Dens If Ication

TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 02 November 2022

DOI 10.3389/frsc.2022.975130
Contested densification:
OPEN ACCESS Sustainability, place and
expectations at the urban fringe
EDITED BY
Byron Andrew Miller,
University of Calgary, Canada
REVIEWED BY
Matthew Anderson, Sophie L. Van Neste* and Jean-Philippe Royer
Eastern Washington University,
United States INRS Urbanisation Culture Société, Montreal, QC, Canada
Lorenzo De Vidovich,
University of Trieste, Italy
*CORRESPONDENCE The discourse of sustainability-by-density is dominant in urban policies and

Sophie L. Van Neste
sophiel.vanneste@inrs.ca
climate-friendly urbanism today. Yet, with current failures and disparities in
the regulation of dense development and land speculation, the effects of
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to such policies are not exclusively positive. In this article, we address citizen
Innovation and Governance, opposition to densification in urban peripheries of the Global North, especially
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
in the North American context, with particular focus on a case at the urban
fringe of the Montreal metropolitan area (Canada). We contribute to existing
RECEIVED 21 June 2022
ACCEPTED 29 August 2022 scholarship on a relational approach to urban sustainability with the objective
PUBLISHED 02 November 2022 of better understanding the narratives and governance dynamics that unfold
CITATION in urban peripheries. In the case studied, the gap between residents’ subjective
Van Neste SL and Royer J-P (2022)
Contested densification: Sustainability,
experience of the ongoing transformations and the State discourses at different
place and expectations at the urban scales is particularly important, yet little understood after several years of
fringe. Front. Sustain. Cities 4:975130. public participatory meetings and two lawsuits. We develop the notion of
doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.975130
situated expectations to show how actors entertain different expectations
COPYRIGHT
© 2022 Van Neste and Royer. This is
of the performance of State and citizen practices in favor of sustainability,
an open-access article distributed which are grounded in their respective relationships to place, scale and the
under the terms of the Creative urban boundary. The lack of circulation and mutual recognition between these
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction expectations makes the construction of coalitions and shared participatory
in other forums is permitted, provided governance practices much more problematic.
the original author(s) and the copyright
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is KEYWORDS
cited, in accordance with accepted
urban peripheries, densification, urban sustainability, metropolitan governance,
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which
place, expectations, suburb
does not comply with these terms.
Introduction
Recent decades have witnessed a planning movement to contain urban
growth in North America and shift away from urban sprawl (Filion, 2015).
Yet, State efforts for compactness and densification have been interpreted as
not only overseeing the private sector for environmental protection but also
strategically reorienting real estate speculation and development, as part of the
urban sustainability fix (While et al., 2004; Dierwechter, 2013; Anderson et al.,
2022). In these transformations, local governments are alternately portrayed as
either interventionist or geared toward unbridled growth (Peck, 2011; Harris and
Lehrer, 2018). Indeed, densification can involve different regulatory approaches by
the State resulting in correspondingly different effects on places, people, and the
environment at different scales (Touati-Morel, 2015). This wide range of impacts
contributes to the fact that the discourse around the universal benefits of urban
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 01 frontiersin.org

Van Neste and Royer 10.3389/frsc.2022.975130
densification is being contested, with mistrust in the it can be considered a tool of government and governmentality
State’s capacity to regulate growth in places that are being (Dierwechter, 2013; Pérez, 2020) that potentially imposes a
rapidly transformed by densification. Yet, this discourse of tabula rasa worldview on places whose prior qualities are
sustainability-by-density, and the erasure of politics around its not only minimized but also stereotyped as a social evil.
implementation, remains dominant (Charmes and Keil, 2015). Whereas in the 1960s, urban renewal programs demolished
This is especially the case in a context of climate urbanism in densely populated neighborhoods in the name of hygiene,
which urban densification becomes both an imperative and an today low-density spaces are being transformed and rebuilt into
indicator of climate leadership (Rice et al., 2020). condominiums in the name of sustainability. While ongoing
In policies and debates around densification, both efforts to contain urban sprawl are ecologically and socially
the complex geography of urban sustainability, and the crucial, the practical impacts of densification standards on
structural processes of neoliberal urban development are often places and people must be critically examined, given the current
obscured (Charmes and Keil, 2015; Miller and Mössner, 2020). importance and effects of these standards, and the polarizations
Considering densification to limit sprawl as part of the ideology they generate.
of how cities can save the planet (Angelo and Wachsmuth, To investigate these impacts, we consider densification as a
2020), we are interested in the spatial and temporal politics form of (re)urbanization that is driven by capital accumulation
involved in its promotion and contestation. In this article, we processes while also being affected by situated cultures of
highlight the importance of situated expectations—regarding planning and State regulation, as well as by citizens’ place-
place, the State, and sustainable urban transformation—in the making practices. This approach is based on the work of
motivations of densification opponents and in the unfolding of McFarlane (2016) who considered density not just as a
densification-related conflicts. sum of people, the built environment, and resources per
We specifically focus on citizen opposition to densification hectare, but also as an assemblage of ideology, regulation,
in urban peripheries of the Global North, especially in the North and (de)investment processes within a context of political
American context. We embrace the agenda of de-centering economy and cultural politics related to attachments and
scholarship and research from the city to critically interrogate everyday life. The three dimensions we outline in densification—
the politics and subjectivities in urban peripheries in relation capital accumulation, State regulation, and resident practices—
to discourses and expectations of sustainability developed are similar to the dimensions already outlined in the literature
with the central cities imaginary. We think that densification on the production of urban peripheries (Gilbert et al., 2005;
debates in urban peripheries shed light on the concrete Ekers et al., 2012). As argued by Gilbert et al. (2005), the result
challenges of both urban governance and grassroots coalition- of these three governance forces is not predetermined. Since
building for the sustainability and climate adaptation of city- they can be in conflict, the product of their interactions for
regions. What is happening in urban peripheries while urban the transformation of urban peripheries will depend on situated
sustainability-by-density is increasingly becoming a norm and power geometries (Massey, 2005) and respective expectations in
mode of capital accumulation? What coalitions and alternative places and city-regions.
or complementary narratives are being developed or restrained? In the following sections, we introduce the contested
What governance and contestation spaces are mobilized? governance of densification in the urban fringe by presenting
We use conceptual elements derived from the literature (1) the literature on densification policies and the impacts
that examines densification as a contested form of urban of such urban growth (and growth control) strategies, and
transformation to analyze and learn from a more-than-two- (2) the literature on its contestation in urban peripheries.
decade-long case of contested densification in the Montreal We follow with our conceptual proposal to analyse
metropolitan region. Despite years of participatory public such debates in terms of situated expectations. Indeed,
forums, around a hundred municipality-citizen committee while we build on existing literature to articulate this
meetings, and even two lawsuits, misunderstandings persist. socio-spatial construction of densification, our primary
contribution lies in our emphasis on the importance of
situated expectations as a key component of contested
Densification as a contested form of urban transformation. We then present and discuss our
urban transformation case study.
A critical literature has emerged on urban density and

densification examined as a discourse and political tool—
a hegemonic policy epistemology of virtuous sustainable Densification policies and growth
development that needs to be deconstructed (Charmes and (control) strategies
Keil, 2015; McFarlane, 2016; Pérez, 2020). Indeed, a historical
review of how meanings of the term “density” have been In recent years, densification has been discussed as a growth
radically transformed in urban planning standards shows that policy which receives more or less traction or contestation in

