Students in Milton-Parc:

citizens or vacationers?

Report for the S t u d e n t s S o c i e t y o f M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , Office of the Vice-President (External Affairs) Prepared by Maroussia Lvesque 2009

Acknowledgments This report would not have been possible without the precious contribution of local community members Hlne Brisson and Andre Devault. We also wish to acknowledge the collaboration of Anurag Dhir, Communications and Community Relations agent for the Office of the Dean.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
1- Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 5 2- Historical Background .................................................................................................................. 5
A- Delineation of Milton-Parc and the McGill ghetto...........................................................................5 B- 1662-1860: Sherbrooke plateau farmland........................................................................................6 C- 1860- 1890: initial suburban development ......................................................................................6 D-1890 -1930: full urbanization of Milton-Parc ...................................................................................7 E-1930- 1985: the bohemian years ..........................................................................................................8 F-1960-1985: The Cit Concordia years ............................................................................................... 10 G-1985-present: friction between longer-term residents and studentification..................... 12

3) Development of relationship between McGill students and Milton-Parc longer- term residents.....................................................................................................................................13
A. structural causes: student demographic pressure ...................................................................... 14 i. proximity ......................................................................................................................................................................14 ii. comparatively lower tuition fees attracting out of town students.....................................................14 iii. lower legal drinking age ......................................................................................................................................15 iv. renewal of St-Laurent blvd.................................................................................................................................16 B- effects of studentification on longer-term residents .................................................................. 16 i. functional negative effects of studentification .............................................................................................17 ii. experiential effects..................................................................................................................................................23

c- effects of studentification on students and other constituencies............................................ 26 i. functional effects .......................................................................................................................................................26 ii. experiential effects.................................................................................................................................................27 iv. recent developments.............................................................................................................................................30

4) Local Initiatives .............................................................................................................................31

A. University initiatives to date ............................................................................................................... 31 i. punitive/ deterrent approach..............................................................................................................................31 ii. preventive approach ..............................................................................................................................................31 B. Joint initiatives ......................................................................................................................................... 34 i. punitive..........................................................................................................................................................................34 ii. deterrent......................................................................................................................................................................34 iii. restorative .................................................................................................................................................................34

5. Initiatives in other University communities ........................................................................35

A. University-side ......................................................................................................................................... 35 i. punitive..........................................................................................................................................................................35 ii. preventive ...................................................................................................................................................................35 iii. restorative .................................................................................................................................................................38 B. Student-side............................................................................................................................................... 39 i. preventive ....................................................................................................................................................................39 C. municipality............................................................................................................................................... 39 i. punitive..........................................................................................................................................................................39 ii. preventive ...................................................................................................................................................................40 D. Police ........................................................................................................................................................... 42 ii. punitive/deterrent approach .............................................................................................................................42 E. Community................................................................................................................................................. 42 i. punitive/deterrent approach..............................................................................................................................42 ii. preventive approach ..............................................................................................................................................42

F. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation............................................................................... 44 i. preventive ....................................................................................................................................................................44 G. Joint initiatives ......................................................................................................................................... 45 i. punitive..........................................................................................................................................................................45 ii. preventive ...................................................................................................................................................................45

6- Recommendations ........................................................................................................................47
A. Community suggestions ........................................................................................................................ 47 ii. punitive/ deterrent approach ............................................................................................................................47 ii. preventive approach ..............................................................................................................................................48 B. Report recommendations..................................................................................................................... 48 i. preventive ....................................................................................................................................................................48

7- Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................53 8- Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................54

1- Introduction
In the recent years there have been a growing number of complaints directed towards McGill regarding noise, vandalism, and disturbances in the adjacent Milton-Parc neighbourhood. This report hopes to inform the efforts of the Student Society of McGill university (SSMU) and other stakeholders who wish to alleviate the problems associated with an increased student presence in this residential area. The first section depicts the larger historical context of the current student demographic pressure. The following sections examine how the phenomenon of studentification affects the general community and what can be done to minimize some of these negative impacts. A detailed analysis of McGill-specific initiatives and what other campuses have been experimenting with provides the backdrop for recommendations tailored to this specific context.

2- Historical Background
A- Delineation of Milton-Parc and the McGill ghetto
Milton-Parc and what is colloquially known as the McGill ghetto overlap, but they are not identical. Milton-Parc is delineated as follows: Sherbrooke/ Hutchison/ Ste-Famille/ Pine. Its name dates back to the 60s. Some believe it refers to the location of the Citizens Committee office for the headquarters of their resistance to a large-scale urban renewal project. Others believe those two street names were simply the easiest to pronounce. The city of Montreal eventually formally recognized this name in connection with the formation of the housing cooperatives. The McGill ghetto extends from University st. until Park ave., and from Sherbrooke to Pine St. The McGill ghetto is therefore typically understood as slightly Westward in comparison with Milton-Parc. It should be noted that the addition of a McGill residence in 2004 on Parc and Pine St. contributes to an expansion North East of the traditional Ghetto boundaries. These boundaries are in flux, as population movements and egregious factors we shall attempt to describe below constantly redefine the area. The origins of this informal denomination is unclear, but one can suppose it is concurrent with the first wave of students in 5

the 70s. While the literal meaning of ghetto resonates with ethnic minority and economic hardship, the word is rather used for its connotation to homogeneity in this specific context. This report will focus on the problematic aspect of homogenisation in Milton-Parc.

B- 1662-1860: Sherbrooke plateau farmland

Although the roots of Milton-Parc did not exist before 1860, a brief summary of previous developments in the Sherbrooke Plateau (Sherbrooke/ University/ Mount-Royal/ Papineau) is useful. In 1662, Paul Chomedey de Maisonneuve and the Sulpician catholic congregation concede 25 acres of land to notary Bnigne Basset, just north of Sherbrooke st. In 1730, the Basset sons donate the land to Soeurs Hospitalires. The land is then known as Terre de la Providence. From 1745 to 1783 it is exploited as a quarry, for pasturage and for the sale of fire wood. The first residential use dates back to 1783 with the sale of land parcel to merchant Jacob Jordan. He builds a first villa in 1806, and a second one in 1816. That
Figure 1: James McGill's Burnside Estate. McCord Museum, Heritage Montreal.

same year, Thomas Torrance builds a British Mansion in this still rural area. James McGill,

a rich merchant and slave owner who made his fortune in fur trading, donates his mansion and surrounding land to create our university in 1812 (see figure 1). The faculty of Medicine opens in 1829 (Lambert, 136).

C- 1860- 1890: initial suburban development

The construction of Hotel-Dieu hospital in 1860 spawns the urbanisation of Milton-Parc. It is built on St-Urbain/ Pine/ Parc/ Duluth, leaving the area between Pine and Sherbrooke unoccupied. This land would become Ste-Famille st. in 1867, just a one year 6

after the Platt family concedes Jeanne-Mance street to the city of Montreal (Lambert, 137). The neighborhood is a predominantly English upper-class extension of old Montreal, with individual houses on large lots (see figure 2) (Heritage Canada, Data collection project). After 1874, Victorian row houses for wealthy families are built to adapt to increased population pressures (see figure 3).
Figure 2: The Gnaedinger Mansion on Hutchison, 1891. McCord Museum

Figure 3: Aylmer street (formerly Schuter) in 1870 and now. McCord Museum, Guil3433 (Flickr).

guil3433 guil3433

D-1890 -1930: full urbanization of Milton-Parc

During this period, Milton-Parc becomes a fully urbanized area. The tramway linking Bleury on the southern business district to Parc ave. northward in 1885 is determinant for the commercial development of the Parc ave. artery. The neighborhood is now fully serviced, comprising churches (Sionist Church, 1890, Diocesan Theological College, 1895), schools (High School of Montreal, 1921) and restaurants. This area is still mostly English-speaking. 35% of household wage-earners work in the business sector, 15% in clerical jobs, and 15% are independent professionals (Lambert). The social make-up of the neighborhood is therefore becoming more 7

diverse, the upper-class cohabiting with the newly-established middle-class. Starting in 1900, higher-density apartment buildings emerge to respond to another increase in urban pressure. Built in 1902, the Marlborough Flats at the intersection of Milton st. and Aylmer st. are a fine example of the elaborate turn of the century Queen Anne architectural style. The
Figure 4: Marlborough Flats McCord Museum.

apartment building features a wind vane on top of each of its

two pinnacles, a sundial with the inscription tempus fugit, as well as an interior garden (La Presse, 11 October 1992). McGill bought the building for 250 000$ in 1960 and housed professors until its conversion in private condominiums in 1979. The institutional ownership of Marlborough flats is a testimony of the long-standing interrelation between the University and the adjacent Milton-Parc area.

E-1930- 1985: the bohemian years

Between the great depression and the Second World War, Milton-Parc experienced an exodus of bourgeoisie towards Westmount and Outremont. As the population shifted to lower income families, elders, immigrants and McGill students who were attracted by the low rents of singlefamily dwellings subdivided in smaller rent units, properties were neglected. This coincided with the rise of the middle class and its accession to universities. While students are generally associated with gentrification, it is interesting to notice that they corresponded to a decline in 8

social standing. At that stage, McGill students were part of a larger diversification dynamic, as opposed to the homogenisation some perceive as problematic today.

The Pine-Parc interchange also precipitated the decline of the area. While transportation originally played a positive role in connecting Milton-Parc to the Old Montreal, this second major transportation overhaul increased street pollution, noise and traffic. Built from 1959 to 1961, the large thoroughfare compromised the human scale of the neighborhood, and required one block of triplexes to be
Figure 5: Milton Parc residents blocking Hutchison st. Jean-Pierre Rivest, The Gazette.

demolished (Lambert, 140). Increased traffic in residential streets prompted the

residents to block Hutchison (figure 5) and Jeanne-Mance st.. This eventually lead to the reassignment of bus routes to Parc ave., but traffic remains an issue today even with the transformation of the Pine-Parc interchange. Various initiatives such as bike paths, a dedicated bus lane on Parc ave. and an upcoming transportation plan are seeking to mitigate the harmful consequences of automobile traffic for this inner-city neighbourhood.

Despite the degraded quality of life between 1930 and 1985, the diverse low income population created a conducive cultural environment peaking during the emancipatory period of the 60s and 70s. The bohemian life of the neighbourhood took place in the corner store, Tabagie Arsenault and the Yellow door caf. As one direct observer put it: young and old mingled harmoniously: students, drifters, alcoholics, immigrant families, single-parent families, academics, professionals. They were experimenters trying the latest mind-expanding substance, political theory, or social movement on the street; () shy women who had trouble remembering their 9

next clinic appointment; energetic women who preferred health food to fast food () (Helman, 18). Demographic data of 1961 shows an even French-English repartition and a 15% immigrant population. In 1982 , a survey by the Socit damlioration de Milton-Parc indicates that 20% of the neighbourhood is inhabited by elderly people, 70% of whom live on fixed income. 73% of wage earners make less than 15 000$, and 84% of all households make less than 20 000$. By comparison, the national average of people living under the low income threshold is 20,9 % and the median after-tax income per family is 41 700$ in 2005 constant dollars (Statistics Canada). Only 35% of residents have French as their native tongue, a sharp drop from Montreals overall 65% francophone population (Lambert, 140).

