[kool maudit]

so i just got back from toronto, a city that i have an ever-increasing love for and appreciation of. in the downtown core, it is noticeably larger, more worldly and prominent than montreal - yet in the neighborhoods it remains noticeable that is was fairly shabby and poor compared to here in the 1930s. the little houses near bloor and dufferin, along woodbine and dundas - they are not triplexes with spiral staircases. they are clevelandesque...

but that doesn't matter. the thing that toronto is now doing -- for all the talk of inescapable difference - is the thing we were doing back when we were canada's centre. the ghanaian copy shops, the indonesian legal advice centres... it all speaks to a very wonderful and new worldy and immigration-centric metropolitanism. montreal in 1930 was toronto, leaning utility poles and all. the canadian metropolis, as an idea, is a fixed thing, however often it changes location.

my sister's new boyfriend, born and raised on dupont above the annex, was so happy to hear me sing the praises of his hometown. after all, torontonians adore montreal - why should we be so petty and churlish? they come here and like it, and i am happy to be among those who go there and like it to.

mordecai richler's montreal now takes place on bloor and ossington, roncesvalles, even yonge and summerhill which is so lower westmount it kills me.

the streetcars, the wires, the many new arrivals - it is there now. it's here too, but it's preeminent there. it's big there.

if montrealers don't love toronto they don't love themselves. montreal isn't caleche rides and bistro terrasses, montreal is chaos and bricks and a new beginning. now toronto is doing this expertly.

good for them.

[Canadian Mind]

Never thought I'd see the day...


Nice post, but I still think Ontario sucks. (JK)

[Calgarian]

Interesting thread, definitely not what I expected.

[vid]

Thunder Bay is Moncton! :banana:

[1ajs]

lol vid

and i gues winnipeg is winnipeg :P

anyhow thats kinda interesting to here i know to has been evolving but i gues its hit that point should be interesting to see how it evovles

[miketoronto]

Interseting. Everytime I go to Montreal myself and all the people I go to Montreal with from Toronto, feel that Montreal's downtown feels larger. And that the whole city overall just feels more larger, wordly, etc.

St. Catharine Street feels big city. Yonge Street feels small town. :)

[Acajack]

Interseting. Everytime I go to Montreal myself and all the people I go to Montreal with from Toronto, feel that Montreal's downtown feels larger. And that the whole city overall just feels more larger, wordly, etc.

St. Catharine Street feels big city. Yonge Street feels small town. :)

Yonge and Dundas certainly doesn’t feel small townish. Perhaps a bit “keeping-up-with-the-Joneses” and “wannabe New Yorkish”, but definitely not small town.

It is true that there are parts of Yonge St. (with the tacky t-shirt and $1 trinket shops) right downtown that are more reminiscent of a struggling inner city street in a middling American city than of the main street in the heart of the metropolis of a G20 country. Montreal has this stuff as well of course, but not so much on Ste-Catherine.

So for this last aspect I kinda see your point.

[kool maudit]

i find downtown toronto feels larger and busier than downtown montreal. yonge and saint catherine are not exact counterparts, though... yonge and bloor is getting to be as busy and dense as anywhere here, and it's not even the true core.

[caltrane74]

kool maudit this is an amazing post!!

You say what I wish I could say... very excellent!!




btw: miketoronto

St. Catharines will stomp Yonge street for apperance and quality of stores.. but they again you can stay the same thing about Bloor to St.Catharines.
Also Yonge Street has 3 major problems all located at the corner of Yonge and Dundas...in those 3 glam media malls 6 -12 stories high enclosing the area and sucking all the high end stores inside and off the street.

Yonge Street can't feel small town... cause I don't know any small town in Canada or USA that has a mall half a klick running down main street 8 stories high with 3 five hundred foot towers tricked out with massive LED advertising on all sides.....and then the two other malls likewise tricked out across the street...

[Acajack]

i find downtown toronto feels larger and busier than downtown montreal. yonge and saint catherine are not exact counterparts, though... yonge and bloor is getting to be as busy and dense as anywhere here, and it's not even the true core.

At some point it becomes a question of sheer size. Although Toronto passed Montreal as Canada’s largest city in the mid 70s, for people in their 30s and 40s the two cities have been of roughly comparable sizes for much of their lifetimes.

But Toronto’s metropolis now has almost two million more people that Montreal’s. Barring a Detroit-style abandonment of the core that doesn’t usually happen in Canadian cities, that alone will make Toronto's core a much busier and more crowded place.

[Cambridgite]

I've been to St. Catherine street at night a couple times. The main thing I noticed is how busy it is at night (busier than Yonge street or anywhere in Toronto). I haven't been there in the day though...not sure if Toronto is busier during the day.

[caltrane74]

Yonge and Bloor lock up good and tight at 9pm.

