- Image credits ― Mamonello
« Laissons Toronto devenir Milan, Montréal sera toujours Rome. »
– Jean Drapeau
Tonight, l’Orchestre symphonique de Montréal, under the direction of Kent Nagano, will be performing at Toronto’s Roy Thompson Hall in what is a standard art share between the two cities. However, a recent conversation I had at a vernissage had me exploring the deeper meaning of this cultural exchange. Both a classical arts fanatic and native Montrealer, my interlocutor gushed unapologetically about how cool it would be to play in Toronto ― a shocking bit of flattery that would have been unheard of 5 years ago. I was taken aback. In the past, one had to feign the obligatory scowl at the mere mention of our brothers upstream. Now here I was, standing in front of someone openly praising them.
This got me thinking: has Toronto changed? Is it no longer the city that we have been led to believe? Or had my newfound friend imbibed a bit too much red wine?
The cultural scene in Toronto has exploded over the past 10 years. Because of the political aversion to giving subsidies to any Toronto-based projects, this has mainly been accomplished by a financial push from the city’s business elite. Citizens have become engaged in the arts; sold out shows at the opera and the symphony have become all too common. Festivals have risen to prominence. The municipal summer black book is jam-packed, yet the city still tries to shoehorn more celebrations. Attendance at Luminato – Toronto Festival of Arts and Creativity, already reaches over 1 million despite only being established 3 years ago. Likewise, Toronto’s Nuit Blanche, established in 2006 already rivals the Parisian original.
Architectural stimulation has finally arrived in the Queen City. While it has long been suffering from the same condo virus ravaging the Canadian urban landscape with its little boxes made of ticky-tacky, recent municipal developments are proving to be a lot more interesting. Spaces, such as Yonge-Dundas Square and the collection of Victorian industrial architecture called the Distillery District, are being reinvented and revalorised. Cultural institutions are taking off their cloaks to expose their creativity out in the open: The Ontario College of Art & Design, the Royal Ontario Museum, and the Art Gallery of Ontario have people debating the art of architecture. However, the new Toronto understands not all buildings need to be garish. In an act of subtlety, the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts (designed by Jack Diamond), with its granite-coloured walls, blends effortlessly into its surroundings, camouflaging with the famous Toronto Thank God It’s Monday businessmen in their dark grey suits.
I never used to believe in that alleged rivalry between Montréal and Toronto. With its joie de vivre and laissez les bon temps rouler, Montréal was always the undisputable winner in such a competition. Yet, it is becoming increasingly clear that we can no longer rest on our laurels. Besides, not only do we have Toronto breathing down our backs, clamouring for glory and distinction, but we now must also worry about Québec. And lest we forget that New York is always ready for a fight. Even cities like Calgary, once considered too far removed in order to do us harm, have been secretly stalking their kill.
Montréal’s position has never been more precarious: in this sink or swim post-industrial world, what can be done to make sure we stay afloat?
34 comments
Man, you are ten years late with that.
Hmm… I love Toronto, and I love how it’s grown up, too — it’s a lot more interesting than it was when I first visited 20 years ago, and I love its new architecture (not Dundas square though, nor the Crystal).
But I don’t agree that this is a sink-or-swim post industrial world, nor that Montreal needs to do anything to stay afloat, nor even that there is a need to compare ourselves to other cities. In fact, one of my few criticisms about Toronto is how it tends to compare itself to other places — “we’re world-class, too, you know. Yup, we are. See? Oh go on, notice us!” Sure, it’s good and interesting to look at other cities, see what they do, enjoy how they’re evolving. But I lose interest when we add the element of envy or worry that we’re not cool enough or progressing enough.
I think Toronto plays its role as a “mega city” very well — although it’s technically not that big on the world stage, it has more cultural and economic clout than its size warrants. I think it’s a model city in many respects — a modern American-style city, yet with a kinder and more interesting side to it where the world lives together in relative harmony and where things work extremely well. Its problems are minor compared to other cities its size, its citizens are generally happy and enjoy a very green, very interesting city.
As you mentioned, I think Montreal excels at enjoying life — there is a simplicity and an authenticity here that is rare, especially for a large city. With no great monuments, nor a lot of money, nor any big-name new architecture, we still have an extremely comfortable, very livable, and indeed very fun and even sexy city. (And truth be told, we have some awfully nice modern architecture — see http://www.dmpibooks.com/book/a-guidebook-to-contemporary-architecture-in-montreal … plus a great heritage from being Canada’s main city for hundreds of years.)