F-1960-1985: The Cit Concordia years

By 1960, this neglected inner-city neighbourhood is ripe for redevelopment. The prices of decrepit houses are low, the location is convenient and Montreal mayor Drapeau is pushing for anti-slum policies. From 1958 to1968, Concordia Estates covertly buys 96% of the residential land in the Hutchison/ Pine/ Ste-Famille/ Milton area and plans to destroy these 25 acres of 250 housing units to erect multi-functional high rise buildings (Helman, 25). This complete urban erasure is symptomatic of the modernist approach of the era. The 250 million superblock plan includes a heliport, a discotheque, a shopping mall, luxury housing and office space. It is planned in the International Style tradition with little attention to the local context and to the impact on current inhabitants. The Concordia Estates project seriously
Figure 6: Cit Concordia maquette. Concordia Estates.

hampers the areas affordability for current residents. It also plans to destroy some precious, if decrepit, architectural landmarks. 10

During the construction of the first phase of the Cit Concordia project in the 70s, residents oppose any further demolitions with hunger strikes, human chains to forestall wreckers balls, sit-ins and demonstrations. In the process, between 52 and 59 people are arrested just in 1972. 78% of the Milton Parc Citizens Committee is composed of people living in houses set for demolition. Other tenants represent 19%, and 3% are home owners. McGills implication is noteworthy. Concordia Estates was composed of three McGill graduates. One of the initial McGill architects in charge of the project, Ray Affleck, eventually resigns over the deleterious effect of the project on current residents (Lambert, 141 & Helman, 49-51). The McGill School of Architecture gave its support to the Milton Park Citizens Committee, and students in Sociology (Marilyn Manzer) and Urbanism (Rona Schwartz) were actively implicated in documenting and supporting the struggles of the Milton-Parc residents (Hellman, 19).

In that era of starting fresh, most of Montreals Red Light district and houses around the RadioCanada tower were destroyed. The Cit Concordia opposition had to grapple with a larger, multi-site revitalization dynamic in Montreal. However, the preservationist movement partially triumphed: Cit Concordia was limited to its first phase. With high inflation in 1976, the project cannot find the 250 million financing to proceed with ulterior phases. Zoning laws limiting building height and mounting local opposition are further hurdles. Therefore, La Cit is restricted to five towers hosting 1350 condo units, an office building and the underground shopping mall Place du Parc. With help from the private foundation Heritage Montreal in 1979, the remaining houses turn into the largest cooperative in Canada to date. The conversion involved a loan of five and a half millions from the CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). Set up by Heritage Montreal, SPUM (Socit du Patrimoine Urbain de Montral) manages the transition. It is a non-profit organisation whose members include residents representatives and Montreal architect and conservation champion Phyllis Lambert. Renovations start in 1983, with a six million dollar loan from the Socit dHabitation du Qubec. The housing units are rentcontrolled, thanks to financial assistance of CMHC of four millions per year, indexed to cost of 11

living. As a result, rents increase less than 10% after the renovations. The 2000 residents of the 597 housing units organized in 20 not for profit organisations form a heterogeneous group in terms of education, age, language and household composition. At the inception of the project in 1983, 70% of the coop residents had a low income (Milton-Parc, p 4). The common thread is stability; residents tend to stay in the coop once they settle in, and 65% of the coop residents are former tenants of the pre-coop era (Data collection project, p.20).

Relations between La Cit and its opponents seem to have appeased in the late eighties. According to one journalist, the residents use the commercial complex, and La Cit uses the cachet of the renovated surrounding coops in its marketing strategy (Corral, 1987). An invitation to a celebration dinner at the former Renaissance hotel also seems to indicate that Cit Concordia made efforts to foster better relations with its former opponents.

A convergence of relentless citizen organizing, lobbying by Heritage Montreal to political classes and the economic crisis was necessary to halt the project and create the largest housing cooperative in Canada. Today, the frictions between students and longer term residents require a similar convergence of involvement from different stakeholders. One could speculate that the goals of each constituency was slightly different in the Cit project: the residents had an immediate interest in maintaining affordable and convenient housing arrangements, Heritage Montreal focused on architectural preservation, and the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism perhaps concentrated on the conceptual tenets of social diversity and low-income housing. A crucial step in tackling with contemporary challenges in Milton-Parc is to discover overlapping interests of the different constituencies.

G-1985-present: friction between longer-term residents and studentification

If traffic, environmental concerns and real estate speculation are still relevant issues, the recent years have also witnessed an increasing friction between the expanding McGill student 12

population living in the neighbourhood and residents established in the coops and in other longer-term living arrangements. Darren P. Smith coined the term studentification to describe how this young, transient and seasonal population alters a neighbourhood (Smith, 2002). Studentification refers to the recommodification of single-family or the repackaging of existing private rented housing, by small-scale institutional actors (e.g. property owners, investors and developers) to produce and supply houses in multiple occupation (HMO) for HE1 students (Smith, 2005). These single, low-income students typically have marginal input in the labour market and their economic capital is limited. The cultural, economic, social, architectural advantages of studentification tend to be broad, while the negative consequences tend to be narrow (Universities UK). As we will see in the next section, these functional and experiential issues tend to be confirmed in Milton-Parc. The principal negative effects of studentification is low-level anti-social behaviour. Concretely this means noise at late hours, vomiting, urinating, vandalism, unmanaged trash in the streets and unkept facades. This alters property value, crime rate, public health and social cohesion of in the neighbourhood.

3) Development of relationship between McGill students and Milton- Parc longer-term residents
This sections surveys how studentification affects various constituencies in Milton-Parc. First, we look at the combination of external circumstances that create a conducive conjuncture for the development of studentification. The effects are categorized as functional or experiental: functional effects are measurable dynamics bearing a causal relationship with studentification while experiential effects operate in the realm of perceptions. Those effects are first examined from the perspective of longer-term residents (largely problematic studentification), and then from students perspective (overall beneficial studentification).

HE refers to higher education. 13

A. structural causes: student demographic pressure

1535 McGill undergraduate students live in Milton-Parc: thats about 7% of the said population. 83% of these students are aged 18 to 222. Proximity to the campus, relatively low tuition fees lower legal drinking age than in other provinces account for the popularity of Milton-Parc and the ensuing lifestyle differences with longer-term residents.

i. proximity The proximity of Milton-Parc to the McGill downtown campus is the main reason for its popularity among students. Moreover, homogenization and high student density is an asset from the students perspective. Living in a studentified area creates a conducive setting to building strong social ties given that proximity between student homes facilitates socialization. Nearby entertainment and bars offer favorable conditions for social activities. Additionally, limited financial or family responsibilities leave students with significant amounts of time for building these social networks.

ii. comparatively lower tuition fees attracting out of town students McGills quality education is an attractive choice for Canadians and American prospective students because it is cheap in comparison to similar Ivy-league universities. Consequentially, McGill has the largest number of out of province students in Canada. In the past five years, the undergraduate population has increased 10.4%, reaching 24, 025 in the Fall of 2008 (Enrolment

It is interesting to note that about 30% of the student population living in Milton-Parc is

composed of graduate and post-graduate students, who tend to be older. It may be supposed that their behaviour differs to some extent from what is perceived as the problematic immaturity of undergraduate students. This data suggests that McGill students also bring a positive demographic pressure via its supply of highly educated graduate and post-graduate students. 14

Services, Faculty, 3)3. Out of province and American student populations have grown faster than students from the province of Quebec, with an increase of 8.3 and 13.9% respectively in the past 5 years. In comparison, Quebec students have only grown by 5.7% (McGill Enrolment Services, Citizenship, 1)4. Presuming that most local students already live in other residential neighbourhoods, this puts more student pressure on the Milton-Parc area5. The rationale is that these new students requiring accommodation have little incentive or knowledge to establish themselves elsewhere than close to the university.

iii. lower legal drinking age Quebec allows drinking one year earlier than most other provinces, so 18 year-olds who would not be permitted to drink in their native province particularly enjoy this lift of restriction. Given that 31.1% of entering students in the 2007-2008 academic year were out of province Canadians, a significant amount were experiencing their first year of drinking legally. Since Ontario abolished the 13th year of high school in 2002, 21% more students are usually 18 or 19 when they enter McGill university6. Students from British Columbia, where the legal drinking age is

The SSMU constituency is slightly inferior, since the Faculty of Education has a separate

student union and a large number of students in Agriculture are not located in the downtown campus.
4

While McGill has always catered to out of town students, the political and economic

conjuncture have made it more attractive since the early 2000. Other factors than tuition fees may include the fading of the post 1995-referendum political instability.
5

CMHC findings indicate that 75% of students attending a local university live with their

parents. Section 5-F focuses on this survey.

6

Quebec freshmen are typically 19 or 20 years old, because of the Cegep two-year requirement

after 5 years of high school. The 2003-2004 students from Ontario are known as the double cohort. 15

also 19, represent another 7.5% of the student population that comes to university with little or no experience of drinking legally (Enrolment Services, Province, 1). This is also true for the 12.9 % of American freshmen where the drinking age is 21. Overall, The issue is not drinking per se, but the drinking patterns of inexperienced drinkers. Over-consumption is not the monopoly of inexperienced drinkers, but young age increases the likelihood because this demographic tends to ignore its limits and to be under social pressure to conform to a drinking pattern. While Canadians drink around 8 liters of alcohol per year (World Health Organisation), university students generally consume more alcohol. 16% of university students are considered heavy drinkers, 77% drank in the past month and 85% in the last year (Adlaf). Inebriated students affect the quality of life of other residents in the following manner: increased noise pollution, temporary street degradation in the form of urinating and vomiting, and well as persistent street vandalism (damaged trees, lamp posts, signs, windows).

iv. renewal of St-Laurent blvd An increase in the number of bars on St-Laurent blvd. in the 90s also exacerbated the negative effects of studentification. As a result, massive amounts of inebriated students transit between Milton-Parc and the area eastward. Pedestrian traffic at 3 am affects the sleep patterns of diurnal residents. Bars are an external cause of disturbance, but studentification exacerbates the preexisting problem of noise and low-level anti social behaviour because it increases the demand for this type of service. Traffic between Milton-Parc and the bars on St-Laurent blvd must be considered in order to address the negative repercussions of studentification on diurnal residents.