urban peripheries depending on local political constellations, within densification projects are not explicitly included
the planning and regulatory culture and its proximity to (Quastel et al., 2012; Miller and Mössner, 2020).
developers, and the type of settlement (Phelps, 2012; Leffers As Harris and Lehrer (2018) and Anderson et al. (2022)
and Ballamingie, 2013; Keil, 2015; Touati-Morel, 2015). Most examplify, change in urban peripheries is largely related to
large urban areas in the Global North have been developing who actually controls the land, the powers of the growth-
densification policies, whether through an interventionist regulating authorities, and the actual practices of enforcement,
approach in terms of greater State control and the capture of the exception, or negotiation that take place (2018, p. 307). In
rent surplus for local infrastructure and services, or in a flexible their study of densification policies in the Ottawa region
and neoliberal style where market forces are prompted to densify (Canada), Leffers and Ballamingie (2013, p. 1) note that zoning
their development projects without being closely monitored is often explicitly used as a flexible policy tool for “achieving
(Touati-Morel, 2015). ‘highest and best use’ of private property” through an exercise
The densification objectives pursued by both the State of power that favors the market over community priorities.
and local authorities can be diverse, and the environmental For his part, Phelps (2012) emphasizes a differentiation of
arguments favoring density can be relatively “plastic” (Tonkiss, urban periphery politics depending on each locality’s stage
2013; Charmes and Keil, 2015). Densification is, in principle, of maturity and demographics. While the “growth machine”
advocated to protect agricultural land and natural environments hypothesis (Logan and Molotch, 2007) makes sense in new
by curtailing urban sprawl and reducing automobile usage and suburbs, the characteristics of territories and their transitions in
hence carbon footprint. In fact, the environmental impacts and more mature suburbs, or in suburbs transitioning to functional
ecological value of densification very much depend on related diversity, generate different political dynamics, depending on
State regulations, choices and investments—for example, public the sensitivities and aspirations of their residents. In old, stable
transit connections, location (close to or far from amenities, or and affluent suburbs, the mode of urban politics is more often
potential threat to natural environments), and other incentives than not a caretaker or anti-growth regime. Local politics
for environmentally-friendly habitation and mobility practices is also different in exurbia where rural landscapes are being
within city-regions (Tonkiss, 2013; Rinkinen et al., 2021). transformed from a productive focus to an amenity-economy
Miller and Mössner (2020) have convincingly argued that urban with residents valuing nature conservation (Hurley, 2013; Taylor
sustainability is often promoted with a focus on singular places, and Hurley, 2016).
which obscures the complex effects that extend through space, All these aspects are further complicated by the multiscalar
and the wider political economy it contributes to, including politics of growth management. In many city-regions, it is
regional dynamics of counter-sustainability. Filion (2015) shows the metropolitan scale of governance that has established city-
the material, political and cultural inertia of car-dependent regional standards for densification, smart growth, and transit-
peripheries that remain unchallenged by current policies. For oriented development (TOD) (Filion, 2012; Dierwechter, 2013).
example, as Roy-Baillargeon (2017) points out, the density This metropolitan scale interacts both with local municipal
standards adopted in the Greater Montreal area were simply actors who play a role in urban planning, bylaws, and
density requirements for housing, particularly for that close development, and with different growth coalition projects
to public transit. This pressure to densify housing does not (McCauley and Murphy, 2013; Miller and Mössner, 2020).
address its location in relation to highway infrastructures, The political power of urban peripheries may be too marginal
nor where services, jobs, and businesses are located. This to effectively negotiate their political interests insofar as they
approach could therefore be confined to simply promoting are often “vulnerable spaces where rent-seeking strategies can
residential real estate development on sites close to arterial be more aggressive and planning issues of environmental
highways and large commercial centers with limited walking protection, resilience, and sustainable architecture are not self-
access, thereby reinforcing automobility—a trend also observed evidently addressed” (Salet, 2015), or some economic interests
elsewhere (Tonkiss, 2013, p. 41; Filion, 2015). may dominate. In some cases, densification and development
While a recent global systemic review of the scientific pressures fall on areas with a history of deregulation and
literature nevertheless argues that densification is minimal inter-municipal oversight and cooperation (Peck, 2011;
positively correlated with more sustainable transport, it Miller and Mössner, 2020); in others, densification conversely
also indicates it is negatively associated with ecology, occurs in areas with a local planning and regulation culture
health, and social impacts, dimensions however much less in which elites and/or grassroots mobilization groups operate
studied (Pont et al., 2020). The norm of sustainability- within a political caretaker and anti-growth regime (Phelps,
as-density has been associated with gentrification 2012).
and higher rents in some parts of Canada as well as Given the increasing pressure to develop climate-
elsewhere in the world (Quastel et al., 2012; Bunce, friendly forms of urban development (including in urban
2017; Rice et al., 2020). This is especially the case peripheries), we are interested in what metropolitan
when provisions to ensure social and affordable housing densification standards produce at the urban fringe in the

face of uncertain local capacity to regulate development may become more exclusive, as well as agents who threaten
(Harris and Lehrer, 2018). The literature shows that it is ecological integrity at the same time as their vigilance enables
not because sustainability and densification standards are environmental conservation” (2005, p. 382).
adopted at the metropolitan scale that local governments have Local suburban and peri-urban mobilizations have built on
the capacities, tools or interest to regulate development in science and used planning tools to protect ecological amenities
order to protect environmental amenities or social qualities in their living environment (Rome, 2001; Gilbert et al., 2005;
that residents of different socioeconomic demographics Taylor and Hurley, 2016). In the process, participatory forms of
want protected. environmental management and conservation were developed
locally as an alternative—or at least a complement—to
market self-regulation and universal State regulatory norms
in decentralized spaces promoted for their potential to benefit
Ambiguous opposition to densification in from more deliberative input based on local knowledge
urban peripheries and praxis (Sabel et al., 2000). In such processes, residents
opposed development and its conservation-subordinating
Density in the urban fringe is often perceived as antithetical growth discourse and often partnered with planners and
to nature and rurality, and its ecological performance considered green advocates.
all the more questionable. For example, Cadieux (2008) dissects In recent years, however, an important contextual change
the debates and issues around this “urban edge planning” to has affected the reception of citizen opposition to development
highlight different conceptions of the problems and remedies in urban peripheries. Indeed, opposition to dense development
inherent in “creeping urbanization”. Residents see their rural goes against the hegemonic norm of sustainability-by-density,
mode of habitat anchored in local, nature-stewardship practices which has become part of the urban sustainability fix (While
as starkly opposed to the urban periphery densification et al., 2004; Goodling et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2022).
mode that produces impermeable gray spaces, attracts exotic Charmes and Keil (2015) argue that the discourse of density as a
species, increases the use of automobile commuting, and new environmental norm serves the interests of growth-oriented
disfigures the living environment. Opponents to densification coalitions by dismissing the opposition of residents who
in peripheries accordingly perceive densification as more advocate preserving quality of life, the local environment, and
destructive than their own relationship to place and land in the original vision of a rural setting or a suburban utopia. In this
the periphery insofar as they subscribe to different visions context, it has become more difficult to form coalitions between
of nature and different scales to evaluate ecological impacts. resident activists, planners, and progressive environmentalists.
Keil and Macdonald (2016) discuss land-use conflicts in For Charmes and Keil (2015), “the defensive politics of
greenbelts, including how consumption of land for development suburbanites vis-à-vis continuous development is not just a
(including dense development) is seen as detrimental to defensive stance of private interests” (2015, p. 589–590), it is also
creating or maintaining alternative metabolic relationships— about defending the use value of urban space vs. its exchange
for example, in the case of local agriculture, climate change value for developers and speculators (Logan and Molotch,
adaptation, and other relationships with non-human life in the 2007). Nonetheless, the defense of nature and rurality is still
urban peripheries. associated with the preservation of private property values. The
This is not new, of course. Historians Hays (1987) and representations of the places and aesthetics to be “saved” can
Rome (2001) have argued that the urban fringe has been “a be seen as typical landscapes of privilege for the white upper-
major battleground in the conflict between environmental and class (Duncan and Duncan, 2003; Hurley, 2013). We think that
development objectives” in the post-war period (Hays, 1987, p. understanding the meanings of such political activism requires
95). Indeed, the transformation of the landscape brought about a careful study of the representations and expectations of the
by massive suburbanization generated considerable opposition individuals and groups involved in the particular contexts where
in North America, and was interpreted by Rome (2001) as densification is both a discourse of sustainability and a mode of
a key element in the growth of the modern environmental capital accumulation with unequal State regulation.
movement in the USA and the adoption of environmental In the climate emergency context, densification is
regulations for developers. The ambiguity in this movement increasingly proclaimed as the solution in cities and urban
lay in the contribution of suburbanites who, after directly peripheries where negative impacts are being witnessed (Angelo
witnessing the impacts of suburbanization, ultimately came to and Wachsmuth, 2020; Rice et al., 2020). In parallel, low-density
oppose it by demanding more policies to protect nature and urban peripheries are also beginning to be considered differently
open space and develop a better land ethic. In the early 21st in terms of their potential for nature-based solutions, green
century, Gilbert et al. (2005) reiterated a similar analysis for infrastructure for climate adaptation and carbon capture, and
Canadian communities: “The irony of suburban and exurban the implementation of circular metabolisms (Teicher et al.,
development is that residents in their quests for ‘pristine’ nature 2021). This trend could move policies closer to the visions