That Toronto is playing that role now is just fine with me — and it’s nice to know they’re doing a good job of it, too. Keep up the good work, Toronto. Just lose the world-class mantra, would you?
It’s a false debate… In the 21st century, the question will not be “Montreal or Toronto” but “Montreal and Toronto: how?”
Toronto edged ahead of Montreal on the cultural scene long ago, more than 10 years ago. This was a fait accompli when the creme de la creme of corporate Canada moved to Toronto (and Calgary, to a lesser extent) over the span of the 1980’s. The kinds of arts patronage that used to exist in Montreal is now firmly rooted in Hogtown for at least a generation. A vacuum was created in Montreal and our city has been resting on its past glory for a long time. To say nothing of the structural/institutional problems that hamper Montreal, Toronto’s ambitions outpaced ours decades ago.
The problem with Montreal is that we don’t take advantage of what we have. Two exemples:
The Canadian Center for Architecture has one of the best collection in the world of architecture models, drawings, etc. But it’s not displayed in a permanent gallery, which is a shame. We could have the largest, most prestigious Architecture museum in the world, but it’s all kept away from the public. Instead, the CCA content itself with ponctual, thematic exhibitions, which is fine but not enough.
Same thing with the Montreal Fine Art Museum and it’s collection from the Musée des Arts décoratifs. It has one of the two or three best decorative and design collection from the 40’s to the 60’s. But because of a lack of space, that collection is mostly hidden from the public, with just a parcel of it exhibited in the design gallery of the museum. Once again, a shame.
To Edward:
The Québec government is quite an active patron for the arts. And, unlike just about anything else, vibrancy in the arts does not always follow the money. For all its parochialism, the fine arts (particularly classical music) in Montreal have many established ties south of the border and with Europe. Toronto is still a newcomer in this sense, and certainly we are all looking forward to watching them come into their own.
Call me a contrarian, but I think Montreal would benefit from worrying *less* about Toronto. Trying to keep up at this point would be a profoundly counterproductive exercise. Thanks to sheer size, economic clout, and wide and deep links to the fastest-growing places in the world Toronto is simply operating on a different scale. The gap is already large, and it’s going to get much bigger.
Rather, Montreal needs to keep doing what it has been for the last several years: focus on its strengths, like the arts, education, and hi-tech. Some of the most successful places on Earth are what I would call proud second cities–Melbourne, Barcelona, Munich, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with not offering all things to all people, and letting the big metropolis knock itself out trying to do so. Montreal has gone a long way in this direction since about 2000, and is a much better city for it.
Like the author, I am a sceptic of the ‘alleged rivalry,’ but for the opposite reason: because it appears to be an almost entirely, er, Montreal-centred phenomenon. Believe it or not, any such rivalry doesn’t really figure into Toronto’s civic consciousness much, if at all. Torontonians do an awful lot of benchmarking, comparing, and envying when it comes to what they perceive to be their competitor cities, but I always got the impression that the competitors are thought of as being exclusively abroad, and especially in the U.S. Put that down to callous indifference to or ignorance of the rest of Canada, but my sense is it’s very much a fact.
None of this is to say that Toronto doesn’t have some big headwinds coming. It’s going to take a solid 25 years of infrastructure investment at an unprecedented rate to catch up with the growth of the urban area, and the exploding density of the city centre. Another big problem is governance. Everyone sort of agrees that the GTA mega-region needs to be better co-ordinated, but there’s a real risk that the urban core of the 416–which has, generously, not much more than a million people, and drives the province if not the country in terms of culture and business–would be totally swamped by the needs and preferences of the vast hinterland.
I don’t think anyone has fully grappled with the challenges of dealing with an urbanized region extending from Lake Simcoe to Lake Ontario and 50km to the east and west, incorporating Canada’s best-functioning urban neighbourhoods as well as its most doomed suburbia.
So, in other words, Montreal’s not in a bad spot. Nor is Toronto, but it has some unbelievable challenges–good ones to have, in that they are born of success–but difficult, too. Canada is very lucky to have both cities.
When someone moves from urban Montreal to ‘urban’ Toronto, and none of it is about the money, I’ll be impressed (this from an ex-Montrealer in this most mid-western of Canadian cities: Toronto).