B- effects of studentification on longer-term residents

Given the vocal criticism expressed at a local town hall meeting at the Notre-Dame de la Salette Church in January 2008, a non-negligible portion of Milton-Parc residents feel negatively about the increased presence of students in the area. This section addresses specific sources of discontent. 16

i. functional negative effects of studentification 1) noise pollution Most undergraduate students do not have class on Friday mornings in addition to a free week-end. Consequentially, Thursday is an attractive occasion for late-night entertainment. Since most longer-term residents do have to work on Friday mornings, it is predictable that their sleep patterns are particularly affected on Thursday nights, especially when weather conditions are conducive to both going out and sleeping with the windows open. The weekends of the beginning and end of the term are also high points of disturbance.

2) low level anti-social behaviour Alcohol over-consumption often underlies local disturbances such as urinating and vomiting in public areas, trespassing, abrasive and intimidating behaviour and some of the physical degradation described in the environmental blight section (3-B.6). It is difficult to determine the extent to which anti-social behaviour is attributable to McGill students. The bars, football games and the summer festivals in the vicinity attract a significant amount of non-students who also over-consume alcohol and can behave anti-socially. As a residential enclave deep in the urban core, Milton-Parc is affected by the anti-social behaviour of many groups who spill over from different adjacent entertainment areas.

3) resort economy Student demographic pressure alters the demand on the local retail market, often in favor of cheap food chains, or high end clothing stores geared towards young people. The displacement of local stores in favor of more generic retail options is know as resort economy. Commenting on the alterations of the commercial landscape in the recently studentified Selly Oak area of Birmingham, UK, one author remarks:
Traditional local retailing has been replaced by an unusual concentration of fast food restaurants, cafeterias, and take-aways, accommodation agencies; second-hand dealers in furniture and kitchen appliances; leisure services and amusement arcades; and discount supermarkets. Other changes have affected the local pubs and clubs, most of which have been re-oriented to the student and youth market. (Groves et al., 1999: 11)

17

In Milton-Parc fast food and take-away restaurants such as Thai Express, Subway and Pita Pit near the New Residence Hall have altered the local retail market. Other nearby chains such as Second Cup (replacing the family restaurant la Hutte Suisse) and Presse Caf at the corner of Milton and Parc ave. confirm the homogenisation of the retail landscape (see Annex 1 for a description of how student consumption influences the product offer of coffee chains). Notable exceptions include the Yellow Door caf, Lola Rosa restaurant and Word bookstore.

4) rental inflation Studentification is often associated with gentrification. Students drive up the demand, leading to an increase in rental and selling prices. Lower income households cannot compete for higher rental prices and tend to relocate to cheaper areas (Smith, 9). Since students tend to share apartments, they can afford to pay more than a single family for the same space, even if their income is low. Low income is often not a deterrent to paying high rent, because the savings on comparatively lower education costs allow parents to contribute to a higher rental price. As one British landlord put it:
They are a pain but the landlords like the money, 300 for a house but nearly 500 from students. They are very demanding as they are used to having everything done for them, they are dirty and never look after the garden Landlords take them on purely for the income. (Rugg, 21)

Students inexperience with Quebec housing regulations also means they are easy prey for illegal rent increase, marginal costs and repossession. Student renters are instrumental in real estate speculation, in that they typically leave after two years. This allows landlords to circumvent the caps on rent increase every two years because new tenants moving in September typically do not have the chance to meet the precedent tenant who left in April to inquire about the rent price. Additionally, the severity of this cap is unusual outside the province of Quebec, so McGill students are largely unaware of this protection. The rental cap in Quebec is 0.8% for unheated apartments, 1.8% for natural gaz heated apartments and 5.1% for oil-heated apartments. Most

18

apartments are unheated, so the first rate would apply7. By comparison, the second lowest guideline comes from Ontario, at 1.8% for most apartments. British-Columbia and New Brunswick have 3.7% and 3.9% caps, and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia dont have any limitations on rent increase. As for the United States, an in depth study of various states strategies for limiting rental inflation is beyond the scope of this report. However many measures at the federal level incentivize access to property ownership rather than renting, which allows us to speculate that state intervention to counter real-estate inflation is limited to narrow social housing legislation. While large cities such as New York, San Francisco and Washington still have rent-control legislation to protect vulnerable populations, the trend is to eliminate such costly programs. In Boston for instance, the rent-control program was recently abolished by referendum. This brief overview of the housing context outside Quebec confirms that local housing regulations are particularly tight when it comes to controlling rental inflation. It is important to draw the attention of new Quebec residents to the protection they enjoy when renting an apartment in Montreal, both for their own benefit and for general sake of the demandside of the rental market.

Landlords also use marginal costs such as finders fee to increase rent (Varano). As transient renters, McGill students are an unconducive constituency for keeping rents low because they dont have a particular stake in the issue. Since they will likely leave Milton-Parc after university, the long term inflation of rent is not a priority concern. Moreover, the rent market price is typically lower in Montreal than in other cities of comparable size. By students native standards, rental inflation is often perceived as a non-issue.

The cap is not a formal law but rather the suggested increase by the Rgie des Logements. This

rate is a strong indicator of what an arbitrator would recommend should landlord and tenant disagree on the rent increase. Other factors, such as increase in property taxes and renovations are also considered in the calculation. 19

The right to be maintained in ones dwelling is an important principle. Repossession of an apartment is limited to severe cases of non-payment, and transfer to immediate family members. However, it is common practice for landlords to evict tenants in order to renovate and increase the lease. The unoccupancy during the summer allows this to happen in the Milton-Parc area where leases are commonly for an 8-month duration. Several factors create rental housing dynamic conducive to inflation. High student demand, poor knowledge local regulations, short term leases8, high disposable income of students parents due to low tuition fee are but a few of those factors.

As for the real estate buying situation, many large Victorian townhouses have been sold and converted in one-bedroom apartments and condominiums, namely on Ste-Famille and JeanneMance st.. Many advertisement for buy-to-let schemes invite parents to invest in a condominium rather than throw away money to landlords. This contributes to real estate speculation because the condominiums are typically sold a few years after the McGill student has finished her education. This speculation deters lower income households from buying in the area and increases municipal property taxes for the other house owners. Real estate inflation for both rentals and sales could feed further resentment against the students because of their indirect role in pushing families away.

5) downgrading of real estate price Deprecating property values is blamed on the noise, vandalism, pamphleteering and environmental blight associated with studentification. Those manifestations of increased student presence lead to a decrease of quality of life, making MiltonParc an unattractive area to prospective non-students renters or buyers. Moreover, students low expectations in terms of quality standards incentivises for landlords to withhold from costly repairs and renovations (Rugg, 29). Unkept facades contribute negatively to the areas image, and students low-standards and laissez-faire are pointed for contributing to this phenomenon.

The positive aspects of rental inflation is discussed in section 3-C-ii.1) 20

6) environmental blight Physical degradation includes uncollected litter, unkept facades and gardens, degraded public furniture such as benches and lampposts, damaged public signs and tags. See this video for a description of the Milton-Parc situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbZV-ndCdiA. However, some experts do not consider this phenomenon decisive in the description of studentification:
the scale of the downgrading is a relatively minor aspect of the urban change. When compared to the considerable physical upgrading and revitalisation of retail premises and culture-oriented services (i.e. pubs, caf bars), links between processes of studentification and the physical downgrading of the urban landscape are generally limited (Smith, 8).

Studentification is not synonymous with gentrification. Students are both part of initial revitalisation (risk takers with low standards) and a hindrance to the progression of the phenomenon (low standards stalling urban renewal, little sensitivity for environmental blight). Often partly displacing the recently established middle-class, studentification is a phenomenon with mixed effects on real estate value.

7) Increased crime rate Intensified student presence involves houses loaded with electronics such as laptops, ipods, plasma televisions. Students typically pay little attention to basic safety measures such as locking doors and windows, partly because they are not likely to have been robbed before. Since students often leave at predictable times such as the Christmas break, they are an easy target for home burglaries (Kenyon, 291). This has repercussions for all the residents who see their insurance premium increase because the area is recategorized as high risk (Kenyon, 295)9. Those residents might presumably also feel insecure given the attractiveness of the area for burglars.

A request for crime rate statistics to SPVM should be answered by August 7th. See appendix 2 21

for a McGill report on crime rates on and near campus.

8) increased bedbugs infestation In 2006, several newspapers have reported an increase in the rate of bedbug infestation in Montreal. At least two McGill residences, the MORE and the New Residence Hall, were affected. Some experts believe that students are particularly conducive to propagating the infestation. Increased mobility, living in shared apartments and propensity to take used furniture explain why students are an easy target for bed bugs (Marvowitz). It is important to note that no statistical data confirms that Milton-Parc was particularly hit by this infestation in comparison with the general Montreal area. Reached over the phone, Norman King (Director of Sant Publique, epidemiologist) explains that the public sensibilisation campaign was based on exterminators reporting an increase of infestations, and the city of Montreal reporting an increase of complaints. However, no organisation keeps reliable numbers10. More importantly, it remains to be proven that increased student presence is correlated to bed bug infestations among non-student residents. For this reason, it is unclear whether increased bedbugs infestation is a perception or a measurable effect of studentification.

9) increased rodent infestation The untidy litter and unmanaged garbage situations associated with studentification are perceived to contribute to the propagation of rodents in this inner-city neighbourhood. Moreover, students accept apartments which are sometimes insalubrious, or in dire need of renovations. Landlords are able to rent low-quality apartments to inexperienced students, who will not take all the necessary steps to contain the infestation. While students may not be model exterminators, to our knowledge no study positively affirms that their behaviour is substandard in comparison with longer-term residents. The speculation that longer-term residents are more effective infestations controllers is founded on the idea that they have a stronger interest in maintaining the quality of their living quarters. It is useful to keep in mind that no hard evidence supports this claim.

10

The issues were not tracked by CLSC, Direction Sant Publique, the Plateau Mt-Royal city

borough or Statistics Canada. See this video for more information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RErUKqS6iT0 22

10) traffic congestion Families visiting students create traffic and parking congestion in the narrow streets of Milton-Parc, particularly at the beginning and end of the school year and during the Christmas and spring break11.

