One of architects Bédard, Charbonneau, Langlois' Plans
Where did the idea for the enchanting site of Expo 67 originate? On April 27, 1997, in an interview aired on RDI, Mayor Jean Drapeau answered this question in the same manner as he did on March 28, 1963, when announcing the choice of the site: Guy Beaudet, Director of the Port of Montreal, had taken him for a river cruise to survey the shallows that one day would become Île Notre-Dame. The Mayor - as then told - was instantly seduced. Yves Jasmin's recent book, La petite Histoire de l'Expo, describes this episode in detail.
The truth, however, is quite different - and all the more fascinating since we ordinarily think of the Expo 65 site as a natural occurrence? Yet little do we realize that the Great Party in the middle of the river came close to never happening!
In 1958, architect Bruno Bédard had visited the Brussels World Fair, and was struck by the lack of decorative expanses of water and a panoramic view of the city. His observations would soon serve as the basis in designing the island site, which would take inspiration from the following three concepts:
Above all, this site offered a most interesting advantage for decision-makers in that there would be virtually no land expropriation to be made, hence a sizeable savings in money - plus a time advantage also, since legal time periods for expropriations can be rather long.
One of architects Bédard, Charbonneau, Langlois' Plans
This plan bears the date of summer, 1962. By January, 1963, the project authors added the MacKay pier to it (which was later to become Habitat 67). ("Any easily available land, located on the banks of the River, and which could be connected to Île Sainte-Hélène enlarged from Île Ronde, should also be seriously considered, including the portion of Pointe St-Charles strictly located east of the Victoria Bridge and its extension". - Unpublished Project Presentation Document)
As seen on the map below, the project encompassed a rather vast strip of land on the South Shore. (These portions of land were not included in the final site. To compensate, it was necessary to shore up St. Helen's Island to a far greater extent than what is suggested here.) The proposed site straddles the St. Lawrence Seaway, the effect of which would have ships from the world over sailing right through the heart of the exhibition.
The project was submitted to the authorities on a confidential basis, in order to avoid provoking any market speculations. It would only be disclosed to the media four months later.
On that autumn, the architects met with the South Shore mayors: Pierre Laporte (Saint-Hubert), Paul Pratt (Longueuil) and B.T. Kerr (Saint-Lambert), for purposes of promoting their project. As for the Montréal administration, it was impossible to obtain a meeting.
Meanwhile, on November 13, 1962, Montreal was officially awarded the Exhibition. On December 20, 1962, Bill C-103 (An Act respecting the incorporation of the Expo Corporation) was passed in Ottawa.
It was quite clear that the island project hardly raised any interest among government authorities. To sum up the general attitude in the words of federal Minister Pierre Sévigny, why bother create new land in one of the world's vastest countries?
The architects' firm then decided to present its project before the general public, at a convention of the Québec Architects Association on January 26, 1963; it barely made the grade and hardly raised any interest. At the convention, consensus focused on the Pointe Saint-Charles site (La Presse). Nonetheless, some journalists reported the architects' presentation. The Architecture Construction Bâtiment review published a detailed summary of the project. City planner Jean Cimon, in Cité Libre, praised the interest of the islands site.
In a final effort, the firm convened a press conference on February 8th. This time the press (Le Devoir, L'Écho de la Rive Sud) reacted more vigorously. And so it was that the islands site joined with the group of five or six projects that would be seriously debated in public.
Among these, the islands site project was the only one to be proposed by architects, or even to be backed by a detailed technical study.
The Drapeau Administration - as was well known at that time - had from the outset made up its mind for the Pointe Saint-Charles site (La Presse). In fact, this was the site model that had been presented to the International Exhibition Bureau in November 1962 along with the Montréal candidacy.
This site was based on a utilitarian vision of Expo: cleaning up various neighbourhoods bordering on downtown Montréal. Architects Bédard, Charbonneau, Langlois had adopted an opposite point of view. Since this was to be an world-class exhibition, the quality of the site had to receive first priority and any utilitarian view (which would have been a good idea for a more ordinary event) was a secondary consideration.
As things would happen, on February 16, 1963, Messrs. Bienvenu and Carsley, the leading two commissioners of the Expo Corporation, stated that they were seriously considering four sites: Pointe Saint-Charles, Ville La Salle, the Maisonneuve Park et North-East Montréal. At that same time, Commissioner Bienvenu excluded the islands site (L'Écho de la Rive Sud). And the date for the final choice is just six weeks away!