I agree with Martin – our museums are not ambitious enough. I would love to see a new, bigger annex of both the MMFA, the McCord Museum, and of course, the MAC. The Silo No 5 proposal is so wonderful, yet the motivation is just not there. It is such a visionary concept yet no one in a power position sees it.
The QDS is fantastic and a necessary element in the urban fabric, BUT, at the end of the day it is merely infrastructure that caters to festivals.
William : In the 21st century, the question will not be “Montreal or Toronto” but “Montreal and Toronto: how?”
Me : True and astute. But I would add that all the world cities are finding themselves asking the very same question…
Émile – sure, I totally agree that both Montréal and Toronto should strive to define and distinguish themselves and each other on the world stage. My point is that I believe that there are immense synergies that could be used, and will be used.
I feel the traditional rivalry between the two cities is insignificant compared to the competition presented by other areas, considering the ever increasing (political, cultural and economic) role of urbanised regions in the global village.
Montreal has always been the “non-big” big city, while Toronto went full-steam ahead towards BIG. We do small and intimate really well, that’s part of our charm and why we remain on the world stage in spite of our relative poverty.
The so-called rivalry between the two cities is an old story. That being said, after 20 years of thinking Toronto is platte, I am starting to like it. People are friendly, for one. What happened to Montreal friendliness? Am I the only one thinking it’s kind of fading?
Montréal doit s’assumer comme elle est: une ville fondamentalement bilingue qui est NI le Québec NI le Canada, mais un merveilleux mélange des deux. Toronto est anglaise et Québec est française, Montréal c’est autre chose, c’est SA différence, et c’est sur ça qu’elle doit travailler. Exit les deux solitudes, l’union fait la force, et je crois qu’on est de plus en plus en bonne position pour y arriver.
Ah oui, je ne fait pas référence aux autres cultures, car je ne crois pas que ce soit unique à Montréal.
Leila wrote: “Montreal has always been the ‘non-big’ big city”
Um…
Expo ’67?
1976 Summer Olympic Games?
the Port of Montreal?
Hydro-Québec?
the Aerospace industry?
Four major universities?
Among the largest and most well-used public transit networks per capita on the continent?
The capital of French culture in the Western Hemisphere?
etc. etc.
There’s never been anything “non-big” about Montreal, virtually since the beginning of its history, even if in many respects Toronto is now bigger. “Small and intimate” nonspecifically describes a only few neighborhoods of the metropolis, at best, and with the second largest GDP in Canada (39th globally), we’re hardly poor.
Montreal’s CMA will likely surpass 4,000,000 within a decade, as the city slowly but steadily continues to grow. Unlike many other cities of similar size and stature in the US, Montreal survived post-industrialization relatively intact and now has quite a diverse economy. The metropolitan area has never declined in size. The municpality is the sixth mosth populous north of Mexico…etc. etc. blah blah blah.
I don’t understand: how big do you have to be before you become “non-big?” You even fit in a jab at the “friendliness” of its denizens…
It’s condescending comments like yours which seem to fuel this silly non-rivalry.
Whoops: “I don’t understand: how big do you have to be before you become ‘non-big?'”
Haha…err, rather, how big do you have to be before you become non-non-big. ay ay ay
Why does it have to be seen as a zero-sum game?
Personally, I’m enjoying Montreal’s gradual decline and decay. We’re living history here, people! How many riots has Toronto had in the past eight months? This is a very important period in Montreal’s history, I feel like it’s late-70’s New York but on a much, much smaller scale and not nearly as dangerous, at least not yet. I, for one am actually happy to be here instead of Toronto precisely because of the decay. And I’m not even above the fray, getting to watch safely from my condo, I relish being in the middle of it. Toronto is nice, Montreal feels like it’s falling apart and I love it.
@Matt Ha ha, you’re exactly right. Montreal literally feels like it’s crumbling. Toronto is kind of shabby, but at least you can get an apartment with a working fridge and proper electrical wiring. Whatever the future of Montreal will depend on whether there’s anything that hasn’t burned down or collapsed.
MB: You sound like folks from Québec City trying to explain why Québec is “big”. :-)
Montreal is a small big city. It’s an asset. Let’s embrace it.
–X
Big.
Non-big.
Small-big.
And all these years I’ve been told that size doesn’t matter.
It’s obvious that the bigger the city the better it manages to play with the other major world urban centres. But there is also a place for secondary niche cities. I think Montreal should aim big – or else it’s like joining a competition just to win the “thanks for showing up” ribbon.