11) exodus of families A combination of the aforementioned factors renders the area unaffordable and unattractive to single-family households. As a consequence, primary and grade school education institutions are less populated and are threatened to close down (with the notable exception of FACE). This reinforces the unattractiveness of the area for other young families. However, some experts suggest that families would leave urban cores anyway. The exodus of families would therefore have little or no correlation with student densification (Blackey)

12) groundhog effect The rental housing section addressed the lack of follow up and permanence of student constituencies. This problem aggravates all other functional consequences of studentification, since communities have to tackle with a moving target when it comes to student residents and associations.

ii. experiential effects 1) why residencies are bad While McGill undergraduate students have always been attracted to Milton-Parc due to its proximity to the University, a densification of student presence exacerbated the discordance with the longer-term residents. In 2004, McGill acquired the Hotel du Parc (Renaissance hotel) at the corner of Prince-Arthur st. and Parc ave. and transformed it in a new residence. With this addition of almost 700 students triggered a demographic expansion

11

We are unaware of any statistical data tracking this issue. See recommendations for a 23

discussion of monitoring this phenomenon.

north east of what is colloquially known as the McGill ghetto. With the transformation of the Four Points hotel on Sherbrooke and Aylmer st., at least 130 additional students will be housed in 2009-2010 academic year. It is therefore crucial to keep tackling with the negative measurable and perceived effects of studentification, as the phenomenon is gaining momentum in MiltonParc.

2) why residencies are good Even if the addition of new student residences radically alters the local fabric of the neighbourhood, Milton-Parc residents appreciate the institutional accountability that comes with this type of student housing. As Hlne Brisson from the MiltonParc Citizens Committee pointed out, residents can direct their complaints to McGill residence managers. When students choose to live in private accommodation, the general laissez-faire attitude of private landlords means that residents have no effective communication channel to express their concerns.

3) summer subletting The summer subletting situation is another problem with private rentals. Out of town students on a regular 12-month lease often sublet their apartments during the summer months in order to return home. It would appear that the subletters lack ties to the community even more sharply than students. This lack of accountability and feeling of reciprocal respect partly explains why summer subletters are said to behave particularly anti-socially.

4) lack of social cohesion Milton-Parc can aptly be described as two solitudes. High-density student areas are perceived by both local residents, and themselves, to form a separate community within the community (Kenyon 287). On the one hand there is a tight knitted community of long-term residents, thanks in part to the solidarity acquired during the Cit Concordia struggle. On the other hand, young students are just passing through, and they have little interest/ opportunity to insert themselves in this community. Predictably, 17-19 year old students with little cohabitation experience do not take the first step to insert themselves in this foreign, and perhaps intimidating community. Students choose the McGill ghetto to be with their 24

peers and actualize a student identity12 (Smith, 13). Incidentally, making links with longer-term residents is not a priority. This is also supported by the following analysis of studentification:
the behaviour, recreational practices and attitudes of some HE students are perceived by established households as being anti-social, and detrimental to the social and cultural cohesion of the local community (Smith, 12).

Maroussia Levesque 09-8-27 11:48 AM

Comment: realize was the quoted word. The author meant it as To make real; to convert from the imaginary or fictitious into the actual. Find is therefore not what is meant here. Since realize seemed to be confusing here I used actualized instead.

The exodus of families mentioned above leads to a closing of schools. Other services to the community may also close because they do not attract students. With the disappearance of these spaces for social interaction, Milton-Parc looses threads of its social fabric. In order to reduce the negative effects of studentification on social cohesion, initiatives encouraging social mixing between McGill-students and longer-term residents should be implemented.

Maroussia Levesque 09-8-27 11:50 AM

Comment: this is previously defined p.8, footnote 2.

5) frosh The friction between longer-term residents and students is most noticeable at the beginning of the school year where freshmen initiation activities (frosh) are particularly disruptive. After the calmer summer months, frosh is perceived as an invasion. Group activities transit from the campus to St-Laurent blvd. eastward, and this involves intensified pedestrian traffic with some of the functional consequences mentioned in section 3-B.i..

6) football games The Percival Molson stadium plans to expand its capacity from 20 to 25 000 seats. The disruptions caused by the football fans in the neighbourhood are beyond the scope of this research on student impact in Milton-Parc, but from the communitys perspective the negative impacts are amalgamated as McGill-borne. Longer-term residents fear that this expansion will further jeopardize Milton-Parcs quality of life.

12

Interestingly, second and third year students venture out of the Milton Parc area. This is

consistent with the observation that upper-years undergraduates are opened to discovery (Chatterton). 25

c- effects of studentification on students and other constituencies

i. functional effects 1) economic dynamism A critical mass of students contributes to real estate regeneration, seasonal employment and retail dynamism (Smith). Studentification benefits landlords who rent relatively lowvalue apartments to a much higher price than in the surrounding areas. The high demand also gives rise to finders fee up to a thousand dollars. An increasing number of parents are buying condominiums for their
Figure 7: A typical mansard in Milton Parc. Wemidji

child to share with other students (Lamey). This buy-to-let formula encourages real estate development, and large projects in the vicinity of the university openly court the parents of university students. The large pool of students also creates a convenient summer workforce for retail and services in the area. Whats more, students offer significant patronage to local businesses. Espace Haicraft, a hair salon in the area, says 25% of its business consists of McGill students (Desjardins). Studentification also offers fresh, competent graduates that invigorate local startups and contribute to a neighbourhood and metropolitan workforce. After their undergraduate studies, some former students settle in the area and become active members of society with a positive contribution. It is worth noting again that studentification has broad advantages and narrow inconveniences (Smith, 2006). Local residents suffer the direct negative consequences, while economic dynamism benefits more dispersed actors such as landlords and surrounding businesses. 26

2) transportation improvements Students constitute a large part of pedestrian and cycling traffic around McGill university. Their presence contributes to the maintenance and augmentation of greener transportation means, such as public transportation and bicycle lanes. ii. experiential effects 1) right to disturb McGill students often live outside the family home for the first time upon entering university. It is therefore predictable that they may
Figure 8: Skateborder on Prince Arthur St. Christopher Dewolfe

use this newly found liberty with less restriction than second and third year students. From the freshman perspective, the McGill ghetto is associated with the campus. The area provides a critical mass of students with an unprecedented opportunity to socialize in the residence or shared apartment setting. Furthermore, a minority of students considers the McGill ghetto as their collective playground, as the title of the editorial Its not big enough for the both of us suggests. In this piece, a student exposes the following view: they (residents) need to accept that students, surrounded largely by other students, are going to behave as they wish (McGill Tribune, 13 September 2005). This us/them conception is telling of the efforts required to foster a sense of collective belonging and positive interaction between students and longer-term residents.

From a students perspective, the first interaction with the neighbourhood is frosh. Freshmen are invited to sing loud songs, dress in a carnivalesque manner and behave festively on campus and on St-Laurent blvd. for a pub crawl. Inevitably, this entails transiting via Milton-Parc. Although efforts have been made to redirect the traffic between the campus and the bars on St-Laurent blvd. away from residential streets, freshmen are still tacitly encouraged to behave flamboyantly 27

in public areas. It is important to note that both individual faculties and the SSMU make considerable efforts to reduce the negative effects of frosh on students themselves and on the surrounding communities. A zero-tolerance policy applies to underage drinking, alcohol overconsumption, and hazing. Yet frosh is the initial reference point for constructing ones identity as a McGill student. It frames future interactions of the student with her environment: to a certain extent the disturbances associated with studentification are a replay of the frosh activities (walk in large groups, consume alcohol, behave flamboyantly). Frosh alone cannot explain the problematic behaviour of a marginal portion of McGill students in Milton-Parc, since similar activities happen in other Montreal universities but the relationships with the longer-term residents of other near-campus communities are not as problematic. Yet it is fairly undeniable that this initiation to being a McGill student has an incidence on the ulterior anti-social behavior of a minority of McGill undergraduates.

2) impersonal space Students who live in residences are always subject to some form of institutional control. This is counterproductive to fostering a sense of personal responsibility. For example, the New Residence Hall blurs the boundaries between commercial, residential and institutional spaces. Situated in a former hotel connected to a shopping mall, a gym and fast-food restaurants, it creates a user experience marked by a continuum of impersonal spaces where external management is always present. The student transits through a series of environments directly managed by educational or commercial entities. In this context, studentification is even more acute because those living arrangements reinforce the idea that Milton-Parc is an extension of campus and its local heritage is superseded by generic food chain signs. The large scale residence and the vicinity of commercial spaces further alienates the student from any potential contact with the community.

3) immemorial occupation The informal McGill ghetto denomination suggests that students perceive Milton-Parc as extension of the university. For some, the assumption that students have always dominated the area is the basis for a right to disturb. A student comments that residents 28

should have understood the character of the area before moving in or buying property. (McGill tribune, 29 January 2008). This perception is problematic in that the fairly recent large concentration of students has altered the character of the area. Historical evidence suggests that the Milton-Parc was first populated by the upper-class, then the middle-class. It is not until the 1930s that students took advantage of declining rental prices. Prior to that decade, society values were not conducive to students, especially females, living on their own or in shared spaces (Smith). McGill is a long-standing institution in the area, but the studentification of Milton-Parc is newer. While it is true that students have chosen Milton-Parc en masse for decades (at least since the sixties), the concentration has increased in the past seven to ten years. Research suggests that the tipping point is reached when 20% of residents live in multiple occupancy, and when 10% of properties are HMO (houses with multiple occupants) (HMO Lobby, 7). We do not have a clear picture of the proportion of students in the Milton-Parc area, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it is close to this tipping point. It is important to remind students that prior presence is no justification for antisocial behaviour, and that the current student demographic pressure is actually recent. The idea is to restore the larger historical context in order deconstruct any flawed logic justifying student disruptive behaviour. Informal conversations with former Milton-Parc students also point to a more harmonious relationship with longer-term residents in the sixties and seventies. This could be due to greater social mobility, a more tolerant and young longer-term population, and a cultural convergence of both populations based on the festive attitude during those decades. In short, the bohemians have grown older and soberer, while students have become younger and more bacchanalian.