and practices of residents at the urban fringe as described by looking forward” with all the promises, hopes, concerns and
Cadieux (2008) as well as Keil and Macdonald (2016). However, perceived risks entailed (Borup et al., 2006, p. 286). This
these visions of an alternative role for urban peripheries do not literature emphasizes how expectations can be performative
currently seem to be nearly as structuring for policies and State inasmuch as they influence positions, debates, and decisions
instruments as the demands for densification (Wynne et al., on plans or investment today. Oomen et al. (2022, p. 254)
2020; Teicher et al., 2021). have reviewed different approaches that analyze “how images
In several studies, we see that the contestation of of and expectations for ‘the future’ structure decision-making
densification relates to different visions of nature and dwelling and social organization.” To begin with, expectations operate
place (Cadieux, 2008; Ruming et al., 2012; Keil and Macdonald, not by their factuality but through their credibility for people—
2016). At the same time, the governance of densification is also a type of prospection (positive or negative) that orients
a factor in citizen opposition, as scholars speak of issues of people’s actions and evaluations of the current state of affairs.
political autonomy and local democracy, and people’s faith in Expectations are accordingly formed through imaginaries and
the State planning apparatus and regulation of developers. The discourses that reinforce the credibility of a future state (for
literature shows that scholars and activists in different places example, the credibility of a policy or regulation in terms of
have wondered to what extent densification is promoted as a producing its promised effects), as well as through concrete
mode of capital accumulation; what values are prioritized; how practices that reproduce and circulate this imaginary. Second,
is the population’s input included and represented; and who is expectations also come in the form of emotional investments
privileged in these processes. and affects in relation to anticipated futures—notably, when a
This brings us to our next section, which conceptualizes loss is anticipated. Finally, the material organization of society
the expectations around the performance of governance tools “structures what is thought as possible” (Oomen et al., 2022, p.
mobilized for the densification of urban peripheries. 256). The materiality of a site, together with its landscape and
infrastructure, display certain possibilities and encourage certain
modes of anticipation more than others. Low-density and car-
Situated expectations dependent environments are cited as examples of material
obduracy that can structure imaginaries of the future.
We have outlined above our conceptualization of the If we return to our topic of contested densification,
densification of peripheries, inspired by McFarlane (2016) and expectations could be nurtured by people’s faith in the regulatory
others: a process of development driven by capital accumulation, instruments of local governments or the State to deliver as
modulated by State regulations and situated planning cultures, planned, or by emotional investment in the anticipation of
and transformed, resisted or reproduced by resident place- a loss during a place transformation. These expectations can
making practices, in their interactions with the State and be an integral part of people’s reasons for either opposing,
private deloppers projects. These different dimensions of the modifying, or contributing to a given densification policy.
governance of densification are important not only in their Yet, expectations are not free-floating phenomena. They are
past and present configurations. What we add to the current anchored in particular practices, experiences, and materialities
scholarly debates is how they are also important in their expected (Borup et al., 2006; Oomen et al., 2022), and, especially,
performance in the future, to transform urban peripheries and in particular geographies. In the following paragraphs, we
the wider urban structure. discuss our proposal of three spatialities where densification
In the paragraphs below, we discuss the spatio-temporal conflicts cristallize, contributing to people’s expectations of
dynamics of the governance of densification, starting with the urban transformation.
notion of expectations. We then discuss the key spatialities
where tensions around densification crystallize, namely: the
metropolitan scale of governance, the urban boundary, and The metropolitan scale of governance
place. Together, these concepts help us adopt an approach
of situated expectations—with a situated understanding The first element in the different spatialities playing out in
of densification conflicts that takes into account specific debates about urban periphery densification is the metropolitan
assemblages of actors and materialities, and their respective scale of governance (at least in urban areas where it has
relationships to expected urban transformation. been institutionalized). Geographers have discussed the power-
laden politics of scale whereby competing representations define
different scales at which problems ought to be understood and
Expectations fixed (Brenner, 2002). The different protagonists in such politics
naturalize certain scales as associated with greater expected
The concept of expectations has been extensively discussed future benefits. For example, in the early 21st century, the
in the sociology of science and technology as “the state of emergence of new forms of metropolitan governance were

extensively covered in the academic literature (Brenner, 2002; (Taylor and Hurley, 2016, p.2). Yet, urban growth boundaries
Boudreau et al., 2006). The metropolitan scale of governance or urban perimeters demarcating zones of greater density have
was expected to reinforce a political community at the “right become mechanisms of delineation that control which territories
scale” and thereby improve cohesion across the city-region, and natural environments are to be protected and which are to
enhance environmental protection, and accelerate economic be developed and in what ways.
growth (Brenner, 2002). This metropolitan scale of State action The urban perimeter is not only a boundary for policies
was politicized in relation to other scales, notably with the local to control urban sprawl, it is also becoming a boundary for
scale where political autonomy can be idealized, and with the development and real estate profitability, with land prices
national scale where governmental agenda and standards are already skyrocketing in anticipation of the possible urbanization
promoted (Boudreau et al., 2006). of agricultural land (Harris and Lehrer, 2018; Anderson
This metropolitan politics of scale is related to density et al., 2022). The strategy of directing growth into urban
debates. Although the institutionalization of these new perimeters creates an even greater real estate boom in the intra-
governance spaces involves issues that go beyond sustainability, metropolitan space, given the higher profitability of dense real
planning regulations and standards around “smart growth”, estate projects. This increase in property values can make it more
transit oriented development and the control of urban sprawl difficult for municipalities to protect natural environments. This
were among their key outputs (Filion, 2012; Dierwechter, pressure is added to the inequalities and differences in the
2013). The concept of density came to acquire the status of a capacities and cultures of planning and development control
self-evident and indisputable standard of sustainability in the in small municipalities on urban peripheries, as highlighted by
urban sprawl containment movement (Charmes and Keil, 2015; Salet (2015).
Angelo and Wachsmuth, 2020). Density has accordingly become In some instances of the urban-rural fringe, this
a primary regulatory tool along urban growth boundaries to development and densification pressure occurs in a context
bring “undisciplined” suburbs into line or to form cooperative where, for a variety of reasons (including the promotion of
arrangements between central cities and their suburbs to green real estate, Hurley, 2013), rurality and access to green
support smart growth. and open spaces are valued as integral characteristics of place
In certain instances, particularly in the Greater Montreal enabling for certain relations between humans, fauna and
region, the new State spaces were opposed by advocates of local flora that do not easily fit with a stark boundary between
autonomy who had different conceptions of democracy, local the urban and its outside. As a result, the regulatory context
autonomy, and the need to protect local identities, especially becomes an arena of negotiation and tension that accentuates
linguistic ones (Boudreau, 2003; Tomàs, 2012). There were also the differences between metropolitan space (often characterized
older regional institutions which came in conflict with the new as urban or suburban) and its exterior (rural), where forms of
metropolitan entity. The desire for political autonomy and local attachment and relationships can be more diverse, complex,
power over place-making remains a defining issue of ambitions and fluid.
and tensions in urban peripheries (Boudreau, 2003; Peck, 2011).
Its importance will affect residents’ emotional investment for
or against the metropolitan scale of governance, its associated Place
planning tools, and the expectations of their contribution to
urban transformation. Geographers have indirectly discussed the performativity
of expectations in speaking of how different framings of the
past, present, and future of a place contribute to collective
Urban boundary(ies) action and conflict. The past is recalled in how it shapes both
a place’s present and its future possibilities, for example, in
Another spatiality that emerges from the literature on the relation to the long-lasting and situated effects of colonialism,
redevelopment of urban peripheries concerns the boundary(ies) racism, and uneven development (McCann, 2003; Goodling
that demarcate the urban/rural fringe, where the very identity et al., 2015; Ranganathan, 2021). A place-frame constitutes
of the urban and the rural is negotiated at the edge of a selective representation of a given place propounded in
the metropolitan area. In post-suburbs and most dispersed a conflict and/or collective mobilization. It is a discourse
city-regions today, the morphology does not allow for clear that “voices a certain shared experience of place” (Martin,
demarcations between urban, suburban, and rural areas. The 2003).
“green” periphery space at the fringe, notably the greenbelts Moreover, some politics of place cannot easily be understood
studied by Keil and Macdonald (2016), is “a negotiated space by considering only discourses and representations. Studies
of societal relationships with nature that connect urban and in political ecology have shown the value of examining the
non-urban activities” (p. 167). It is “a landscape created by the everyday practices of place-making, dwelling, and community-
fusion of urban and rural ideas, processes, and materialities” building associated with subjectivities and forms of attachment

whereby certain lifestyles and representations are reproduced, Nvivo software using the following terms (“nodes”, Saldana,
transformed or invisibilized (Robbins, 2007; Cadieux, 2008; 2012): place, landscape, metropolitan norms, participatory
Taylor and Hurley, 2016). Everyday practices and attachments committees, TOD and density. With this analysis, three
in places influence local cultures, and responses to development different narratives of the same conflict were identified
pressures (Martin, 2003; Gilbert et al., 2005). As Pierce et al. in the particular town studied. Each narrative consists in
(2011) neatly summarized, a sense of place refers to the “affective bundled segments of texts and interviews that show a
experience of locatedness—of being here—[which] is iteratively recurring set of associations between place, metropolitan
created and recreated through social and political processes” norms, participatory committees, and density. The urban
(2011, p. 55). The affective expectations of densification relate to boundary and climate change nodes were added during
its perceived relationship to place and associated place-making coding as well. Three distinct narratives of the conflict
practices in everyday life. experience were produced by these methods, with each narrative
However, the politics of place should not be understood in representing a particular set of expectations of what urban
a strictly local or territorial way. For Amin (2004), a relational transformations prevailing planning and governance practices
politics of place can be understood as “different micro-worlds were contributing to.
find[ing] themselves on the same proximate turf ” (2004, p.
39), in which the prevailing power geometry makes certain
micro-worlds, practices, and representations more audible than
others. The different worlds that participate in the politics of
Context and case study: Recent
place are not only locally defined, they can also be defined in history of planning and
terms of aspects such as a national identity, metropolitan place-making at the urban fringe
norms of densification, global norms of biodiversity
conservation, and political projects for a region or a city, It is relevant to explain some aspects of the regulatory
all of which coalesce and meet in debates over specific sites or context and spatial planning culture in Canada before describing
places (Pierce et al., 2011). the locality and urban region where this contested densification
These three spatialities—the metropolitan scale of took place. To begin with, there is no binding spatial planning at
governance, the urban boundary, and place—are often the federal level in Canada. Although Canadian municipalities
involved in densification debates. Each of these spatialities are technically responsible for zoning and planning, their powers
enables us to study how actors respectively position themselves are constrained by their respective provinces. Municipalities
in relation to the role of the State and local governments, depend on property tax revenues tied to development within
real estate development pressures, the dynamics of growth their boundaries, which explains the dynamics of growth
coalitions, and everyday practices in urban peripheries, and coalitions. Nonetheless, in the case of land use planning, the
thereby understand the sociopolitical construct of densification provincial government provides guidance that metropolitan,
(McFarlane, 2020), today and in the future. regional and municipal governments must follow according
to a set of Russian-doll-type compliance mechanisms whereby
local zoning bylaws must be consistent with the municipal
plan, which, in turn, must be consistent with both the
Methods regional plan and the metropolitan plan. Historically, the
provincial government in Quebec has also shaped municipal
We chose to study these processes in the Greater Montreal policy through municipal annexations, the creation of new
region where they have been scantily documented in recent regional and metropolitan authorities (particularly between
years despite the region’s tumultuous history of municipal 2002 and 2006 when mergers and demergers took place on the
amalgamation and metropolitan governance (Boudreau et al., Island of Montreal and the Montreal Metropolitan Community
2006; Tomàs, 2012). We identified a case of contested (MMC) was established), and farmland protection policies
densification at the urban fringe which was visible in the public (Boudreau, 2003). Although there are no greenbelts in Quebec
sphere (e.g., in local and national media and planning events) (unlike in Ontario), Quebec’s agricultural land protection
and involved sustained citizen mobilization. We analyzed act has often been associated with reducing urban sprawl.
the following documentary sources: the local and regional In practice, however, this “legislation and its accompanying
press, urban planning documents, committee minutes and regulations clearly provide opportunities to pursue diffuse
council meeting videos at the municipal level, and records urbanism, sometimes even encouraging it, in spite of its
of court proceedings and judgments. We also conducted denial in principle” (Côté et al., 2014, p. 391). While
12 interviews with residents as well as with professionals the protection of agricultural land in Quebec has reduced
and political representatives at the municipal, regional and urban sprawl, mechanisms for agricultural zone exclusion
metropolitan levels. Interviews and documents were coded in and developer tactics to exert pressure on this front have