@ Kate: Exactly, this is why this so-called rivalry can be irritating. Working in the arts industry and being actively involved in the classical music community as a performer, I disagree with the initial premise of the post for this very reason, though there are relevant points made. But really, particularly in the arts, it is often not a zero-sum game.
Toronto is doing many *new* things that have few counterparts in Canada (like Luminato), whilst the traditional institutions in Montreal remain strong, largely due to continuous support from the province (Canada Council for the Arts has been gutted by Harper, sadly). In contemporary classical music, Montreal and Toronto have totally different identities, with Toronto well connected throughout Canada as Montreal has traditionally been linked to Europe and the Eastern seaboard of the United States. I fail to see what either city’s scene really has to do with each other, in fact, and most actual artists and musicians seem to find them complementary–even five or ten years ago. If we are jealous of their opera they are jealous of our orchestras. It’s great, it keeps the bar high and gives a reason to travel between the two. This might be what this interlocutor in the original post was referring to, even–it’s ALWAYS cool to play somewhere else, and obviously there are nice venues and an appreciative audience in Toronto.
@ Matt and Mike: Why you might wish something similar to what happened in NYC in the 70’s to happen in Montreal is beyond me.
@ Xavier: Strawman arguments are a terrible, contrived way to start a discussion. Try to stick to my comments.
“Small big city,” “non-big big city,” these oxymorons are so much less intuitive than calling a spade a spade. Montreal is among North America’s major metropoles and continues to grow–this is the angle we should start with when tackling the issues facing the city.
If it’s “big” “small” or “midsized” subjectively depends on the frame of reference. I was reacting to the sentiment I perceived in Leila’s post, that because Toronto is big anything smaller is cute and tiny. She also started with a generalization that seemed to ignore Montreal’s historical importance and current place in contemporary Francophone society. I’m not sure what it is about Toronto that causes its denizens to think the rest of the world is so quaint, but it comes across as patronizing and diminishes real problems faced by other large Canadian cities (are we still allowed to refer to Montreal as a large Canadian city?).
Nobody should have to explain Montreal’s “big”-ness, this is ridiculous.
I don’t WISH it to happen, MB, it IS happening and I’m enjoying this moment in time for what it is. What I would hate is for Montreal to turn into today’s Manhattan. Maybe things will turn around and the city will pull out of it’s collective torpor but in the meantime, look around!
Most people spend their lives lamenting the fact that they live in a decaying environment instead of realizing that this is a point in time that can be taken advantage of. Affluent cities don’t produce great art, at least not in capitalist societies. I realize that this is a gross generalization but when I think of the things I love they didn’t come from pristine, safe, wrapped-in-plastic-like-my-grandmother’s-couch kind of places. Great things are created amidst struggle and decay. We can pretty much bet that our rents here will not reach the astronomical levels of other cities. This is the real advantage Montreal has over Toronto or any other city that may be in better shape. I can afford to live here very comfortably on very little. Meanwhile, when I walk down the street I know I’m in a position to enjoy what’s happening here instead of wishing it wasn’t.
Thank you for explaining your sentiment further, Matt.
MB:
Sorry we had to start on the wrong foot… You sound like you love Mtl, and I do too… just for different reasons it seems.
Calling the city that holds number 81 in the top 100 largest cities in the world* a “small big city” is actually very acurate if you ask me, especially considering that the top 10 range from 12M to 28M inhabitants. As far as “big cities” are concerned, we ARE on the smaller side of things.
As for sticking to your comments… here you go:
“Expo ‘67?” –> That was 43 years ago… maybe we can afford to retire good ol’ Expo now. It had a good run. Time to find glory in other things now.
“1976 Summer Olympic Games?” –> Ditto. Plus the Games prove nothing. Atlanta had Summer Games too, and it’s one of the worst cities I’ve been to. Also, let’s not forget that it was a major money pit and left us with a crumbling stadium.
“the Port of Montreal?” –> Now a shadow of what it once was.
“Hydro-Québec?” –> Hydro is really an achievement of the provincial government… and was enabled by geographical good luck. Besides a pretty averege office building, Montreal has very little to claim regarding Hydro.
“Among the largest and most well-used public transit networks per capita on the continent?” –> Yeah… okay… “on the continent”… not really a tough challenge beating Phoenix on public transit. Now compare to Paris, London, Munich or New York.