In the weeks leading up to the official choice, Bruno Bédard was repeatedly called upon to explain the islands project on radio and television. Just a few days short of the verdict, La Presse presented a front page "scoop" on its Saturday edition announcing the islands site as the winner...
But the greatest surprise of all was for the Bédard, Charbonneau, Langlois firm that learned at the same time as every one else - from none other than the Mayor of Montréal, Jean Drapeau, that the idea of this fabulous site was credited to Mr. Guy Beaudet, the Port of Montreal Director! Stunned in their tracks, the architects dared not expose this assertion for fear of making enemies with very influential political figures.
While the facts related up to this point are solid beyond discussion, attempts to explain Mayor Drapeau's version force me conjure up hypotheses that rest on a fragile base. If you are aware of facts or motives that are beyond my knowledge, please be so kind as to fill me in on what you know. Meanwhile, here are my fragile deductions.
What should one think of that river cruise where Guy Beaudet would show the future site to Mayor Drapeau to survey the shallows? That the cruise really did occur is debatable. Yves Jasmin said it took place in 1963. The most accurate timeframe reference we currently have is between January 18 and March 15, give or take. We are then in the dead of winter. The immediate vicinity of the Port of Montréal is then navigable, but the zone encompassing the shallows between the Seaway and St. Helen's Island is a vast field of ice and snow. How could anyone then do a visual survey of this area?
One more question. Was it possible that on this occasion Mayor Drapeau heard about the Islands site for the first time? This would lead us to infer that: 1) He did not read his mail (See certified mail, Sept. 27, 1962 hereabove). 2) He did not read the newspapers, nor watch television. 3) And that his colleagues and counterparts did not keep him informed. This - may we state - is hardly conceivable.
Perhaps the Mayor was aware of the Islands site, but Guy Beaudet may have successfully diverted his interest from the Pointe Saint-Charles site? Some testimonies seem to give credibility to this version - and in retrospect so much the better that Guy Beaudet may have been more persuasive than others had been. But then, why give him credit as the originator of the idea for the site when the true innovators were at that time known to everyone?
At this point we get lost in wild guesses. If we dismiss the ignorance theory mentioned earlier (regarding either one of the two men), then we may be tempted to conclude that it was for a taste of personal glory. It is, however, striking to note that Mayor Drapeau designated Guy Beaudet and not himself. Certainly, Drapeau's merit was enormous just considering the fact that he managed to get the consent of his political colleagues (let us not forget that the choice of the site was a group decision and that Drapeau didn't at that point need another feather in his cap to anchor his place in History). Or did Guy Beaudet ask for this as a favour from Mayor Drapeau?
Another supposition. Perhaps there were reasons for wanting to avoid purchasing the plans from the architects' firm? An empty supposition because the project had been plainly presented as a "voluntary and altruistic" gesture. Or perhaps, to avoid contracting a moral obligation with this firm? A total success in that regard, since the firm had the dubious privilege of being barred from any contract involving site development, the pavilions or the Expo 67 infrastructure. From March 28, 1963 onward, the Bédard, Charbonneau, Langlois firm became "invisible" to the Expo planners.
This leads us to one last supposition. As we have seen, Mayor Drapeau was the first person informed of the Islands project, but only rallied to the idea at the last minute. For a long time a supporter of the Pointe Saint-Charles site, he had actually been an opponent of the Islands site. But how was he to spin an about-face without losing face… a politician's most valuable asset? Well, by pretending that he had only been told about the Islands site late on as a fresh suggestion and had immediately rallied to it as heavenly destiny written in the stars. But in order to reconcile himself with this invention, he would then have to blot out the true innovators whose mere presence would bear witness to the contrary.
Also, maybe there was there some kind of resentment towards those who dared draw South Shore land (and municipalities) into a project in which Montréal stubbornly wanted to claim all credit.
In the end, the most astounding fact remains the unabashed falsehood (all the more so since everyone at the press conference on March 28, 1963 knew the truth) as well as its inanity (lavishing a second-class contributor, denying any moral debt towards the true authors, saving face, etc.). This says a lot about the political mores of that time… and, who knows? Perhaps today also?
Claude Bédard
Email: cbedard@iq.ca
Last update: July 3, 2008