Population 32,752 puts Val-d'Or 22nd of 23 in Quebec and at 0.7% of the rostered provincial total. Every downstream assumption in Val-d'Or — absorption pace, achievable rent, lender appetite — tracks that scale more closely than it tracks the zone code printed on the Val-d'Or map.

Across the 134-market Canadian roster, Val-d'Or is 113th by population and shares tier 3 with 78 other markets. Its 0.02× ratio to Montréal is the number to apply before importing any Montréal rent or velocity assumption into a Val-d'Or model.

Val-d'Or sits between Salaberry-de-Valleyfield at 41,250 and Sept-Îles at 25,062. Same province, same rules, different scale: the cleanest way to test whether a Val-d'Or density assumption is ambitious or ordinary.

Nationally, Val-d'Or reads most like Stratford, ON, Cochrane, AB, Orillia, ON — same tier, similar population, different statutes. Use them to sanity-check what density Val-d'Or can absorb, never to cite a figure: every number in un règlement de zonage is jurisdiction-specific and none of it survives a provincial border.

No Val-d'Or zone has cleared review yet, so this page publishes no Val-d'Or regulatory figure at all. That is the publishability gate working rather than an oversight: with no reviewed row, the Val-d'Or page stays out of the sitemap and carries a noindex directive.

Coverage policy does not bend for Val-d'Or. Across the 134 rostered markets, including Val-d'Or, indexation needs two independent conditions — the tier gate permitting the pair, and a promoted row with provenance. Val-d'Or's tier-3 status limits it to anchor products.

Every published Val-d'Or row is dated deliberately: bylaws change, and an undated figure is a rumour. Find a discrepancy against the current Val-d'Or — Planning and Development text and the Val-d'Or row gets re-read or pulled.

Coverage also has a ceiling in ambition, not just in law. There are more zone codes in Val-d'Or than any small team can verify at once, so review is prioritised by the codes most likely to carry a real Val-d'Or project — the mixed-use and multi-unit districts rather than the exhaustive tail.

Val-d'Or — Planning and Development zones Val-d'Or under authority granted by la Loi sur l'aménagement et l'urbanisme. Un règlement de zonage must sit inside un plan d'urbanisme, so a Val-d'Or site's real ceiling is the more restrictive of the two — the distinction between an as-of-right build and a policy amendment with a multi-year tail.

Where un règlement de zonage does not permit the massing a Val-d'Or site can physically hold, the paths are a dérogation mineure or a full rezoning, and disputes land at the borough or municipal council, with registry and referendum steps for certain amendments. Treat the Val-d'Or approval route as a line item rather than a footnote: it drives interest carry, option length and the credibility of the exit.

None of this is uniform inside Val-d'Or. Heritage designations, site-specific exceptions, holding provisions and area overlays sit on top of the base zone and routinely change the answer for one Val-d'Or parcel while leaving its neighbours untouched. Every figure published here is a base-zone figure unless the Val-d'Or source note says otherwise.

Val-d'Or does not control the whole stack. Changes at the Quebec level flow through la Loi sur l'aménagement et l'urbanisme into what Val-d'Or — Planning and Development may or must permit, and the Val-d'Or bylaw text often lags the statute. That lag is exactly where a stale Val-d'Or feasibility gets expensive.

Two ceilings compete on every Val-d'Or parcel: lot area × FSR, and footprint × storeys after setbacks and coverage. The calculator resolves both from your inputs and reports the binding one, because relief only helps a Val-d'Or applicant if it lifts the constraint that is actually binding.

Take a 21,000 sf Val-d'Or lot and apply 3 FSR purely as an illustration: 63,000 sf of GFA, about 67 units once 15% goes to circulation and services. That number is arithmetic, not entitlement — the Val-d'Or height limit and setback set decide whether the plate exists to hold it.

Knowing what binds tells a Val-d'Or team what to ask for: storeys and floor-to-floor where height governs, density where FSR governs. In Val-d'Or, where approvals run through Val-d'Or — Planning and Development and contested outcomes reach the borough or municipal council, with registry and referendum steps for certain amendments, a misaimed request costs a cycle.

The ratio is the third lever on a Val-d'Or site. Entered here it becomes a visible Val-d'Or stall count rather than a buried cost line. Many Quebec bylaws still carry ratios written for a different era of car ownership, which makes the reduction request one of the highest-return conversations a Val-d'Or applicant can have.

Terminology trips up out-of-province teams working in Val-d'Or. FSR, FAR and density index are interchangeable descriptions of the same Val-d'Or ratio, and what Val-d'Or — Planning and Development calls it matters less than how it measures the floor area it applies to.

Height is equally slippery in Val-d'Or. A limit expressed in metres, in storeys, or as a geometric envelope produces different buildings on the same Val-d'Or lot, and the calculator here converts between them using the floor-to-floor figure you supply rather than assuming one.

Val-d'Or footprint is the smaller of the setback-derived area and the coverage cap. Which one governs depends on parcel geometry, not on policy, and it flips between neighbouring Val-d'Or lots more often than most owners expect.

The Val-d'Or unit count falls out of GFA divided by average unit size after an efficiency factor, and the parking obligation follows from there. It is the shortest chain on the page and the one where a careless Val-d'Or assumption does the most damage.

Maximum density is not the Val-d'Or objective. Val-d'Or — Planning and Development may permit a plate the Val-d'Or market cannot absorb, and building to the ceiling in a 32,752-person market is how a compliant project becomes an unsellable one.

Phasing is the usual answer in a market the size of Val-d'Or. Splitting an envelope across stages keeps Val-d'Or exposure proportional to demonstrated absorption, at the cost of losing some efficiency Montréal projects can rely on.

Use the peer table below to test a Val-d'Or assumption before committing to it. Markets of similar tier and population face similar absorption physics, even where their statutes differ from la Loi sur l'aménagement et l'urbanisme.

The most common way a Val-d'Or feasibility goes wrong is not arithmetic, it is staleness. un règlement de zonage is amended on Val-d'Or — Planning and Development's schedule, not yours, so a Val-d'Or figure carried from a file six months old may already be void. The printed summary from this page carries its own date for exactly that reason.

Because Val-d'Or runs at 0.02× Montréal, its liquidity is thinner: an entitlement error in Val-d'Or takes longer to trade out of, and the discount demanded is steeper than the Quebec leader would face on the same file.

This is a Val-d'Or screening instrument, not an entitlement opinion. Every figure should be re-read against un règlement de zonage and confirmed with Val-d'Or — Planning and Development before money moves.

The method behind the Val-d'Or page is deliberately boring. Population and rank come from the census roster shared by all 134 markets; the statutory chain comes from la Loi sur l'aménagement et l'urbanisme; and the Val-d'Or regulatory figures, when any exist, come from a reviewer reading an Val-d'Or — Planning and Development page and stamping the date.

The Val-d'Or gate is binary and unsentimental: reviewed and dated, or absent. There is no partially trusted middle state, which is why a Val-d'Or figure you see here can be traced to a document in one click.

Every Val-d'Or figure is tagged observed or modelled. The distinction is not cosmetic: an observed Val-d'Or value can be checked against Val-d'Or — Planning and Development, while a modelled one is only as good as the inputs behind it.