“The capital of French culture in the Western Hemisphere?” –> We really showed New Orleans and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon who’s the boss, didn’t we? Good thing for us that the completely arbitrary line that splits both hemispheres wasn’t set a few degrees east of its current location to include Paris…
–Xavier
* http://www.worldatlas.com/citypops.htm
Hello Xavier,
I’m sure there are many things we agree upon as to why we love Montreal, no doubt.
As far as the rankings go, it really is a frame of reference. In terms of the world, a “small big city.” In terms of Canada or the US, it’s quite a large one. I was trying to make the point that the issues the city and its denizens face are big city issues, at least as far as these issues are manifested in North America.
I mentioned Expo 67 and the Olympics, etc. in response to Leila’s post to refute the generalization that “Montreal has always been the “non-big” big city.” These things are typical of big cities, and have certainly left a legacy (and debt!) if they are not relevant to today.
As far as the Port is concerned, I’m not sure what you mean exactly by it being a “shadow” of what it once was… Though the Port of Vancouver is much more important, Montreal is still considered one of the major East Coast ports, particularly in terms of containers. It has handled more than one million TEU containers per year since 2000. This is growing by more than 5% annually… far from small peanuts. Overall it remains one of the busiest ports in North America, yes even busier than Toronto’s.
“not really a tough challenge beating Phoenix on public transit. Now compare to Paris, London, Munich or New York.”
In terms of per-capita ridership, Montréal has surpassed New York City before, and the latest figures show it to be on par. New York, Montreal, and Toronto are peers when it comes to transit usage, actually.
And yes, I do think being the capital of French culture in the Western Hemisphere is important–if it’s a joke to you there are still several million Francophones on this side of the world in Québec and elsewhere who might take these things a little bit more seriously. Its post-colonial cultural and economic relationship with France cannot be denied even after existing so long within the Commonwealth.
I might mention, that “arbitrary line” is actually an ocean. France ≠ Québec.
…anyway, this is getting way off topic.
MB: I absolutely agree that Mtl wasn’t always a “small big city”. In the early 20th century, Montreal was hands down Canada’s main metropolis not only in terms of population, but economic activity, cultural activity… etc…
En passant, je suis francophone, et je ne considere pas du tout la culture francophone de Montreal comme une blague… au contraire. C’est une grande richesse pour la ville. Mais dans les faits, en ce qui concerne notre hemisphere, c’est pas difficile d’etre le premier dans une course quand on est le seul coureur.
BTW, the arbitrary line that delineates both hemispheres isn’t an ocean: it’s the Greenwich meridian.
I’m specifically not interested in any “culture” that can have “exploded in the last 10 years.” Anyone who thinks “we should do something about it before Toronto catches up” is missing the point entirely. This is not a fight we can ever really hope to lose.
It’s a 2 pronged attack: Even if they did get bagels right, it wouldn’t matter, they would still be our bagels. On the other hand it is REMARKABLE that they can’t get bagels right. It’s really not that complicated.
Uh, as for Montréal’s “gradual decay and decline”: sorry to ever be the optimist, but I’ve found Montreal just getting better and better, not worse. When I first moved here in 1989, it was sad indeed, with À louer signs everywhere, and no-one, it seemed, had a job. St-Laurent above Rachel was basically dead, Mile-End was dying, and I won’t even mention Notre-Dame in St-Henri or Ontario Est in Hochelaga.
Since then, I’ve seen these neighbourhoods and their shopping streets transform. Notre-Dame, while keeping its Green Spots and New System BBQs, now sports quite a few very chic restaurants, and of its dingy tavernes are now frequented by artsy students. Verdun was positively scary, especially at night, and is now a beautiful mix of mildly well off and poor with tons of immigrants thrown in. The Samcons of Montreal bought up all the vacant lots around the innter neighbourhoods and created small-scale, cheap condos that have repaired the urban fabric. People stopped leaving the city, moved back into town, renovated the falling-apart dives and neighbourhoods like the Village, for example, are now very pleasant to wander about. For some reason, Pointe-Saint-Charles seems exactly the same as it was 20 years ago, though.
