A shoebox house photographed in Montreal, on Oct. 24, 2018.Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press
High style, they are not.
Familiarly known as “shoebox” homes, they are humble one-storey houses squeezed in between more imposing duplexes and triplexes in the densely populated Montreal borough of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie.
Detractors view them as poky little dwellings of negligible architectural or historical value. But the borough is pressing ahead with a bylaw aimed at preserving as many of the 561 designated shoeboxes as possible.
It’s part of a growing movement among politicians, urban planners and heritage advocates to conserve at least a part of the urban built environment that is often overlooked: the vernacular, do-it-yourself, modest houses built by the working and middle classes in popular neighbourhoods.
Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie officials, though, have run into flak from shoebox homeowners who say the proposed new rules are too stringent, making it nearly impossible to demolish the houses to build larger dwellings suitable for growing families. If renovation or updating is the goal, the strict regulations to maintain the look and architectural details would make it an expensive and complicated process, the concerned homeowners say.
The borough has delayed the timeline for passage of the new bylaw as it revisits aspects of it following pushback from the homeowners. The new bylaw would make Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie the first borough in Montreal to implement such protection.
The borough of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie is pressing ahead with a bylaw aimed at preserving as many of the 561 designated shoeboxes as possible.Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press
Christine Gosselin, the city councillor spearheading the shoebox preservation initiative, says action to save as many of the structures from demolition was first taken about five years ago, when knock-down permits were being issued at the rate of two a month. Many of the homes were – and remain – in poor condition and require extensive repair and upgrading work.
The tiny homes on decent-sized plots of land made for highly desirable targets for real estate developers eager to build multiplex condos on the properties, Ms. Gosselin said.
“This is a borough where development pressures are very strong,” she said.
Efforts are being made to strike a balance between preservation and the shoebox owners’ needs, including enlargement of the cottages, she said. “We very favourably welcome a dialogue between the old and the new.” But it’s worth going the extra mile to protect the shoeboxes as reminders of an important period in Montreal’s history when thousands of people moved from the country to the city around the turn of the 20th century to work in the factories, quarries and locomotive shops, Ms. Gosselin said.
“We want them to continue to contain the memory of this period of industrialization.”
Wilfried Cordeau, who set up a Facebook group to keep shoebox owners abreast of developments, said the new bylaw is in large part about using a “historical interest” argument to block real estate development and the owners are being asked to pay the price.
Daniel Durand, an architect and shoebox owner, says he would like to see some form of financial assistance as an incentive to help owners meet the heritage requirements.
He also finds the classification system the borough uses to rate each shoebox on a 1-2-3 scale of historical significance is too subjective and adds: “From an architectural point of view, [the houses] are not of great interest.”
The tiny homes on decent-sized plots of land are desirable targets for developers.Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press
The shoebox dwelling represents a key development in the evolution of home ownership for people of modest means in Montreal, beginning in the 1890s, explains David Hanna, a professor of urban studies and heritage expert at the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM).
The quaint homes popped up not just in Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie but in many other areas in the city, often following the newly built streetcar lines that radiated out across vast tracts of land on the Island of Montreal, he said. The trendy Plateau-Mont-Royal area was once home to hundreds of them. Now, there are only a few dozen still standing, according to observers.
“Their historical value is very clear in my mind,” Dr. Hanna said.
Part of the problem is that the land on which the shoeboxes rest is a valuable commodity whose worth continues to rise and the result is growing real estate development pressure to unlock that value, Dr. Hanna said.
While not advocating that all of the shoebox homes in Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie be preserved, he believes they have a value not only as part of Montreal’s popular history but also as affordable starter homes for couples or single homeowners and for older people.
“My argument has always been one of variety. A good neighbourhood is one with a variety of housing solutions,” Dr. Hanna said.
Christina Cameron, holder of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage at the University of Montreal’s school of architecture, points out that the heritage preservation concerns and definitions of what constitutes historical and architectural value have greatly evolved over the years. “There is a broader scope than there used to be, with social, economic values and values of identity taken into consideration,” she said.
“It’s a big, big enlarging of the idea of what has heritage value.”
Councillor Christine Gosselin says most of the shoebox homes 'have very fine-looking façades.'Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press
Said Martin Drouin, a professor in the department of urban and tourism studies at UQAM: “Not so long ago, these houses would have been looked upon with disdain. “The borough intervened as a result of public pressure and the realization that many of these ‘shoebox’-style houses were disappearing. The authorities, therefore, decided to intervene before it was too late because they believe these buildings are important witnesses to Montreal history and are part of the diversity of the urban landscape.”
For city councillor Ms. Gosselin, the homes also have a certain charm. “Most of them have very fine-looking façades,” she said.
Montreal isn’t the only city in North America dealing with – sometimes heated – debates over preservation of modest, often neglected dwellings in the urban environment. There have been preservation efforts – many of them successful – in several U.S. cities, including Lexington, Ky., and Washington.
Dr. Hanna recalls a period, 50 or so years ago, when there was little awareness of, or concern over, the fate of Montreal’s grand 19th-century Victorian mansions. There was an “awakening,” particularly after the demolition of the Van Horne Mansion on Sherbrooke Street in 1973. Then, the smaller Victorian row houses became chic, he said.
In the 1990s, it was all about revitalizing and repurposing old industrial spaces, with loft and condo conversions. Today, it’s the turn of the unprepossessing blue-collar house, Dr. Hanna said.
The next frontier?
“Suburban architecture of the forties and fifties.”