This we were here first quasi-colonialist stance is not an accurate description of the entire student population in Milton-Parc. As the HMO lobby document outlines, students adopt different attitudes towards the reality of studentification. The colonist stance argues that disturbances in de facto student zones justified by the rule of the new majority. Other students adopt a camp-follower attitude: they are simply oblivious to the community of longer-term residents and are not receptive to thinking about how large concentrations of students alter an 29

area. Yet other idealists students try to create links with the community. Finally, realist students recognize the downside of studentification (HMO Lobby, 9). Most of the efforts to mitigate the negative effects of studentification should focus on the camp-followers, since it is not unreasonable to speculate that indifference stems from a lack of information rather than a calculated decision. The idealists should also be supported by concrete initiatives to develop relationships with the community, and the realists could be encouraged to try practical solutions to mitigate those negative consequences. Since these attitudes are neither mutually exclusive nor static, one can speculate that colonists might shift their stance if the university and other stakeholders positively support other attitudes. iv. recent developments Studentification can be broken down in distinct stages (HMO lobby, 8). The Ivory Tower stage is characterized by an impermeable relation between the campus and its surroundings. The Cloister stage happens when the university provides off-campus residences for out-of town students in the vicinity of the campus. With the expansion of McGill residences in 2004 to the former Hotel du Parc, the relationship between longer-term residents and McGill students became more tensed. In the third stage, Settlement, students overspill from institution-run residences to the private rental market. This is currently the case in Milton-Parc, so that the situation is somewhere between Cloister and Settlement. Ahead could be the full Studentification stage if the concentration of students reaches the tipping point mentioned above. The last step is Destudentification, where students move away from the neighbourhood, leading to a market deprecation. McGill took several steps to take ownership of the studentification issue. In January 2008, it held a meeting with residents and the student union. Recent McGill-directed initiatives are described below.

30

4) Local Initiatives
Punitive and preventive initiatives have emanated from different stakeholders involved in the Milton-Parc area. The piecemeal approach described below underlines the need for McGill and SMMU to take a leadership role in coordinating various efforts to deal with studentification.

A. University initiatives to date

i. punitive/ deterrent approach The Student Code of Conduct can be interpreted to forbid property damage in the Milton-Parc area if it takes place in a university context (article 8(a)). For instance, damaging private property during frosh activities could be interpreted as an offence under the Code because this activity takes place in a McGill-related context. However, a combination of preventive strategies more aptly characterizes McGills approach.

ii. preventive approach 1) promote good behaviour During orientation at the beginning of the 2008 school year, student leaders distributed the Good Conduct guidebook. This student-run awareness campaign addressed noise and environmental blight issues by inviting students to lower the volume of their music and to follow garbage collection schedules (Curran, 2). Students living in residences were handed out a pamphlet asking students to be considerate of neighbors in terms of noise (see appendix 1). The university also imposed mandatory harm reduction training to any student entity serving alcohol on campus. As alcohol over-consumption is a root factor of noise and antisocial behaviour, this approach has the merit of addressing some functional effects of studentification. Promoting good behaviour is an important facet of mitigating the effects of studentification because it targets the camp-followers, those students who may otherwise be indifferent about the effects of their behaviour on others.

31

2) open communication channels McGill has recently demonstrated openness towards the complaints of longer-term residents. Dean of Students Jane Everett took part in organizing a meeting with student union representatives and longer-term residents in 2008. She has also set up an email contact to communicate with the residents (van der Kuijp, 1). That same year, the Dean of Students and the SSMU also organised conflict-resolution workshops. Although they were mostly attended by residents, the workshops were nevertheless central to identifying concerns. The Dean of Students office also appointed a full time community relations agent (Anurag Dhir), suggesting a commitment to long-term communication. Residents and student union staff lead a joint neighbourhood tour during orientation week in 2009. Studies of other studentified areas have found such tours mutually beneficial (Ecotec, 58). Longer-term residents would feel welcome in the institutions traditional ivory tower, and students would get an alternative vision of the area. Adequate communication is crucial for two reasons. First, it is a prerequisite to defuse tensions between residents, the students and the university. It is also a mandatory building block for coordinating the efforts of the various stakeholders involved in and affected by studentification.

3) track the issue The conflict resolution workshop mentioned above lead to a listing of the issues affecting longer-term residents. Alcohol consumption was identified as a structural problem at the root of the functional issues such as noise and litter. Lack of social cohesion was also targeted as an experiential effect of studentification. In addition, McGill Security services released a report on the incidence of crime in and around campus (appendix 2). This report is also an SSMU initiative informing the unions community outreach efforts regarding the situation in the Milton-Parc. Reliable numbers inform our efforts to deal with studentification, because they provide a quantitative background against which we can measure the success of various initiatives. It is also important to track the numbers of students living in Milton-Parc to understand the dynamics of the studentification trend in this particular context; whether it is increasing or receding, and at what pace, could certainly enlighten various efforts to mitigate the negative effects of studentification. 32

4) mitigate safety issue The walksafe program is a SSMU initiative to escort students and community members walking alone at night13. This initiative contributes to reinforcing safety in Milton-Parc and in so doing mitigates one of the negative functional effects of studentification mentioned above.

5) student housing strategy Solin Hall is a McGill residence located outside Milton-Parc. This former chocolate factory located at Lionel Groulx metro disperses at least 280 students outside the studentified area. Other localities have adopted similar approaches to de-densify studentified areas:
Many stakeholders who were interviewed felt that the provision of purpose-built accommodation outside of the areas which experienced a high concentration of students was one planning policy lever which could potentially restore more balanced communities over a period of time. (Department for Communities and Local Government, 44)

McGill also implemented a head tenancy scheme when faced with a penury of student housing for the 2008-09 academic year. The university leased and installed floor fellows on four floor of the City Councillors residence at 515 Ste-Catherine W.. While this type of arrangement has been praised for offering a form of rent and quality control for students (Rugg, 15), rental prices are still significantly above private rental market prices (889$ per student in a four-bedroom apartment, including phone basic internet cable and electricity). The McGill off-campus housing office provides a guide to apartment hunting that focuses on quality standards and tenant rights (Lienonen). The office also distributes a useful checklist for students

who visit apartments, and templates for roommate agreement forms (see appendix 3). A housing strategy is a critical and often underused tool to deal with the housing market alterations brought about by studentification.

13

The popularity of Walksafe needs to be ascertained. 33

B. Joint initiatives
i. punitive 1) deter anti-social behaviour Following the addition of more than 600 students in the area with the conversion of the Renaissance hotel on Parc into a residence in 2003, the police adopted a repressive approach. This was decided after a meeting with representatives from McGill residences, the McGill administration, and building associations.
() officers at Station 19 created an action plan to curtail noise and disruption at night. The station came up with the Local Intervention Group, a short-term task force that began patrolling the area between 8 pm and 4 am on August 25. Nelson Marshall, a community officer with Station 19, said the group has adopted a zero-tolerance policy and has already issued roughly 125 tickets (Vernet, 2).

ii. deterrent 1) promote good behaviour In 2008, the residence coordinators posted police sheets describing common infractions of municipal bylaws (van der Kuijp, 2). This deterrent does not seem to have adequately dealt with the issues: in 2008 the residents were still voicing their dissatisfaction concerning student behaviour in the neighbourhood.

iii. restorative 1) reduce environmental blight In 2006, the McGill in the Community program arranged for student volunteers to clean up litter in Milton-Parc and to connect with the local Centre dcologie Urbaine. Several SSMU executive members were also involved in the project. This took place on September 8th, presumably right after the frosh activities. Since frosh is the most disruptive student-borne punctual activity in Milton-Parc, efforts to mitigate its negative consequences on the urban environment should be further encouraged.

34

5. Initiatives in other University communities

The initiatives of other areas dealing with more advanced studentification phenomenon can inform our efforts. While each neighbourhood, country and university should tailor a solution to its particular context, an approach based on harm-reduction rather than student criminalisation and relocation appears to be most efficient.

A. University-side
i. punitive 1) deter anti-social behaviour Loughborough and Exeter universities (UK) impose a code of conduct on and off campus (Ecotec, 55). Failure to comply can trigger suspension, even expulsion from the institutions. The extension of a student code outside campus raises significant jurisdiction issues (Tamburri, 2). What is the competence of a university over a student outside its premises? The differential treatment between noisy students and other noisy citizens has been questioned in Canada at the university of Bishop (Fournier). Civil rights activists allege offcampus codes of conduct violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they discriminate between students and non-students when it comes to public disturbance. The imposition of the Code off-campus is also thought to be an intrusion on private life. Overall, the risk of backlash against this type of measure is significant.

ii. preventive 1) track the issue Leeds university gathers annual data on the concentration of students per neighbourhood. The British HMO lobby recommends a yearly accommodation audit, as it enables the different actors to track student populations and to better understand their patterns (HMO lobby 11). Universities are better placed because they have access to students addresses and can develop privacy protocols for protecting their personal information.

35

2) communication channels Many higher education institutions in studentified areas have a full time community liaison. Leeds, Loughborough, Oxford Brookes, Nottingham and Southampton are a few examples of British institutions that dedicate human resources to prioritizing relations with community and other local stakeholders (Ecotec, 3.3.2). It is our understanding that assigning an experienced communicator to this portfolio is vital to improving the situation. In addition, Leeds and Loughborough collaborated with municipal decision makers to institute a neighbourhood phone helpline. Effectiveness is however limited, since the delayed message system doesnt allow real-time resolution. In the United States, Virginia Commonwealth University has a section on their website dedicated to the local community. This visible and direct link sends a clear message that this constituency is important to the institution (http://www.vcu.edu/community/). A significant portion of the content is geared towards promoting efforts that integrate the students within the local community. Assessing the effectiveness of these programs is beyond the scope of this research, yet is it unquestionably vital to promote McGills community initiatives in order to send a clear message of commitment.

3) multi-stakeholder housing strategy Leeds university informed its housing strategy by participating in joint working groups on housing, and it analysed the outcomes of the neighbourhood helplines. This strategy was updated following yearly monitoring, and communicated to all stakeholders (Ecotec, 3.3.2). Universities have a significant amount of leverage in influencing where students live. They should recognize that the densification of student population in areas adjacent to campuses is a direct consequence of their expansion plans. Control over the location of new residences, the agenda informing off-campus housing services and the capacity to offer incentives for respectful behaviour off-campus are potent soft power tools often underutilized or uncoordinated within universities. While it is perfectly legitimate to assert that students are free to live as they wish outside campus, a laissez-faire attitude is not the only option. Recognizing that student pressure can be detrimental on housing microclimates, certain universities have invested resources to internalize those costs. 36

5) promote high-quality housing Students can contribute to the deterioration of housing quality standards since they have little expectation or experience in accommodation rental. In the UK, Southampton University runs an accreditation scheme to pre-approve student rentals. Students benefit from higher accommodation standards, landlords are rewarded for maintaining highquality properties and the institution can differentiate itself in relation to competing universities in terms of ensuring basic standards for off-campus housing. Since undergraduate students often live on their own for the first time, parents will undoubtedly appreciate this safety net. McGills housing services currently displays any housing advertisement without filtering, approval or inspection. Apartments are mainly in Milton-Parc, downtown and in the Plateau Mont-Royal. Another housing initiative is landlord education. Southampton university runs sessions on studentification. One possible downside is that these sessions tend to reach only highly motivated landlords. The real target of higher quality housing advocacy are precisely landlords who are marginal to landlords associations.