I find a lot of the same things have happened to Toronto, too. The eastern edge of downtown, once falling apart, is still transforming itself nicely at the lower end; Kensington Market remains grungy but is extremely interesting and livable, and Queen Street West getting towards Ossington is turning into a really neat mixed neighbourhood with poor and rich. Not to mention whole neighbourhoods didn’t really exist before, such as the Entertainment district or Liberty Village. (Not so sure of the Distillery District, though…)
I still find Toronto too spread out, and even with some very welcome infill, it still doesn’t seem as pretty or as well put-together as Montreal, plus it suffers from condo-high-rise-plonked-down-just-about-anywhere syndrome. But compared to the Toronto I first knew 20 years ago, I think it has improved immensely indeed.
Well, perhaps not the TTC from what I read here on Spacing :)
@ Xavier – I had been talking about the Western Hemisphere as a socio-political concept, not as a literal hemisphere of the Earth. In any case, I should be more specific and say “the Americas.”
You seemed initially to doubt that French culture in the Americas was important, but it still exists, and immigration helps link Montreal with communities in the Carribean and other parts of the French speaking world. Additionally, think about multinational corporations, organizations, institutions, and media, particularly those which operate in French.
What I’m trying to say: being the center of French culture in the Americas is relevent to the rest of the Francosphère, too, not just to Saint-Pierre et Michelon. For French people, culture, and society, Montreal is quite big, not “small big” or whatever.
As far as cultural activity in Canada is concerned, I’m mostly familiar with music, and Montreal is still Canada’s hub (meaning “big”) in quite a few genres, including classical. For the visual arts, I’m no expert but I don’t get the same impression, and the museums, though nice, are lackluster. etc. etc.
Ultimately I believe it’s disingenuous to lump “cultural activity” as a singular, zero-sum thing tied directly to the economic prosperity and size of a population agglomeration. That’s the issue I’ve had with the original post’s rather confoundable conclusion.
@ Kajetan – Great way to put it, I don’t think I could agree more or have put it so well. Bagels!
@ Tristou – Good point, this is among the reasons I disagree with the initial post.
@Tristou
Point St Charles has not been as easily gentrified as other neighborhoods, and this is just a hunch but I think I know why. People don’t know where it is! Most everyone I’ve told that I live in The Point had no idea where it was. My wife has had this problem, too, in fact some people thought we lived in the west island! It’s just not on people’s mental maps of neighborhoods. There are a few toeholds of gentrification, though like the Nordelec building with it’s gym, rock climbing wall and yoga studio, Tournesol, a beauty parlour (…I think. I’m not really sure what it is…)/coffee shop/painting studio and a few new condos but other than that it’s been remarkably resistant. I think another thing is that people from here don’t leave here. My neighbour’s in his mid-60’s, he’s lived here all his life and he’s not alone by a long shot. Frankly, I’m surprised more musicians and artists don’t live here, it’s cheap, close to downtown and has really nice apartments.
But I don’t think “chic restaurants” and “artsy students” are what makes a city better, even mixed in with the native riff-raff. If anything it’s a harbinger of the locals soon being priced out. At any rate, Montreal isn’t getting enough of an influx of people to make any difference in the demographics of any neighborhood. The only thing that can happen at this point is migration within the city. I’m anxious to see what happens over the next 10-15 years and if Montreal’s population will increase and by how much. It’s at a severe disadvantage due the the language issue (for lack of a better term), pretty much the only people who would want to move here are people from francophone countries with the occasional American student or South American immigrant whereas a city like Toronto can easily accept people as is from just about anywhere. This has really hurt Montreal’s growth and while it is a disadvantage on that level it’s both an advantage and disadvantage on a cultural level. We have a city culturally like no other in North America BUT it’s a much more homogeneous cultural landscape than the other great North American cities.
People are not moving into the city, just look at how Laval’s population has exploded over the last 10 years. They’ve taken in another 50,000 people over that period while just between 2001 and 2006 the city of Montreal lost almost 200,000 (if anyone can find stats for 2009 I’d love to see them). That’s a pretty big gap and I would venture to say that Laval and the other suburbs will buck the trend and keep packing them in and become denser while Montreal will, if not lose population, plateau. At the same time it’s as big as it’s ever been but the expansion will be left to decay if people keep leaving and I think that’s what we’re seeing now, like a deflating balloon. St. Henri and Verdun may be slightly more affluent than they used to be but other neighborhoods have been left to fall apart, I’m thinking of Montreal North specifically.