significantly compromised the amount of farmland in the The town of Mont-Saint-Hilaire experienced its highest
province over time. recent population growth in the period from 2001 to 2011,
Mont-Saint-Hilaire, the town studied, is located 35 km south increasing overall from 14,556 inhabitants in 2001 to 18,200 in
of downtown Montreal and is one of 82 MMC municipalities 2011, before stabilizing at 19,178 in 2020 (Statistique Canada,
in the third ring of peri-urban municipalities around Montreal. 2012; CMM, 2021b). This growth was primarily accompanied
With a population of 19,178 in 2020 (Institut de la statistique by the construction of more single-family and semi-detached
du Québec, 2019), the town occupies a land area of 44 km2 , homes until the trend reversed in 2011. Whereas single-
40% of which is agricultural and about a fourth is a UNESCO- family home construction initially accounted for around half
designated biosphere reserve (CMM, 2021). Initiatives to protect of all new housing starts in the municipality, apartment units
natural environments in the area go back a long way with began to dominate by 2011, accounting for two-thirds of new
Andrew Hamilton Gault’s bequest of the mountain to McGill housing in 2020. There is now very little vacant land in the
University in 1958, protests by artist Ozias Leduc against the municipality that is not zoned agricultural (CMM, 2021b). The
mountain’s degradation, and well before that by Abenaki people reduction in the construction of single-family homes makes
who used it for gatherings. The town and mountain is indeed sense given the metropolitan policies adopted in the last 10
on the Ndakinna, ancestral territory of the Waban-Aki Nation, years. Indeed, the Town of Mont-Saint-Hilaire is part of the
and “Wigwômadenizibo,” its name in Abenaki, means “the small MMC territory covered by the new metropolitan plan adopted
mountain in the shape of a house” (Gault Natural Reserve Mcgill in 2012, 11 years after the MMC’s creation, a delay caused
University, 2021). by political challenges to the adoption of an overall plan for
The town’s residents, especially those who live near the the city-region.
mountain, are generally well-off. Since the 1990s and still The aim of 2012 metropolitan plan is to densify the built
today, the average income in the municipality is a little higher environment and direct 40% of household growth within its
than the surrounding region, and much higher than that territory into 155 TOD areas (CMM, 2012). Compared to other
in the Greater Montreal region. In 2015, average household major Canadian cities, Greater Montreal was lagging behind in
income was $90,464, compared to $85,664 for the local region adopting such a policy that had emerged as a model for turning
and $61,835 for the Greater Montreal region (2016 census). the tide of urban sprawl (Filion, 2012). For the Greater Montreal
Moreover, these income levels are much higher in the district region, TOD has been interpreted as a means of achieving
adjacent to the mountain. consensus around the metropolitan plan, consolidating urban
Citizen mobilization against real estate development near growth, and facilitating greater access to public transit and
the mountain goes back a few decades. In 1988, an ad hoc high-density development around commuter rail stations,
committee asked the city to slow down development near thereby restoring property taxes to the municipalities concerned
the mountain road, a mobilization that led to a moratorium (Maulat et al., 2018, p. 5). The case of Mont-Saint-Hilaire
on development in this area for 10 years. After this pause, is noteworthy, given the active local mobilization against the
one area at the foot of the mountain (Foyer Savoie, where a metropolitan plan. Much of the discussion in Montreal and
former education and health center for epilectic youth had been elsewhere has focused on the implementation of TOD areas
built in 1946 and subsequently closed in 1988) was targeted near public transit stations (Roy-Baillargeon, 2017; Maulat
for residential development. In response to vigorous local et al., 2018). On the other hand, the metropolitan plan also
mobilization, the municipality bought part of the area to restore includes densification standards outside TOD areas, including
it to a natural state and reintegrate it with the mountain’s natural in Mont Saint-Hilaire where they have been strongly contested
environment. One of the more specific reasons for doing so was and debated.
to save the local habitat of the peregrine falcon, an endangered A few months after the MMC adopted its metropolitan
species threatened by mineral extraction on the other side of the plan in 2012, a real estate project for a zone adjacent to Mont
mountain. With the help of local citizens, the built infrastructure Saint-Hilaire was submitted to the municipality, and the mayor
was demolished (health center, parking lot, and tennis court), presented the project to the population at a town meeting.
7,000 trees were planted, and four ponds created, all within a new While the future of the municipality’s district near the TOD
conservation park (Réseau Nature). This was an important event station did not generate strenuous objections, the future of the
in the accounts of the people we interviewed. In 2002, another zone at the foot of Mont Saint-Hilaire stirred passions. In fact,
committee was created to protect the mountain’s perimeter by Quebec’s agricultural land protection commission (CPTAQ)
proposing measures to conserve and expand the woodlands in had previously excluded the area from the revised permanent
the other residential and agricultural areas surrounding it. This agricultural zone at the municipality’s request, given that the
led to large-lot residential zoning, which protected trees but municipality had included this area within its urbanization
further reduced lot affordability. Local actors also participated to perimeter in 1992. Nevertheless, in response to significant
forums to enhance the protection of all eight Monteregian Hills citizen mobilization at the time, the municipality continued
(including Mont Saint-Hilaire) in the Montreal area. to protect this area under a non-development moratorium. As