6) dillute high concentration of students The university of Leeds, Loughborough and Nottingham are building student residences outside student enclaves in order to diminish the detrimental consequences of studentification (Hale & Smith, 4). Are they simply displacing the problem? Some critics fear the creation of new enclaves: the idea would be to better integrate students with the local social fabric rather than dropping hundreds of them in another residential area. Moreover, students worry that living in a remote residence hinders the full student experience and could alienate out-of-town students living in the middle of nowhere. Another route is to induce social diversity within studentified areas. To that end, McMaster university offers financial incentives to new faculty members who wish to establish themselves in studentified areas near its campus in Hamilton (Tamburri, 3). Universities have the potential to positively diversify the residential areas they affect; displacing students is not the only option.

37

Universities also attempt to minimize punctual events where the high density of students is problematic. The cancellation of the 2008 annual alumni Homecoming event in Kingston at Queens university exemplifies this attitude. Following a particularly disruptive edition of this street party, the university replaced the Fall event with a downsized version in May. Attendance in May confirmed that Aberdeen street, the main site of former festivities, was quiet. A major factor for reduced
Figure 9: Homecoming on Aberdeen street, Kingston. CPP File.

disturbance is the absence of undergraduates students at that time of the year.

iii. restorative 1) promote good behaviour McMaster University offers an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for students who commit offences off campus. Inspired by the principles of restorative justice, the program focuses on assuming responsibility and fostering more harmonious relationships between the parties. For instance, in 2006 four students charged with either mischief or property damage have opted for mediation instead of going through the traditional judicial system (Cameron, 35). They have apologized for their action during an informal hearing and have restituted the value of the damaged goods. This type of effort is time and resource consuming because it requires a tailored solution to each conflict. However, the proponents of this route propose that the high long-terms returns warrant the initially prohibitive cost.

38

B. Student-side
i. preventive 1) promote good behaviour Some students attempt to offset the bad press surrounding studentification, perhaps because it adversely affects the value of their diploma. For example, the arrests linked to Homecoming in Kingston have damaged the reputation of Queens university students. Some students have decided to create a website dedicated to promoting good behaviour and positive student initiatives in Kingston (www.savouourghetto.com). The website also features an online forum where different constituencies can debate about the most productive solutions to studentification in Kingston.

2) housing Students at the University of Toronto formed housing cooperatives. 300 rooms in 30 renovated Victorian houses, 16 of which are in the student-dense Annex neighbourhood, are cooperatively run. In this form of living arrangement the student is involved in repairs, general maintenance and decision-making. This active participation fosters a sense of community and civic engagement; it is not unrealistic to claim that such engagement significantly lowers the risk of anti-social behaviour. Since the properties are collectively maintained, this option also decreases environmental blight.

C. municipality
i. punitive 1) environmental blight In Exeter, UK, local authorities warn landlords when their building causes external untidiness. The municipality can impose the use of dumpsters for large apartment buildings. Garbage collection is a key issue, since a poor performance could lead to problems beyond the aesthetic realm. Vermin infestation is but one example of the possible consequences of environmental blight. Imposing dumpsters is therefore a potent option in terms of limiting the

39

negative consequences associated with an increase in population density brought about by studentification.

ii. preventive 1) communication channels The UK, the city of Nottingham appointed a full time student strategy manager to deal with studentification. This person is in charge of liaising with different constituencies, and coordinates the Student Strategic Leadership Group and Student Coordination & Delivery Group. Both groups gather various constituencies and create joint action plans. Nottingham and Loughborough also organize punctual forums with residents, universities and other stakeholders. This ad hoc method allows flexibility to quickly respond to new issues, but it is also vulnerable to variations in the political will of ever-changing municipal administrations. In Canada, the city of Waterloo offers mediation services to resolve disputes between students and longer-term residents. This approach defuses conflicts case by case, and obviates the downsides of a punitive approach. Those downsides are a mutual alienation and a radicalisation of each camps position.

2) promote high quality housing Waterloo also organizes information sessions on landlord rights and responsibilities. These sessions focus on a particular topic, such as mould, and feature a lawyer, a city staff as well as an expert on the given topic. As with landlord information sessions organized by universities, the risk is to preach to the converted. The challenge is how to target the rogue or marginal landlords who are not part of formal or informal landlord associations, and to provide incentives to secure their attention and commitment.14

14

The sessions could be mandatory for fined landlords. 40

3) disperse high concentration of students Municipal authorities are well placed to effect the student density of an area. They have tools such as zoning laws, building permits, municipal grants and urban planning at their disposal. Many cities in the UK have chosen this route. Some cities limit the number of HMOs via planning legislation. Belfast, Ireland requires a permit to transform a single-family house into an HMO. The national definition of HMO was revised in 2004 to include smaller houses (Ecotec, 3.2.1). A legislative change requires a strong consensus over the issue. Such consensus would be difficult to achieve in the McGill context, given that the studentification situation has not yet escalated to a level comparable to that of Belfasts.

Glasgow adopted a blanket approach, setting a 5% ceiling for HMO housing in any neighbourhood. Nottingham did the same, with a 25% ceiling. (Ecotec, 3.3.8) Both initiatives bear the risk of creating a black market of HMO, which would leave unregistered tenants more vulnerable to illegal rent increase, insalubrious conditions and expulsion. This tactic could mask rather than fix the negative consequences of studentification. More specifically, students would be tempted to avoid registering themselves at their actual dwelling address, and keep their parents address. This unintended consequence would render the issue of studentification even harder to track (Ecotec, 4.2.1).

4) mitigate environmental blight issues Nottingham and Birmingham provide additional movable dumpsters in studentified areas. In Canada, Waterloo has a litter task force to conduct a regional garbage reduction campaign. These initiatives are either punctual and local, or ongoing and regional. While a local approach is more suitable to address student-related litter issues, Waterloos comprehensive approach is a reminder that studentified areas are not the only ones struggling with environmental blight. Therefore, a transversal approach tailored to the particularities of student behaviour within a wider perspective of environmental consciousness appears to be a desirable strategy.

41

D. Police
ii. punitive/deterrent approach 1) deter illegal behaviour In London Ontario, the police strictly enforce noise, vandalism and drinking bylaws. The LEARN (Liquor Enforcement and Reduction of Noise) initiative enables the police to conduct arrests without a prior complaint from neighbors. The police targets illegal keg parties off campus. They enforce a zero-tolerance policy against serving alcohol to underage students and serving without a license. Undercover officers enter keg parties, obtain evidence of the sale of alcohol, seize the alcohol under the Plain View Doctrine and charge all occupants. Project Speak Easy lead to a total of 842 charges (London Police Department, 2). Local students denounce the initiative as exacerbating the us/them dynamic. Similarly, a judicialisation of student behaviour in Milton-Parc could aggravate the lack of social cohesion.

E. Community
i. punitive/deterrent approach 1) deter anti-social behaviour In Hamilton Ontario, WADS (Westdale Against Drunk Students) targeted the local pub. WADS videotaped the late-night escapades of inebriated students and threatened McMaster University with a lawsuit. The group also organised a protest to close the bar, gathering more than 200 people. While it is questionable whether WADS belligerent attitude is productive, they legitimately linked alcohol and anti-social behaviour.

ii. preventive approach 1) communication channels Many community groups dedicate significant efforts to establish a productive dialog with students. In the UK, Redland and Cotham residents association make and distribute a welcome pamphlet to incoming students moving on their streets. The pamphlet includes historical highlights about the neighbourhood, as well as a brief statement on neighbour etiquette. This initiative addresses the experiential effects of studentification. In highly 42

studentified areas, the students tend to think they were there first, or that the situation of disturbance is immemorial. These perspectives, described above as right to disturb and immemorial occupation, merit to be put in perspective. However, the risk of sounding patronizing is significant. Therefore, the framing of the pamphlet design, vocabulary, context of distribution- requires a great deal of diplomacy. These communities have decided to personally hand the pamphlet, which is perhaps the most effective way for students to put a face on who they are waking up. Since students and longer-term residents otherwise tend to have their initial contact once the situation has already escalated, a positive first impression could prove determinant in setting a positive relationship before conflicts arise.

The Arbor district resident association in Illinois as well as the Waterloo Town and Gown association are also taking the first step to start on the right foot with students. In Arbor, a picnic welcomes students in September. This informal occasion gives an opportunity to exchange on a jovial note, and to seed positive interactions. Waterloo places welcome banners in visible public spaces in order to make students feel at home.

2) promote high quality housing The Arbor resident association offers tips on leasing accommodation. The advice is specifically designed to address the student experience. It focuses on repairs, therefore dealing with environmental blight; and on the number of maximum occupants per house, dealing with the densification of population associated with studentification. The residents also set up a lease-reviewing service in order to prevent landlord abuse or willful omission. This type of solidarity between longer-term and student residents is possible because of a convergence of interest in good quality housing. Although students may not take the initiative to ensure their leasing and dwelling is optimal, this free service is an attractive offer for students.

43

F. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation

i. preventive 1) track the issue The CMHC surveyed the housing situation of students in 2005 (appendix 4). Although the report focuses on Toronto and Halifax, some findings are nevertheless pertinent for Milton-Parc. For instance, the study reveals that 75% of students who attend an institution in their hometown live with their parents. This would confirm the hypothesis that most Milton-Parc residents are out of town students, since few families live in Milton-Parc. The challenge of integrating students in the neighbourhood is greater because students often lack local, even regional references. As new transplants, students are at a greater risk to ignore tenant protection regulations. They also perceive themselves as a temporary disturbance, failing to recognize that as a group they are permanent a correlation of the groundhog effect. This statistic confirms that a studentification harm-reduction strategy needs to address the fact that students lack contextualization and a frame of reference as to where they live.

Another interesting facet of the report is the motivations for living off campus. Privacy, greater independence and tranquility appear to be priorities. In this context, one can speculate that Milton-Parc may loose popularity amongst moderate students if noise issues persists. A qualitative survey of students motivations for choosing Milton-Parc would be useful to gauge how proximity, affordability and tranquility really come into play in students values. This study would be useful to predict future alterations in the neighbourhood. One possibility is that an overly studentified Milton-Parc would lead to an exodus of students because the attractiveness would decline in terms of affordability and tranquility (the de-studentification stage). This would be detrimental to the community because it would be left with high rental prices and the noisiest students who dont mind the disturbance. Rental prices could eventually deprecate due to a lower demand, leading the area into a decline similar to that of the fifties. Such a decline would be detrimental to McGill, because it wouldnt be able to bank on a safe and enjoyable adjacent

44

neighbourhood to attract out of town students. It is therefore important to target the moderate students currently living in Milton-Parc to preserve the qualities of this neighbourhood.

