3, URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/40113233.

Rotmeyer, J. 2006. Can elevated pedestrian walkways be sus-tainable? InU.Mander, C. Brebbia, and E. Tiezzi, eds., eSustainable City IV:UrbanRegeneration and Sustainability,pp. 293–302. Southampton, UK: WIT Press.

Shostack, H. 1978. City centre pedestrian systems: A state-of-the-art review. Working paper, Urban TransportationResearch Branch of the Canadian Surface TransportationAdministration.

Sijpkes, P. and D. Brown. 1997. Montreal’s indoor city – 35years of development. Presented at the 7th InternationalConference on Underground Space.

Whyte, W. H. 1980. e Social Life of Small Urban Spaces.Washington, D.C.: e Conservation Foundation.

Xie, F. and D. Levinson. 2009. Modeling the growthof transportation networks: A comprehensive review.Networks and Spatial Economics, 9(3):291–307. doi:10.1007/s11067-007-9037-4. URL http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/ReviewOfNetworkGrowth.pdf.

Zacharias, J. 2000. Modeling pedestrian dynamics in Mon-treal’s underground city. Journal of Transportation En-gineering, 126:405–412. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2000)126:5(405). 5.

Zacharias, J. 2001. Pedestrian behavior and perception in ur-ban walking environments. Journal of Planning Literature,16(1):3–18. doi: 10.1177/08854120122093249. 3.

Zhang, L. and D. Levinson. 2007. e economics oftransportation network growth. In P. Coto-Millan andV. Inglada, eds., Essays on Transport Economics, Contribu-tions to Economics, pp. 317–340. Springer.