soon as the moratorium ended, property owners in the area Three narratives of contested
asked permission to develop. Adoption of the metropolitan plan densification
brought these requests to the forefront, given that the plan
called for higher density on this land. As a result, the future of An undisciplined suburb
this area and of development around the mountain became the
municipality’s main electoral issue in 2013 when the then mayor On May 22, 2020, a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled
committed to “stop development on Mont-Saint-Hilaire land in against Mont-Saint-Hilaire in a lawsuit filed by owners of
order to analyze the Town’s future” (Cour supérieure, 2018). property in the contested area (Zone A-16). The judge
In conjunction with the specific debates about this area, the concluded that two of the municipality’s bylaws curtailing
municipality set up a metropolitan planning and development residential development in the area were inoperative. The
advisory committee (CC-PMAD) in 2014 to study possible property owners, who had been waiting for years to develop
exceptions to the metropolitan plan. The terms of reference their land, had lost patience and were challenging the legality
for the committee (composed of four citizens, three municipal of the bylaws on the grounds that they constituted a form
councilors from the affected areas, and the town’s director of of disguised expropriation that ran counter to metropolitan
land use planning and environment) were to provide input to the plans for residential density in the urban perimeter. Their
municipal council. The CC-PMAD (2014) convened 20 times, suit also challenged the municipality’s actions (including the
during which it consulted with various stakeholders to submit above-described committees) which “would have thwarted the
a progress report containing more than 179 recommendations development of a new residential district and the realization
to adapt the MMC plan to the town’s realities and priorities of the full market value of the properties concerned” (Cour
(CC-PMAD, 2014). Although the committee was happy with the supérieure, 2018).
MMC plan’s objectives to demarcate urbanization and curtail The municipality defended itself by arguing that the zoning
urban sprawl, it criticized the process and identified three was temporary, pending the development of detailed planning
flexibility measures that would, in its opinion, accommodate the for Zone A-16. In fact, this is what the municipality had been
Town of Mont-Saint-Hilaire’s specific characteristics, including stating since 2016, namely, that the zoning is intended to
reducing density in certain areas and taking steps to protect “freeze” development, pending reports and the formulation of
landscape, ecology, and heritage. a specific planning program for the area [Ville de Mont-Saint-
In parallel, consultations in the town continued around the Hilaire (VMSH), 2016]. In 2018, the municipality had appointed
need for a new master plan, bearing in mind that this plan a committee to evaluate different scenarios for the area. No
was now also required to comply with the MMC’s metropolitan landscape study or planning document was produced during
plan. The contested area next to the mountain has been one of this committee’s 3 years of operation and 52 meetings. That
the areas receiving the most comment in these consultations. is why the judge criticized not only the bylaws but also the
In response to residents’ representations in December 2016, participatory methods used to justify the development freeze.
the municipality announced that it would study the possibility The CASA-16 committee was portrayed as being infiltrated
of having no residential development in the contested Zone with development opponents and deliberately stalling. In his
A-16 and even of acquiring it for conservation purposes. A decision, the judge stated:
new CASA-16 committee (composed of both citizens and
municipal officials) to reflect on the future of the zone was also The prolonged freeze on residential development in
created and met a total of 52 times. Following this committee’s Zone A-16 thwarts the will of the legislator, the MMC,
recommendations and the municipality’s announcement of and the regional county municipality to concentrate new
strategies to exempt Zone A-16 from dense development construction within the urbanization perimeter. In the
standards, several owners in the area filed a lawsuit against Court’s view, this is a clear case of “Not in my backyard
the municipality. (NIMBY)” syndrome. However, it is not a chimerical
We now present three narratives of this contested wish to concentrate urbanization zones outside agricultural
densification. The first representations are those heard from land. Indeed, it is more than just lip service and wishful
outside the town and in the court judgement, the second thinking; it is a national strategy to combat global warming
are those of the majority of local citizens involved, and the by countering urban sprawl and adequately protecting
third are citizen experts who tried to connect metropolitan agricultural land.
plan priorities with local residents’ situated experiences and
expectations. Each narrative is presented in relation to (1) In this representation of the debates, the metropolitan
the representations of the metropolitan scale of governance, territory is represented as the territory and coherent scale to
(2) the boundary and place-making at the urban fringe, combat climate change through residential density standards.
and (3) the expectations of urban transformation as a result Indeed, the judge pointed out that “the Town is behaving as if
of densification. the fight against global warming does not concern its residents,

despite the fact that they are located within the MMC (in reality, another resident referred to an explicit tactic to minimize the
the most densely populated area of Quebec).” The municipality’s importance of agriculture. He described how an investor, who
actions were portrayed as those of an undisciplined child. was buying up land in almost all parts of the south bank of
Is the municipality’s location on the boundary of the the river near the highway, bought an orchard, let it deteriorate,
metropolitan territory problematized in this representation? and then eventually razed it. In due course, when the road was
What kind of fringe is Mont-Saint-Hilaire in this narrative? being repaired, he used that land to store “earth, sand, gravel,
Two representations of Mont-Saint-Hilaire and Zone A-16 as pipes, road repair scrap, and so on. When you go to the former
a boundary space can be distinguished, which reinforce this orchard in a strategic location, you find 18 inches of scrap...
discourse. The first boundary is the MMC perimeter. The MMC The municipality then says that the land needs to be developed
published its first 10-year report on its metropolitan plan in because it’s covered with scrap.”
2021. The report notes that the MMC’s greatest success within This story contrasts markedly with residents’ opposition in
its boundaries in the past 20 years has been the achievement 1997 to the Foyer Savoie residential project also at the foot of the
of its densification objectives and the reduction in single- mountain, which culminated in municipal acquisition of a built
family housing construction (from 70% of construction in peri- area, and restoration of it to a natural state.
urban municipalities in 2002 to 15% in 2020). However, the As a site exemplifying part of an “undisciplined suburb”
less promising picture shifts just beyond the MMC perimeter that refuses to densify, Zone A-16 thus falls within a series
where “residential sprawl based primarily on the construction of expectations about transforming metropolitan urbanization
of single-family detached homes with high space consumption” to protect agricultural land and densify near public transit—
is occurring. This aspect is sharply criticized by the MMC’s expectations to which it is also required to contribute. What
elected officials at public meetings and in the media. This matters more in this representation is the location of Zone A-16
problematization of the boundary reinforces the importance within both the urbanization perimeter and the MMC boundary.
of peri-urban municipalities, including Mont Saint-Hilaire, to
“lead by example” and “educate the population” about the
benefits of densification (CMM, 2021a). Protecting place against the hegemony
The second interpretation of the urban boundary is that of of metropolitan-driven development
urbanization arriving there de facto, once agricultural zoning in
this area has been removed. In the court’s judgement, Zone A- The remarks made in various Mont-St-Hilaire settings—the
16 is portrayed as being “sandwiched between two residential town council, public participation, and citizen committees—
neighborhoods” (Judgment 2020, p. 7), and as being part of a
are very different. Membership in the MMC is presented as
“developable space since 1992,” when the municipality asked it
a deal made by political elites whereby elected officials had
to be removed from the agricultural zone. A government expert
to agree to join the MMC and comply with its planning and
expressed a similar view.
densification standards in order to have a commuter train
In practice, density is often used as an excuse to simply station in their municipality. This incorporation into the “big
not develop. It’s the argument that certain pressure groups city” seems absurd to the majority of citizens interviewed and
use to reject development [...] The development of Zone A- the TOD procedures inefficient, albeit laudable. The view that
16 is not urban sprawl. Urban sprawl means encroaching on people under the TOD regime “don’t have a car, so they take
an agricultural zone within the meaning of the agricultural the train to Montreal, then they come back, picking up their
land protection act. This is not sprawl, it’s an area that has baguettes on the way home.” is not highly thought of: “It’s never
been removed from the agricultural zone since 1992 and been like that because we’re too far away.” However, this is not
is therefore intended for urbanization [...] an area that has necessarily the case, for statistics show a higher increased use
been slowly transformed over the past 30 years. of public transit from the town in the morning in the wake of
TOD.1 Yet, belief in this transformation of urbanization through
For example, according to this expert, Zone A-16 has a TOD vision is not very widespread among the people we
been intended for development since it is no longer “zoned met. Even though views differ on what the contested Zone A-
agricultural” under provincial law, even though the current 16 should become, Mont-Saint-Hilaire’s mobilized residents and
usage of apple orchards had been retained and the municipality political elite are equally resistant to the “suburb” designation
has not allowed any new residential development since then
due to public objections. In this area “being transformed,” 1 From 2013 to 2018, outbound public transit use in Mont-Saint-Hilaire
several interviewees spoke of tensions between residents and increased in the morning from 10% to 16.5% compared with an increase
orchard practices, for example, complaints about pesticides, of only if 10.8% to 11.7% for the southern ring of suburbs as a whole during
disruptive machinery, etc., which seem to have resulted in the the same period [Observatoire Grand Montréal (OGM), 2021, p. 43; CMM,
abandonment of some commercial orchards. On the other hand, 2012, p. 9; CMM, 2019, p. 9].