G. Joint initiatives
i. punitive 1) deter anti-social behaviour Police authorities and municipal councils work in tandem to create and enforce stricter bylaws. In Waterloo Ontario, the municipal council created a new bylaw where kicking a garbage can or urinating in public is punishable with a 300$ fine. In Bowling Green Ohio, organizing nuisance party, failure to control premises and failure to obey an order to cease and disperse can cost between 50$ and 500$ (Reddin). The bylaws allows jailing of second-time offenders for up to thirty days. In 2006, 25 students challenging the bylaws on constitutional and other grounds lost their case. The bylaws were upheld as neither unconstitutionally vague, overboard, nor an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power (City of Bowling Green v. Schabel). Although these measures have passed the bar of formal legality, some legal and educational commentators have denounced them as disproportionate.

ii. preventive 1) track the issue The city of Waterloo participated in a height and density study in collaboration with Wilfrid Laurier and Waterloo universities and their respective student union. In 2004, these actors were joined by landlords and residents for a survey of student rental accommodation. This study lead to 68 joint recommendations, and presents a concrete example of practical measures borne out of common interests.

2) communication channels In Hamilton Ontario, McMaster University and the Westdale residents association formed the Campus Town organisation. In comparison with the rather

45

antagonistic attitude of WADS, this joint initiative allows a structured, frequent and constructive communication channel between various constituencies with a stake in studentification. In Waterloo, the police force hosts meetings with university enforcement officers and frosh coordinators in order to anticipate any friction associated with that event. Prior communication allows the authorities to be aware of the timing and location of the activities in order to adjust their own response. It also allows to defuse conflictual attitudes because parties can make compromises in advance instead of facing a clash during the activities. Queens University created a community relations task force in 2004, before the first major Aberdeen incidents of 2005. As the relative failure of this task force exemplifies, a nominal joint committee may not be sufficient to harmonize relations between students, enforcement authorities and longerterm residents. The ability to create consensus and take concrete measures must follow, and be complemented by other measures such as closely tracking the issue.

3) promote good behaviour The Waterloo Town and Gown Committee is a joint partnership between different constituencies with a stake in reducing studentification. At the beginning of each academic school year its municipal members pay for a student welcome bag. High school volunteers assemble this bag, and residents distribute it (Waterloo Town and Gown report 2005, 4). The bag contains information on community resources and behaviour guidelines. This initiative opens up communication channels because it allows a direct contact between residents and students during the handout, while the content promotes good behaviour. In the same city, the door knocker program is a joint initiative between the police and local universities. Police officers go door to door in studentified areas in order to establish a direct contact with over 1500 student dwellings and other households. The distributed letter and pamphlet show a positive attitude towards building better relationships, and, crucially, avoids finger pointing at students and overgeneralizations about their behaviour: On very rare occasions, the actions of a few students have adversely affected the reputation of both the universities, and of all students (appendix 5 and 6). The letter focuses on how police services can assist students, as opposed to dictating appropriate conduct. Although it remains to be seen 46

how Milton-Parc students would welcome unsolicited visits from the police, the tone of the documents handed out in Waterloo sets the example for a diplomatic approach. In a somewhat more intrusive manner, police and city staff members of the Waterloo Town and Gown Committee will personally attend a house where repetitive party complaints are unresolved. This attempt to create a personal contact is laudable insofar as it demonstrates a real commitment to solving the issues related to student-borne disturbances. The committee claims a low recidivism rate. However, students would be fully justified to refuse to receive the Town and Gown representatives in their homes. While the goal of this initiative s justified, its application could easily slip into harassment.

4) promote safety In Montreal, the Concordia Student Union and Tandem (a police theft prevention program) have teamed up with the Dean of Students to offer safety workshops. Preventive measures regarding break and entry and sexual assault ensures that the quality of life of the neighbourhood does not suffer from the increased presence of young, vulnerable students. The program distributes a flyer and a checklist to secure houses (appendix 7). This checklist is particularly useful as students leave during predictable periods such as the Christmas break.

6- Recommendations
A. Community suggestions
The following is a non-exhaustive list of what longer-term residents have suggested over the years. These ideas were found in newspapers, informal interviews or workshop post-mortems.

ii. punitive/ deterrent approach 1) promote good behaviour Some residents have suggested reading the riot act to the students. A perhaps less belligerent proposal is that students sign a code of conduct (Nelles, 5). This code could apply both on and off campus, as a symbol of students civic responsibility. As with the 47

Bowling Green instance, off-campus university jurisdiction can be an issue. The idea of an increasing police presence has also been raised.

ii. preventive approach 1) environmental blight Community leaders such as Lucia Kowaluk encourage the municipality to supply more garbage bins and empty them more often (Curran 2). This would effectively reduce the litter issue preemptively, especially if combined with an information campaign on collection schedules, fines for littering and pressure on buildings landlords to put large collection bins.

2) rental inflation Other community members have posited that educating students on provincial regulations regarding rental increase would curb the inflation of rental prices. Since students have a direct stake in keeping their renewal increase to a minimum, this initiative is viable. For those students who move yearly, minimizing the rent leap is also an incentive15. This education campaign could also be geared towards achieving greater solidarity with future students and other Milton-Parc dwellers. We believe this is a potent avenue for achieving greater social cohesion.

B. Report recommendations
i. preventive 1) communication channels Establishing long-lasting communication channels between all stakeholders is vital because studentification requires a combined, coordinated effort. The SSMU

15

As mentioned is section B-1.4 students have little interest in containing rental inflation. But if

framed as having a direct financial benefit for them, the initiative could find a conducive constituency in the students living in Milton-Parc. 48

could dedicate a section of its website to bridge with longer-term residents, landlords, the municipality and the police forces. This permanent relevant information would demonstrate official dedication to improving community relations. The website could feature a blurb recognizing that studentification affects the community, a list of positive initiatives to date to tackle these negative effects, the number of a help line and the contact information of a dedicated resource person. A news section could list upcoming events susceptible of creating short term disturbance such as the schedule and itineraries of frosh, graduation, and end of term celebrations. Taking ownership of the problem is more than a public relations stunt; it would send a clear message about the SSMUs dedication to improving the situation. In addition, SSMU could publicize its initiatives to local newspapers and give trainings about studentification to any interested group.

2) track the issue The SSMU could sponsor a student housing survey inspired from the CMHC report. An online format is convenient, as it can be accessed at a time at the discretion of the student. In terms of data gathering, this option is fairly cheap as the process is automated. The intercept strategy would involve distributing flyers on campus, with the option of setting up a booth during orientation. The offer would include a chance to win a prize in the form of a gift certificate at a local bookstore. Alternatively, the McGill bookstore or computer store could participate in order to cut costs. This would save on cost if an agreement can be reached with either of these two internal entities. The flyer would contain a password required to access the survey, therefore ensuring that students participate only once. It would also be desirable for students to enter their student ID to ensure proper filtering out of non-McGill participants. This would also allow further refining of the data per year and field of study. The participants would have the option of receiving the results of the survey. Studies have found that surveyors often underestimate the interest of participants in results. Since this study targets the people at the heart of studentification, the interest it generates should be used to reach students not only with the numerical results but with a small qualitative analysis and links to current and further initiatives. 49

Since the CMHC expressed a desire to obtain further data in the report mentioned above, a possible partnership could be explored. They could contribute by donating money, offer recruiters, booths, or printing the flyers. Another potential partner is the Montreal Convercit non-profit organization. This group leads qualitative and quantitative surveys on Montreal neighbourhoods. They could perhaps be interested in the dynamics of Milton-Parc (see http://www.convercite.org/biblio.php?id=1196437949&lang_id=en for an example of their studies). Raphal Fisher is an Urban Planning professor at McGill on their board of directors.

An in-depth study of the transportation challenges of Milton-Parc would also be useful. Simple observation indicate that automobile traffic during peak student times is potentially attributable to out of town students and their families given that many license plates are from other provinces or from the United States. Could alternative routes, parking spaces or transportation means be viable? The student union could offer research grants to students in Urban Planning. Many firstrate universities are taking the route of civic engagement, so a joint collaboration with the office of the Dean, or the Department of Urban Planning, would be beneficial to the universitys research profile (Stanton). The outcome of this research could lead to a modification in he information package, so that parents and students would know in advance how to reduce the stress associated with being trapped in traffic in the narrow streets of Milton-Parc. Alleviating the McGill-induced traffic would also benefit the residents because noise and air pollution would be reduced.

The incidence of the Bixi municipal bicycle service on student mobility merits further attention. One hypothesis is that the Bixi is an incentive for students who live in Milton-Parc to expand their knowledge of Montreal outside the studentified enclave. As many students dont buy a public transportation pass, their displacement radius is limited. Could the advent of the Bixi trigger an interest for other areas of Montreal, an increased awareness of the urban context in which they live, and eventually a dispersal of student housing pattern and a change in attitudes? 50

Another important requirement is to keep tabs on the number of resident complaints. A neighbourhood helpline number would allow residents to address concerns directly to the student union or university. Initial contact with MLIC (McGill Legal Information Clinic) seems to indicate that they would be willing to share the number of consultations related to student behaviour off-campus. Finally, the Montreal police has not been forthcoming with providing data in the criminality rates in Milton-Parc. Invoking that the area is part of distinct police precincts, they have so far refused to collaborate and emitted a formal refusal.

3) encourage social cohesion This report has underlined that both longer-term residents and students tend to ignore each other until problems occur. Many communities have taken steps to preemptively defuse relations. The SSMU could organise a garage sale at the end of April to promote interactions between students and longer-term residents. This would also alleviate environmental blight issues, as student furniture clogs Milton-Parcs constricted streets at the beginning of each summer. Since these goods are typically two-years old or less, they could be valuable to prospective buyers and would allow students to gain money instead of throwing away furniture. Another route would be to organize a furniture collection service and provide tax-deductible receipts. The furniture could be redistributed to non-profit organisations in the vicinity.

The student union could perhaps lobby the First Year Transition Network to include information about studentification. Information packages for newly admitted students could include a blurb on the historical background of the neighbourhood and the social struggles that cristallised its community in the seventies and eighties. A note about mutual respect could be elaborated by students for students, in order to avoid sounding patronizing.

51

4) promote good behaviour The Good Conduct guide could expand into a comprehensive campaign on neighbour etiquette. This would mean a higher volume and visibility for the guidelines. They could even be incorporated in the prospective student package.

5) promote high-quality housing McGill housing services could be lobbied to incorporate information about rent increase caps. As it now stands, the issue is barely visible amongst the rest of the information. This could be done in March when students often begin to think about the following years living arrangements. Alleviating the inflation of renting prices would contribute to maintaining a certain diversity in the social make up of the neighbourhood, hence addressing the homogenization brought about by studentification.