Anyhoo, I believe that Montreal is in decline now after a period of upswing stretching from the late 90’s to maybe 2007 or so, a period that saw tremendous growth in population, wealth and a re-assertion of Montreal’s importance as a cultural capitol of Canada. But as people leave, the city will decompress and this is what I believe is happening at the moment.
Not that any of this is good or bad, all cities will always contains myriads, it’s just up to us and how we interpret it in our daily lives.
@ Matt
I would like to propose a correction to your post:
The loss of 200,000 people from 2001 to 2006 was due to the demerger of several former municipalities from the megacity on January 1st, 2002. It was NOT due to outward migration.
The city is certainly still growing, albeit at a slower rate than its suburbs, and this is a real issue. It is related to problems faced by most other post-industrial North American metropoles. The metropolitan area itself is growing at a healthy rate, population growth since 2001 being predicted at more than 15%.
Montréal’s continual decline is a myth. It has rebounded from the 70’s and 80’s. The questions we need to ask are how to keep the city competitive and help control growth in a sustainable way.
As for the poor being priced out of their neighbourhood: hmm. The standard complaint of gentrification, and one that I don’t buy into any more.
There are horror stories of course, but overall, complaining about gentrification in Montreal is rather like complaining that the champagne is not quite chilled enough. If there is to be gentrification, let it be done as it has been done here: slowly, steadily, and softly. Perhaps in part because the Régie is very good at allowing people to keep their places, perhaps because of the way it happens with lots of infill or new developments, such as the chic condos along the Lachine Canal, or Nun’s Island being technically part of poorer Verdun, or those Samcon infills all over the place — no displaced people there.
In general, Montréal’s poor seem to stay put even as the neighbourhood around transforms itself: there are still a great deal of poor people in Le Plateau, for example, although admittedly much of the gentrification isn’t particularly useful for them — they’re probably not sipping cocktails in chic lounges nor eating at Au pied du cochon every night. However, both rich and poor surely find it nicer to walk down a street with flowers and freshly-painted stairs and fences instead of rusty falling-apart balconies.
I lived in the Latin Quarter for 19 years — one of Montréal’s poorest neighbourhoods that I saw transformed over the years. There, new condos such as the very chic 333 are mere steps away from places such as Cactus, the needle exchange. At the community meetings, I was so pleased to see the residents, even those from chic condos, nodding in agreement as the president talked about the importance of keeping Single Room Occupancy availability in the neighbourhood despite the stresses of gentrification, given than all the services for the down-and-outs were in this neighbourhood and, basically, there was nowhere else for them to go. I also remember the people from Just For Laughs earnestly telling us that how wonderful they were for the neighbourhood because if anything, they chase the homeless away for a while — and one woman saying “I don’t mind the homeless; they’re my neighbours and I live with them year round. I mind you coming here and making lots of noise at night when I’m trying to sleep.” Or seeing that more people supported Cactus’s new streetfront location than opposed it — showing, to me, a real understanding of the workings of a neighbourhood with lots of problems.
If I compare Montréal’s gentrification to Toronto’s, there are some similarities indeed — new infill and whole new neighbourhoods, bringing much-needed density back to the core, although I was surprised to see how parts of the Annex, for example, had actually gone downhill rather than improved. And there’s also the phenomenon of people who can afford to buy a place but have no money left over to fix it up. To me, it seems a little more uneven than here, perhaps because speculation has played a greater part in the housing prices than it has here. As for the famous displaced poor people: well, rents function differently when people move… in Ontario, the rent you agree to is the rent you pay (vacancy decontrol, it’s called). Here, a landlord must state the previous rent on the lease; this doesn’t always happen, but if they don’t, it is perfectly legal to sign the lease, move in, and then go to the Régie and have your rent adjusted downward to what it would have been, although admittedly this does not put you in the good books with your landlord.
jamesmallon says “When someone moves from urban Montreal to ‘urban’ Toronto, and none of it is about the money, I’ll be impressed ”
Be Impresed! I was living the he plateau for many years when I decided to check out Toronto for a weekend. I never went back! (except to go break my lease and move my stuff over). I did not move for money, in fact, I am still looking for work, I moved because of the amazing vitality and culture that Toronto has that montreal has lost a long time ago. When I talk to friends still in montreal or read the news, and I see all the economic decline, the racism, the crumbling infrastructure and lack of invesetment or construction of any kind, and of course the horrifying politics, I just shudder and wonder how could I have been so blind to it all when I lived there. Toronto is paradise!