in which they are placed in this urbanization arrangement as development. Densification is therefore associated with a laissez-
well as to all its implications. They feel that the metropolitan faire approach to the development and quality of the built
framework favors real estate development and homogenizing, environment, while at the same time seemingly inconsistent with
suburban-type growth. protecting landscapes, natural environments, and sustainable
mobility. Some iconic scenes—views of the mountain when
It [the metropolitan plan] has become a handicap; it’s entering the town, the historic path to the mountain, the apple
become a white elephant; it never achieved the scale it was orchards, and so on—are disappearing and being replaced or
supposed to, and it’s made all the vacant land in Mont-Saint- hidden by condominiums. This “hurts people”—“they say that
Hilaire subject to it. That’s why we’re being forced to densify Mont-Saint-Hilaire is a nature, art and heritage town. That’s the
around Highway 116, around public transit—not just the slogan on the map. However, when you come here and see two
train, the bus too. And this changes the face of Mont-Saint- big modern buildings, all glass, four storeys high, you don’t feel
Hilaire. Mont-Saint-Hilaire is the river, it’s the mountain, like you’re entering a nature town.”
it’s apple orchards. It’s not Beloeil, it’s not Saint-Bruno, it’s What kind of fringe is Mont-Saint-Hilaire in this narrative?
not Longueuil—it’s Mont-Saint-Hilaire. We’re in the process For the residents we met, Zone A-16 is a boundary space
of losing our identity and appearance—in other words, the between the mountain’s natural ecosystems and the low-density
reasons why people come to live in Mont-Saint-Hilaire in residential spaces around it. The challenge with this boundary
the first place. space is about how to protect nature, mountain views, and the
landscape as key features of the residents’ living environment.
The suburb label is associated with a series of elements, It is also a boundary space between urban and rural—between
a place-frame from which the citizens want to dissociate the urbanized residential sectors and the agricultural zone with
themselves because it is not their rural living niche in the its remaining orchards. In the briefs from citizen committees
countryside. Most of the people we interviewed participated submitted to the public consultation in 2016, Zone A-16 is
in the numerous public sessions to consult about Mont Saint- described not as a pure nature and heritage place but rather
Hilaire’s new master plan. Many were disappointed by the as a strategic transition space whose rural character should be
gap between the plan and its implementation. In the master preserved, enhanced, and co-created with the residents.
plan, for example, an area at the entrance to the municipality Outside the participatory spaces to consult about planning
was to be developed as a small heart-of-the-village-type (which almost the entire population has lost confidence in),
commercial sector: “Following the consultation with citizens, residents also told us about certain concrete resident practices
the sustainable master plan proposed an ideally pedestrian street that shaped Mont-Saint-Hilaire as part of Montreal’s urban
with exclusively local merchants, a bike path, a meeting place, fringe. These include: an agri-tourism project to showcase the
neighborhood life, a sense of belonging, something warm and history of the orchards and negotiate agriculture-landscape-
cuddly that really develops that feeling.” Businesses like a small urbanization; efforts to establish walking trails with rights-
bakery have already set up shop there and the people we of-way on private land around the mountain; regulations to
met appreciate them. Despite this guideline in the plan, the allow and encourage alternative plantings to grass on private
municipality allowed a large grocery store to open in the vicinity, property; and the construction of a museum (now managed
which upset several residents: “That required parking, which by Indigenous leaders) to promote the culture and history of
meant that it was no longer a pedestrian street; the big-box store Indigenous communities in the area while also protecting and
would have completely changed the area’s image.” The bakery promoting a maple grove. A resident committee also succeeded
owner sued the municipality, which led to an out-of-court in financing an independent study on the ecological value of
settlement to move the big-box grocery store elsewhere. the Zone A-16, to fill the gap of the local government inaction
Densification, in the minds of its opponents, is part of a in this regard. These practices are described by residents as
cycle of growth and place transformation: “When asphalt and embodying a different relationship to life, place and land than
concrete invade our countryside!” (RAP citizen brief 2016, p. what is proposed by local authorities. At the same time, some
7). Another often-cited example of unsuccessful participatory of these projects have encountered difficulties and opposition,
municipal planning concerns maximum density standards. In linked to a desire to protect assets and privileges, and in
participatory workshops, citizens were asked to choose where some cases exclusive or racist views on the town’s design and
they would be willing to increase the density of the built landscape—a resident recalled being harassed and threatened
environment with minimum density thresholds the focus of when developing his project of an Indigenous art museum,
these discussions. Mobilized citizens only discovered much another speaks of wealthy residents opposing walking trails
later that the municipality can also set maximum density on their properties around the mountain, a planner laments
and building height thresholds—to preserve views, landscapes, that the protection of wood has gentrified the surroundings
and sensitive environments, for example. This is often cited of the mountains. The interview segments show how such
as evidence of the bad faith of elected officials and the dynamics participated in residents’ difficulties in creating a sense
participatory process, which is only there to facilitate real estate of collective identity around their cause of place protection.

In terms of expectations for the future, development of metropolitan plan to contain some growth regulation levers,
Zone A-16 is expected to strengthen a “vicious circle” that they were disappointed. Indeed, in the MMC’s eyes, municipal
will force its development, in the absence of action by public and regional planning bodies were the agencies responsible
authorities to purchase or strictly regulate the perimeter around for developing a more modulated approach to densification,
the mountain where land values continue to increase. The place including the protection of heritage and green spaces. Although
is expected to become homogenized and suburbanized, with the MMC could not legislate in specific ways, the plan allowed
nature and landscape on both public and private land being for modulations and exceptions, if well documented and agreed
irreversibly sacrificed. The green, natural spaces around homes to by municipal and regional political bodies. The MMC
will disappear as soon as residents need to sell them. The stressed the importance of respecting local autonomy in that
pressure from traffic is also expected to rapidly transform the regard, even if it recognized that in this case it was a supra-
place, given the existing automobility system and the density- local issue relevant to the harmonious equilibrium between
driven incoming population. The current size and form of urbanization and preserving nature and landscape across all
the streets near the mountain are reminiscent of its history— eight Monteregian Hills on the Montreal region’s south shore.
narrow, non-linear, with little space to expand on either side. This metropolitan approach to let regional and municipal
The people we met were worried that increasing pressure for authorities handle the details of how to “regionalize density”
more road capacity would further destroy the landscape and its (choosing where to densify more and less in the region while
rural character. respecting the overall standard regionally) and preserve locally-
valued landscapes and natural spaces contrasts with how the
town mayor portrayed densification governance. He focused
Planning for a sustainable place in the on a local/metropolitan dichotomy and repeated in municipal
MMC: Hopes and disappointments council that the metropolitan agency was imposing higher-
density development. This infuriated some of the more expert
Some of the people who participated in this lengthy dispute citizens: “Not many people bother to focus on municipal policy
were deeply committed to protecting Mont-Saint-Hilaire’s in general because they’re already busy in their daily lives.
nature and landscape while also believing in the metropolitan So, if they take a minute, they’ll say it’s not the municipality’s
plan’s potential. Their reading of the plan was much more fault, it’s the MMC’s.” Yet, they saw that there were ways for
positive than that of other citizens because they saw that municipalities and regional authorities to demand modulations
it also contained objectives to protect and enhance heritage, and conditions in relation to densification. Even though elected
landscapes, and natural environments. Their expectations were largely on this issue in 2013 and in 2017, the mayor did not take
that the planning and governance system would foster a clear action apart from creating municipal-citizen committees
sensitive and adapted approach to make metropolitan norms and holding public participatory meetings to work on different
meaningful in the Mont-Saint-Hilaire context. In this narrative, planning scenarios.
experience of, and disappointments in, densification governance Citizens (including local experts who had considerable
are crucially important. confidence in local democracy) initially held a favorable view
One citizen involved in the consultation about the of reliance on participatory planning. We can recall the
metropolitan plan had faith in its potential to protect landscapes, episode in which some of them had participated in the 1990s,
green areas, and natural environments. Yet, with time, he and which others had been told about: the preservation and
realized that objectives on these elements had absolutely no renaturalization of the Foyer Savoie at the foot of the mountain.
teeth when compared to compliance with density norms and In early 2000, people had also mobilized to design regulatory
zoning bylaws. measures to protect and enhance wooded areas around the
mountain. In other words, they had experienced fruitful and
It’s all very well to talk about landscapes, but no non- effective collaborations between citizen committees and the
compliance notices have ever been issued because nothing municipal council to protect nature, landscape, and culture.
was ever done. So, yes, we identify landscapes, that’s fine on The creation of a committee to reflect on how to adjust
a map, but excuse my bluntness, we don’t believe any of the metropolitan plan to Mont-Saint-Hilaire reality was thus
it. There are a lot of things that look good in the PMAD welcomed. The recommendations of the first committee in
[metropolitan plan], but in the end it just sits on the shelf. 2014-16 were ambivalent: they supported the metropolitan plan
What counts is density. but identified specific mechanisms to have it adapted locally,
which required the approval of the regional authority (the
For another person, densification of the contested zone regional county municipality). This did not seem more difficult
went counter to the most basic tenet of sustainable, dense to achieve than previous battles in Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Yet, the
urbanism—“location, location, location”—because the zone was context of land speculation has changed. Restricting the right
not adjacent to public transit. If these citizens expected the to develop implies a capital loss and the risk of being sued,

which did happen. Possibly because of this threat, the regional where little municipal and regional regulation prevailed. The use
planning body was against the idea of modulating densities of the court by developers reinforced a simplistic understanding
across municipalities or supporting the planning of an exception of densification in the context of climate urgency, and the
to the densification norm. In this context, the mayor created a discursive context made it difficult for the opposition to
second citizen committee for the contested area, which simply gain support beyond the local scene. At the same time, the
marked time even though it held 52 meetings. densification norm now seems to be essentialized, as reflected in
In his ruling on the lawsuit in 2020, the judge particularly this statement recently made by the leader of an environmental
condemned the mayor’s reliance on this participatory NGO: “Today, with few exceptions, to oppose densification is
committee, which was characterized as a way to stall the to place oneself in the camp of the destruction of nature. It’s
planning and eventual development of the area. On the other to be for climate change.” This clearly reflects a strong politics
hand, the people we interviewed had the impression that the of different expectations regarding densification and sustainable
mayor genuinely did not know how to deal with such a highly urban transformation.
polarized conflict and was afraid to take a position on one side
or the other. The minutes of this committee’s meetings show
that although the members did meet to work on scenarios and Conclusion
tactics, they struggled to find solutions. Yet, the fact that an
ad hoc committee was responsible for designing scenarios to Resisting housing development at the urban fringe
regulate conditions for the preservation or growth of a privately can be a complex challenge in a polarized context where
owned territory targeted for development is completely misunderstandings around densification and its multiple
inconsistent with the extremely delicate nature of such a matter relationalities persist. Our article confirms strong trends
in the current context and political economy of development in noted in the literature on the governance of densification
Quebec municipalities. Municipalities are regularly sued when and neoliberal peripheral growth, while focusing on the
they wish to protect an area for nature, and many have recently subjectivities of those who participate to its governance and
argued in both the media and a metropolitan campaign for contestation, especially their situated expectations of sustainable
the provincial government’s attention that (1) they only have a urban transformation.
chance of winning cases against developers when municipalities’ Our case study concurs with the literature to demonstrate
intentions are clearly spelled out in planning documents and that the political economy context, coupled with the discourse
comply with regional and metropolitan norms, and (2) the costs and norms of urban sustainability, gives more political weight
involved in land speculation situations are extremely prohibitive to a selective and territorial geography of sustainability-in-one-
because they include estimated future profit. place (Miller and Mössner, 2020) through densification than
Committee meeting minutes and associated documents to a relational vision that debates the interlocking relations in
show that the committee worked on two strategies: (1) to request the place-making of localities under development pressure at
the provincial government to commit to protecting the last the urban fringe. Here, this is not because the metropolitan
remaining vacant lands in the Mont-Saint-Hilaire foothills, and scale of governance is weak and local political interests of
(2) to mobilize the regional authority to give the area a special counter-sustainability persist. Rather, the metropolitan norms
status that would allow it to be exempt from density standards of sustainability in the context of real estate frenzy seem to
due to its exceptional character in terms of biodiversity or reinforce inequalities between local capacities to regulate growth
landscape. These initiatives and their failures, as well as the locally, with local, regional and metropolitan political interests
political complexity of activating the mechanism proposed by and agendas interacting in complex ways. These dynamics
the metropolitan agency whereby density is to be modulated also seem to reinforce polarization and the persistence of
through the regional authority, demonstrates how much work misunderstandings around the different expectations of the
and mobilization are needed to halt or place conditions on fringe contribution to a sustainable urban region in the future.
development in urban peripheries, when these are located The broader politics at stake relate to the construction
outside agricultural zones and identified in the metropolitan of allyship and governance practices to contest misadapted
plan as spaces for smart growth. densification as a form of capital accumulation, and the
Two years after the first judgment, a second court judgement associated destruction of landscape, amenities and green areas
permitted a new town mayor’s team to make a detailed plan of valued in everyday life [and, potentially, for climate change
the area to be developed, negotiate a plan for mixed low and adaptation]. The defense of privilege is not absent from such
medium-density development, and protect wooded areas. This struggles—preserving a protected milieu, sometimes with an
was a relief for some but a disappointment for the citizens who exclusive and conservative vision of their hometown. Yet, the
had mobilized to completely halt this development. tag of Nimbyism is used to discredit a broad range of activists
In the Montreal region, densification standards were demanding a more situated State regulation of densification,
implemented to discipline dispersion in the suburbs and and the possibility to not develop at all. This underscores
peri-urban areas, while facilitating speculation and development the relevance of the argument made by Charmes and Keil