Another possibility would be to walk around in the neighbourhood and spot unkept buildings. SSMU representatives could obtain the contact information of landlords and invite them to sessions on the rights and responsibilities of building owners. Sessions could cover garbage collection, rodent infestation, mould, noisy tenants, rental prices caps and finders fees. This initiative could possibly be organized in collaboration with MILC.

6) reduce environmental blight Milton-Parc residents have informally expressed a strong interest in greening the neighbourhood. The SSMU could sponsor workshops on urban gardening, and organize a contest to reward the best initiatives. As with the survey, the prizes could be redeemed at local shops, or at the McGill bookstore or computer store to reduce costs. Possible partners include Green McGill, Sustainable McGill, Campus Crops, Centre dcologie Urbaine, co Quartier and Alternatives. Cathy-Ann Barr, a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) expert for the MUHC (McGill University Health Center) and member of the Table de concertation Centre-Ville Ouest could be an interested McGill faculty member. The SSMU could negotiate with borough representatives to increase the frequency of garbage collection during peak times like orientation week in September or moving out in April. 52

While the student union certainly has an important part to play in mitigating the effects of studentification, the university is best placed to deal with certain aspects of studentification. A housing strategy, for instance, is more aptly initiated by the institution because McGill already has a housing office, as well as resources and leverage to shape this aspect of studentification. The off-campus housing office is another crucial resource in dealing with studentification. The current policy is to post any apartment without filtering: the university could seize this opportunity to have indirect control over the housing choices of its students by pre-approving landlords or specific apartments via an accreditation scheme. McGill could use its privileged access as an intermediary between housing offer and demand to ensure good quality apartments, curb inflation and reduce environmental blight.

7- Conclusion
McGill is already questioning its disconnect with the local Quebec context. This disconnect between international, Canadian French- speaking and Canadian English-speaking students is recognized (Principal's Task Force on Student Life and Learning, appendix 8 and 9), and one overarching question is how can we enhance relations between students from Qubec and students from outside Qubec, and enrich the Qubec experience for students coming to McGill from outside the province? (Principal's Task Force on Student Life and Learning, Executive Summary). Many institutions are struggling to redefine their ivory tower image, and a clear commitment to internalising some of the costs of studentification is a step in that direction. McGill faces many challenges to foster more harmonious interactions with its environment. The gravitational pull of the American campus model and the gated community mentality of some students, staff and academic members are some of these challenges. However, the universitys unique situation as a traditional campus in the middle of inner-city urban fabric and its tremendous brainpower lay down favorable circumstances for McGill to create its own solution. The studentification issue is not as blatant as in other affected areas, namely because the MiltonParc enclave enjoys the support of a strong preservationist movement. While it is not as 53

vulnerable to degradation as post-war working-class suburbia, the situation still deserves our full attention because the phenomenon is clearly gaining momentum. If anything, the lessons of Britains experience should alert us to the importance of acting fast before the situation reaches the full studentification stage and requires a stiff punitive approach.

8- Bibliography
Adlaf, Edward M., Demers, Andre, and Gliksman, Louis (Eds.) Canadian Campus Survey 2004. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2005. Blackey, Martin. Unipol Student Homes. London: Unipol, 2008 Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Student Housing in Canada: Developing a Methodology to Collect Data and Information. Ottawa: CMHC, 2005. Cameron, Tim. The Community Accountability Program: Off-Campus Conflict, Student Misconduct, and the Principles of Restorative Justice. Windsor: CSJA, 2007. At http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/csja/csja.nsf/982F0E5F06B5C9A285256D6E006CFF78/0ED79E1 CC55A8EE0852572870066800B?OpenDocument. Accessed 24 August 2009. Chatterton, P. University Students and City Centers: the formation of exclusive geographies. The case of Bristol, UK. In Geoforum vol 30, 117-133. City of Bowling Green v. Schabel, Court of Appeals No. WD-05-013, Ohio (C.A.), 6th appellate district, Wood County, 2005. Corral, Isabel. Milton-Parc Stands at Crossroads in Urban Planning. The Gazette 30 May 1987. Curran, Peggy. Carousing students fail to amuse Milton-Park. The Gazette 19 May 2009. Dean of Students Office & McGill Secretariat. Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures. Montreal: McGill University, 2009. Department for Communities and Local Government. Evidence Gathering Housing in Multiple Occupation and possible planning responses. London: Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office, 2008. 54

Desjardins, Sylvain-Jacques. In the ghetto. McGill Reporter 9 September 1999. Ecotec. Evidence Gathering Housing in Multiple Occupation and possible planning responses. London: Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office, 2008. Fournier, S. Off-campus antics off limits to most. Vancouver Province 24 October 2007. At http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=c5d1ed3d-5c2e-4be3-8ed80e896e7a3807. Accessed 24 July 2009. Jeanne Mance street traffic cuts planned. The Montreal Star 18 August 1977. Gingras, Gisle. Milton-Parc: Restaurer tout en respectant le droit au logement des locataires. Montreal: SOS Montral, 1980. Hale, Jonathan & Smith, Darren. Studentification Seminar. London: University of London Housing Services, 2008. At http://housing.london.ac.uk/cms/uploads/media/LONDON_300608_DPS_without_images.ppt. Accessed 10 July 2009. Helman, Claire. The Milton-Park affair : Canada's largest citizen-developer confrontation. Montral: Vhicule Press, 1987. Heritage Canada. http://www.memorablemontreal.com/ Fox, Michael. Near-Campus Student Housing and the Growth of the Town and Gown Movement in Canada. At http://www.towngownworld.com/images/town_and_gown_movement_in_canada.pdf . Accessed 10 July 2009. Kenyon, Elizabeth L. Seasonal Sub-Communities: The Impact of Student Households on Residential Communities in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 286-301. Lambert, Phyllis. Land Tenure and Concepts of Architecture and the city: Milton-Park in Montreal in Power and place: Canadian Urban Development in the North American Context. Eds. Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan J. Artibise. Vancouver: UBC press, 1986. Lamey, Mary. When a dorm wont do parents invest in condos. The Gazette 4 August 2007. 55

Marsan, Jean-Claude. Le patrimoine bti Montral (3). Les moyens restrictifs. Le Devoir 22 December 1984. Lienonen, Kira et al. A student's guide to renting an apartment. TV McGill 2008. At http://www.tvmcgill.com/node/51. Accessed 24 July 2009. London Police service. London Police Service Board. London: Town & Gown Association Annual Ontario Symposium, 2007. At http://www.tgao.ca/page.php?id=55. Accessed 24 July 2009. Marsan, Jean-Claude. Montreal in Evolution. Montreal; Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 1990. McGill Enrolment Services. Fall 2008: Full-Time Enrolments by Level and by Faculty. Montreal: McGill University, 2008. At http://www.mcgill.ca/files/es/Fall_2008_szrfrgs2.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2009. McGill Enrolment Services. Fall 2008: Full-Time and Part-Time Canadian and Permanent Residents Enrolments by Provinces at Admit Time and by Faculty. Montreal: McGill University, 2008. At http://www.mcgill.ca/files/es/Fall_2008_szrfrgs6.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2009. Markowitz, Jennifer. Bedbugs in rez. McGill Daily, 6 November 2006. McGill Enrolment Services. Fall 2008: Full-Time and Part-Time Canadian and Permanent Residents Enrolments by Provinces at Admit Time and by Faculty. Montreal: McGill University, 2008. At http://www.mcgill.ca/files/es/Fall_2008_szrfrgs8.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2009. McGill security services. Downtown Campus Crime Statistics 2007-08. Montreal: McGill University. At http://www.mcgill.ca/files/security/2007-08McGillCrimeStatistics.pdf. Accessed 24 July 2009. McGill Tribune (editorial). In the ghetto. The McGill Tribune 29 January 2008. McGill University. Principal's Task Force on Student Life and Learning. Montreal: McGill, 2006. 56

Miller, David and Gutsche, Clara. You dont know what you got until its gone. Montreal: Centaur Galleries of Photography, 1973. Milton-Parc, un quartier coopratif. Montral: ? ,1983. Nacobo & Ayers Saint Gross. Communities of Opportunity: Smart Growth Strategies For Colleges and Universities. Washington: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2007. National HMO Lobby. Balanced Communities & Studentification: Problems and Solutions. Leeds: Cardigan Center, 2008. Nelles, Drew. Ghetto on the hill. McGill Daily 11 February 2008. At http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=7031. Accessed 24 July 2009. Pellerin, Louise. Des manifestations bloqueront la rue Hutchison, Demain. La Presse 18 August 1977. Pinard, Guy. Les immeubles dappartements Grosvenor et Marlborough. La Presse 11 October 1992. Reddin, Mark et al. The Bowling Green Experience. Clemson: International Town and Gown Association, 2006. (Best Practices conference proceedings, Fort Murray, Kentucky). At http://www.towngown.net/documents/Bowling_Green_Town_Gown_Conference_Murray_Kent ucky%5B1%5D.pdf . Accessed 24 July 2009. Redland & Cotham Amenities Society. At http://www.rcas.org.uk/. Accessed 26 June 2009. Socit du Patrimoine Urbain. Plan dAction. Montreal: Socit du patrimoine urbain, 1980. Socit du Patrimoine Urbain. Executive Summary: Data Collection Report Milton-Parc Project. Montreal: Socit du patrimoine urbain, 1986. Smith, D. P. Studentification: a Gentrification Factory? in Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. Eds Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge. London; New York: Routledge, 2005. Stanton, Timothy K. New Times Demand New Scholarship II: Research Universities and Civic Engagement Opportunities and Challenges. Los Angeles: The University of California, 2007. 57

Tamburri R. "Making Nice with the Neighbours." University Affairs 2006; 8-11. van der Kuijp, Katrien. Longtime Milton-Parc residents pissed off. McGill Daily, 11 February 2008. At http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=7021. Accessed 24 July 2009. Universities UK. A guide to opportunities, challenges and practice. London: Universities UK, 2006. Varano, Lisa. Finding apartments without fees. McGill Daily, 30 March 2004. At http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2004/03/30/News/Finding.A partments.Without.Fees-645662.shtml . Accessed 24 July 2009. Vernet, Julien. Locals Complain About New Rez. McGill Daily, 22 September 2003. At http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=1655. Accessed 24 July 2009. Waterloo Town and Gown Committee. Town and Gown Committee report 2005. Waterloo: City of Waterloo, 2005. At http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282c6475cdb7ee7/PS_documents/towngown.pdf . Accessed 9 July 2009. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004. Geneva: United Nations, 2004.

Background research is also available here: http://delicious.com/maroussia/miltonparc

58