(2015) that this discredit of local opposition as solely about Data availability statement
privilege serves growth coalitions. Such dynamics do make
grassroots coalitions for sustainable urban peripheries difficult. The original contributions presented in the study are
The confusion characterizing these types of mobilization that included in the article/supplementary materials, further
mix progressive and conservative ideologies and different inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
visions of nature and sustainability need close attention. The
relational perspective can help untangle what type of relations
different actors are making to (un)link one place with others Ethics statement
and the political economic processes beyond it; to preserve,
reproduce or contest the various socio-ecological relations of The studies involving human participants were reviewed
which they are a part. and approved by Comité d’éthique en recherche avec des êtres
Theoretically, we argue that we can better understand these humains de l’INRS. The patients/participants provided their
mobilizations and the challenges they generate through written informed consent to participate in this study.
recognition of the different and situated expectations
of sustainable urban transformation. When we speak of
expectations, we refer to the faith in new norms, regulations
Author contributions
and State planning instruments, but also in citizen practices of
SLVN wrote 85% of the manuscript, conducted the literature
mobilization and place-making, to contribute to sustainable
review, the analysis of the data and 50% of the data collection.
urban transformation, based on present and past experiences.
J-PR has written 15% of the manuscript, contributed to the
These expectations are situated in the sense that they are affected
analysis of the data, collected documents and conducted part
by the materiality, relations, and meanings of the individual
of the interviews. All authors contributed to the article and
places to be transformed. Expectations also relate to political
approved the submitted version.
ideals of—and emotional investments in—the effective scales
to regulate urban transformations. These preferred scales of
governance produce concrete territorial demarcations around Funding
material and symbolic urban boundaries (of urban/rural living
environment, of capital accumulation, of “residential” vs. nature FRQSC Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture,
or agricultural land), in places, which in turn affects how Subvention Soutien à la recherche pour la relève SN, # 267637
people perceive the past and current dynamics, and the future and CRC Programme des Chaires de recherche du Canada #
changes unfolding. 950-232808. INRS co-funding of student and intern research.
We could expect these expectations to circulate in planning,
participatory and governance circles and be modified and
reassembled in the movement (as argued in the policy Acknowledgments
mobility literature). However, what we observe is rather
their non-circulation in the metropolitan space, and the The authors would like to thank Byron Miller and the two
relative confusion, polarization and misunderstandings that reviewers for their insightful comments.
persist. The hegemonic norm of sustainability-by-density is
very present, but the expectations of how it will or not
contribute to sustainable transformation do not seem to
Conflict of interest
circulate across the different sites and postures in the conflict.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
What we saw is that the political tensions, interests and
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
affects around place and densification halted the circulation of
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
the different expectations of how sustainable transformation
could unfold. This in turn complicates the possibilities for
coalition-building, co-production and the shared governance Publisher’s note
of densification.
The transformation of urban peripheries to reduce All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
inequalities and climate change is an important and complex authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
matter. Understanding the situated expectations and alternative organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
imaginaries of sustainability in the urban fringe helps reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
interrogate the current hegemony of density and unchallenged claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
urban development. or endorsed by the publisher.

References
Amin, A. (2004). Regions unbound: towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Gilbert, L., Wekerle, G., and Sandberg, L. (2005). Local responses to development
Annaler 86, 33–44. doi: 10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00152.x pressures: conflictual politics of sprawl and environmental conservation. Cahiers de
géographie du Québec 49, 377–392. doi: 10.7202/012563ar
Anderson, M. B., Hansen, E. C., and Scully, J. Y. (2022). Class monopoly rent and
the urban sustainability fix in Seattle’s South Lake Union District. Environ. Plan. A Goodling, E., Green, J., and McClintock, N. (2015). Uneven development of the
54, 1112–1129. doi: 10.1177/0308518X221099024 sustainable city: shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geogr. 36, 504–527.
doi: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1010791
Angelo, H., and Wachsmuth, D. (2020). Why does everyone think cities can save
the planet? Urban Stud. 57, 2201–2221. doi: 10.1177/0042098020919081 Harris, R., and Lehrer, U. (eds) (2018). The Suburban Land Question:
A Global Survey. New York, NY: University of Toronto Press.
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., and Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of
doi: 10.7591/cornell/9781501709968.001.0001
expectations in science and technology. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage. 18, 285–298.
doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002 Hays, Samuel P. (1987). Beauty, Health, and Permanence. Environmental
Politics in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 1955–1985.
Boudreau, J.-A. (2003). Questioning the Use of “local Democracy” as a discursive
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511664106
strategy for political mobilization in Los Angeles, Montreal and Toronto. Int. J.
Urban Reg. Res. 27, 793–810. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00484.x Hurley, P. T. (2013). “Whose Sense of Place? A political ecology of
amenity development,” in Place-Based Conservation eds. W. P. Stewart, D.
Boudreau, J.-A., Hamel, P., Keil, R., and Jouve, B. (2006). Comparing
R. Williams, and L. E. Kruger (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 165–180.
metropolitan governance : the cases of Montreal and Toronto. Prog. Plann. 66,
doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_13
7–59. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2006.07.005
Institut de la statistique du Québec (2019). Estimations de la population et
Brenner, N. (2002). Decoding the newest “metropolitan regionalism” in the USA:
Statistique. Canada: Estimations de la population.
a critical overview. Cities 19, 3–21. doi: 10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00042-7
Keil, R. (2015). Towers in the park, bungalows in the garden: peripheral densities,
Bunce, S. (2017). Sustainability policy, planning and gentrification in cities.
metropolitan scales and the political cultures of post-suburbia. Built Environ. 41,
Routledge. doi: 10.9774/gleaf.9781315695693
579–596. doi: 10.2148/benv.41.4.579
Cadieux, K. V. (2008). Political ecology of exurban “lifestyle” landscapes at
Keil, R., and Macdonald, S. (2016). Rethinking urban political ecology from the
Christchurch’s contested urban fence. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7,
outside in: greenbelts and boundaries in the post-suburban city. Local Environ. 21,
183–194. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.003
1516–1533. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1145642
CC-PMAD (2014). Rapport d’avancement. Comité consultatif relatif à
Leffers, D., and Ballamingie, P. (2013). Governmentality, environmental
l’évaluation des orientations de développement et à l’intégration du Plan
subjectivity, and urban intensification. Local Environ. 18, 134–151.
métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement à Mont-Saint-Hilaire. Ville
doi: 10.1080/13549839.2012.719016
de Mont-Saint-Hilaire.
Logan, J. R., and Molotch, H. L. (2007). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy
Charmes, E., and Keil, R. (2015). The politics of post-suburban
of Place. Berkeley, LA; London: University of California Press.
densification in Canada and France. Int. J. Urban Regional 39, 581–602.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12194 Martin, D. G. (2003). “Place-framing” as place-making: constituting a
neighborhood for organizing and activism. Ann. of the Association of Am.
CMM (2012). Un Grand Montréal attractif, compétitif et durable. Plan
Geographers 93, 730–750. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.9303011
métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement (PMAD). Communauté
métropolitaine de Montréal. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: SAGE.
CMM (2019). Portrait territoriaux édition 2019. Communauté métropolitaine de Maulat, J., Paulhiac Scherrer, F., and Scherrer, F. (2018). Les projets novateurs
Montréal. Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire. de Transit-oriented development dans le Grand Montréal : conception, mise
en œuvre et effets d’un nouvel instrument d’urbanisme. Metropoles. 1–26.
CMM (2021a). Agora métropolitaine 2021 | 4e édition. Available online at: https://
doi: 10.4000/metropoles.6533
agora.cmm.qc.ca/ (accessed June 19, 2022).
McCann, E. J. (2003). Framing space and time in the city: urban policy
CMM (2021b). Portrait territoriaux édition 2021. Communauté métropolitaine
and the politics of spatial and temporal scale. J. Urban Aff. 25, 159–178.
de Montréal. Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9906.t01-1-00004
Côté, M., Mercier, G., and Roy, F. (2014). L’urbanisation de la campagne. Motifs
McCauley, S. M., and Murphy, J. T. (2013). Smart Growth and the Scalar Politics
et options du régime québécois de protection du territoire agricole. Cahiers de
of Land Management in the Greater Boston Region, Usa. Environ Plan A. 45,
géographie du Québec 58, 391–409. doi: 10.7202/1033011ar
2852–2867. doi: 10.1068/a45307
Cour supérieure (2018). Jugement sur pourvoi de contrôle judiciaire. Dossier
McFarlane, C. (2016). The geographies of urban density: topology, politics and
Cour supérieure 9193-4463 Québec In., Sullivan Raymond Inc., Yvan Guilmain,
the city. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40, 629–648. doi: 10.1177/0309132515608694
Martine Bouthillette, 137533 Canada Inc., Gestion Henri Nègre Inc., Donal Auclair,
Peter Auclair, Joanne Auclair -c.- Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire et Municipalité McFarlane, C. (2020). De/re-densification. City 24, 314–324.
régionale de comté de la Vallée-du-Richelieu. District de Saint-Hyacinthe, Province doi: 10.1080/13604813.2020.1739911
de Québec Miller, B., and Mössner, S. (2020). Urban sustainability and counter-
Dierwechter, Y. (2013). Smart Growth and State Territoriality. Urban Stud. 50, sustainability: spatial contradictions and conflicts in policy and governance in
2275–2292. doi: 10.1177/0042098013478230 the Freiburg and Calgary metropolitan regions. Urban Stud. 57, 2241–2262.
doi: 10.1177/0042098020919280
Duncan, N. and Duncan, N. (2003). Landscapes of Privilege: The Politics of the
Aesthetic in an American Suburb. New York: Routledge Observatoire Grand Montréal (OGM) (2021). Le PMAD : dix ans d’aménagement
durable du territoire dans le Grand Montréal. Les notes de l’Observatoire Grand
Ekers, M., Hamel, P., and Keil, R. (2012). Governing suburbia: modalities Montréal. Available online at: https://cmm.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
and mechanisms of suburban governance. Reg. Stud. 46, 405–422. NoteObservatoire_BilanPMAD.pdf (accessed June 17, 2022).
doi: 10.1080/00343404.2012.658036
Oomen, J., Hoffman, J., and Hajer, M. A. (2022). Techniques of futuring: on how
Filion, P. (2015). Suburban inertia: the entrenchment of dispersed suburbanism. imagined futures become socially performative. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 25, 252–270.
Int. J. Urban Regional 39, 633–640. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12198 doi: 10.1177/1368431020988826
Filion, P. and Kramer, A. (2012). Transformative metropolitan development Peck, J. (2011). Neoliberal suburbanism: frontier space. Urban Geogr. 32,
models in large Canadian urban areas: the predominance of nodes. Urban Stud. 884–919. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.32.6.884
49, 2237–2264. doi: 10.1177/0042098011423565
Pérez, F. (2020). ‘The miracle of density’: the socio-material epistemics of
Gault Natural Reserve Mcgill University (2021). Entente de partenariat entre urban densification. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 44, 617–635. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.
la Réserve naturelle Gault de l’Université McGill et le Grand Conseil de la Nation 12874
Waban-Aki - Réserve naturelle Gault. Available online at: https://gault.mcgill.ca/
fr/nouvelles/detail/entente-de-partenariat-entre-la-reserve-naturelle-gault-de- Phelps, N. A. (2012). The growth machine stops? urban politics and the
luniversite-mcgill-et-le-grand-conseil-de-la-nation-waban-aki/ (accessed June making and remaking of an edge city. Urban Affairs Rev. 48, 670–700.
17, 2022). doi: 10.1177/1078087412440275

Pierce, J., Martin, D. G., and Murphy, J. T. (2011). Relational place- Sabel, C., Fung, A., and Karkkainen, B. (2000). Beyond Backyard
making: the networked politics of place. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 36, 54–70. Environmentalism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00411.x
Saldana, J. (2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE.
Pont, M. Y. B., Perg, P. G., Haupt, P. A., and Heyman, A. (2020). A
Salet, W. and Savini, F. (2015). The political governance of urban peripheries.
systematic review of the scientifically demonstrated effects of densification.
Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 33, 448–456. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15594052
IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 588, 052031. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/588/5/
052031 Statistique Canada (2012). Mont-Saint-Hilaire, V (Québec), Subdivision de
recensement, Série ≪ Perspective géographique ≫, Recensement de 2011. Available
Quastel, N., Moos, M., and Lynch, N. (2012). Sustainability-as-density and the
online at: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/
return of the social: the case of Vancouver, British Columbia. Urban Geogr. 33,
Facts-csd-fra.cfm?LANG=FraandGK=CSDandGC=2457035 (accessed June 17,
1055–1084. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.33.7.1055
2022).
Ranganathan, M. and Bratman, E. (2021). From urban resilience to abolitionist
Taylor, L. E., and Hurley, P. T. (eds.). (2016). A Comparative
climate justice in Washington, DC. Antipode 53, 115–137. doi: 10.1111/anti.12555
Political Ecology of Exurbia. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Réseau Nature. D’hôpital à milieu naturel, le cas du Foyer Savoy. Available online doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29462-9
at: https://www.reseaunature.ca/themes/restauration/fiche_38.html (accessed June
Teicher, H. M., Phillips, C. A., and Todd, D. (2021). Climate solutions to meet
17, 2022).
the suburban surge: leveraging COVID-19 recovery to enhance suburban climate
Rice, J. L., Cohen, D. A., Long, J., and Jurjevich, J. R. (2020). Contradictions of the governance. Clim. Policy 0, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2021.1949259
climate-friendly city: new perspectives on eco-gentrification and housing justice.
Tomàs, M. (2012). Exploring the metropolitan trap: the case of montreal. Int. J.
Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 44, 145–165. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12740
Urban Reg. Res. 36, 554–567. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01066.x
Rinkinen, J., Shove, E., and Smits, M. (2021). Conceptualising Urban Density,
Tonkiss, F. (2013). Cities by design: The social life of urban form. Malden, MA:
Energy Demand and Social Practice. Buildings Cities 2, 79–91. doi: 10.5334/bc.72
Polity.
Robbins, P. (2007). Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Touati-Morel, A. (2015). Hard and soft densification policies in the Paris city-
Who We Are. Temple University Press. Available online at: https://www.amazon. region. Int. J. Urban Regional 39, 603–612. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12195
com/Lawn-People-Grasses-Weeds-Chemicals/dp/159213579X (accessed May 5,
2017). Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire (VMSH) (2016). Mont-Saint-Hilaire demande
un gel avant une planification concertée. Communiqué de presse. Available
Rome, A. (2001). The Bulldozer in the Countryside. Suburban Sprawl and the online at: https://www.villemsh.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/280zonea-
Rise of American Environmentalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 16positionvilleoctobre2016.vf.pdf (accessed June 17, 2022).
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816703
While, A., Jonas, A. E. G., and Gibbs, D. (2004). The environment and the
Roy-Baillargeon, O. (2017). Le TOD contre la ville durable? Utiliser le transport entrepreneurial city: searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ in Manchester
collectif pour perpétuer le suburbanisme dispersé dans le Grand Montréal. and Leeds. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 28, 549–569. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.
Environnement Urbain / Urban Environment. Available online at: http://eue.revues. 00535.x
org/1876 (accessed September 29, 2017). doi: 10.7202/1050577ar
Wynne, L., Ruoso, L.-E., Cordell, D., and Jacobs, B. (2020). ‘Locationally
Ruming, K., Houston, D., and Amati, M. (2012). Multiple suburban publics: disadvantaged’: planning governmentalities and peri-urban agricultural
rethinking community opposition to consolidation in Sydney. Geogr. Res. 50, futures. Austr. Geogr. 51, 377–397. doi: 10.1080/00049182.2020.17
421–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2012.00751.x 90134

Dens If Ication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dens If Ication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dens If Ication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 02 November 2022

*CORRESPONDENCE The discourse of sustainability-by-density is dominant in urban policies and

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 01 frontiersin.org

A critical literature has emerged on urban density and

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 02 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 03 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 04 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 05 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 06 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 07 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 08 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 09 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 10 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 11 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 12 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 13 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 14 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 15 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 16 frontiersin.org

You might also like