The action then moves over to Queen West and the Entertainment district at night.. say Richmond St. Adelaide, Peter and John. - Much smaller than St. Catharine to be sure but as a whole very busy (i.e: walk on the street no space on the sidewalk busy) at night.

[kool maudit]

downtown montreal wanders more than downtown toronto, and the terrain is such that it is always dipping out of view. it sort of meanders up beaver hall hill, and crawls along the ridge above griffintown all the way to westmount square.

downtown toronto is a big grid of density that spreads from MINT on out.

[samne]

mordecai richler's montreal now takes place on bloor and ossington, roncesvalles, even yonge and summerhill which is so lower westmount it kills me.


There was always a "Richler's Montreal" in Toronto where the Lastmans, Gherys, Lombardis and the like left the old neighbourhood (Kensington and Little Italy, etc.) and done good.

Re: lower westmount. In the Incomperable Atuk, its "swinging" Avenue Road playing itself.

[sammo]

montreal was toronto.

[Martin Mtl]

Poor Montreal. Always compared to the first of class on the continent just because they used to be rivals. Tough.

[kool maudit]

it's easy to compare them. they have a lot in common.

[Gerrard]

Yonge used to be much busier about 2 decades ago -it was where many of the clubs and bars were located. And it made sense that they moved out of there because they couldn't expand or build. Even previous to that it was the center of the gay village.

It's still considered the main artery because of its central (dividing) location and the subway but it doesn't feel like one anymore.

Nostalgia makes me miss it when it was much seedier, filled with head shops, bars, adult movie theaters and runaways but I don't miss it that much.

[Martin Mtl]

it's easy to compare them. they have a lot in common.

Funny, because every time I go to Toronto (I'm going this weekend, can't wait!), I'm mostly impressed by how different they are, in their physical appearance and ambiance. You could drop me blindfoled anywhere in Toronto or Montreal and I would know instantly where I am (language sign not taking into account). To me, that's great. It's just like european cities; they are strongly typed (unless most american cities, save for a few, who all feels the same).

To me, Toronto feels larger than Montreal in many part, especially downtown, but it feels smaller in the center residential part, where I miss the dense rows of Mtl's triplexs. And while Toronto forest of high rises makes for a very impressive city, Montreal density is of another kind, help in a sense by the mountain, which acts like a natural densification presence, downtown and on the Plateau.

All in all, I'm glad that they are different. That what makes them so cool as Canada's first and second cities.

[Wooster]

Funny, because every time I go to Toronto (I'm going this weekend, can't wait!).

Be prepared to see a lot of trash on the street, and I don't mean the 905ers that are coming into town to party.

[miketoronto]

Man I love Montreal. I think its inner city like mentioned feels denser and more built up due to all the apartment houses, etc. Where Toronto's inner city is mostly single family homes and semi's on very small lots.

It would be interesting to see if inner city Toronto has more young families than Montreal, since single family houses tend to attract families more than Montreal's apartment housing.

Montreal just has a history and grew up large before the advent of the auto age and during the grand age of civic building, so it is has more impressive public spaces, etc. Toronto lacks that to a degree.

Montreal is much more polished and planned out. Toronto is this unique jumble of stuff that is cool in its own way, but not classy.

[ue]

^If you think Toronto lacks that, what about the west ;)?

And about single family housing, it was pretty much the only form of residence except for some downtown apartments in cities like Edmonton and Vancouver (I'd assume Calgary too as it was much smaller) before WWII.

[miketoronto]

^If you think Toronto lacks that, what about the west ;)?

And about single family housing, it was pretty much the only form of residence except for some downtown apartments in cities like Edmonton and Vancouver (I'd assume Calgary too as it was much smaller) before WWII.

For the west to be honest and I know I will get slammed for this, but Winnipeg seems like the bigger city. Yes Calgary and Edmonton are larger, but Winnipeg seems to have more of a downtown/inner city that is built up and more big city than Calgary or Edmonton. I think this has to do with Winnipeg growing big before the auto age. But Calgary and Edmonton outside of the skyscraper districts don't seem to have places like the Exchange District, etc. Even looking at Photos, Portage Ave just seems way more big city than Jasper or 8th Ave.

[kool maudit]

To me, Toronto feels larger than Montreal in many part, especially downtown, but it feels smaller in the center residential part, where I miss the dense rows of Mtl's triplexs.


i agree with this.

[Martin Mtl]

Be prepared to see a lot of trash on the street, and I don't mean the 905ers that are coming into town to party.

If by trash you man all the gays, then don't worry about me. I'll be among them and party with them.

[ue]

For the west to be honest and I know I will get slammed for this, but Winnipeg seems like the bigger city. Yes Calgary and Edmonton are larger, but Winnipeg seems to have more of a downtown/inner city that is built up and more big city than Calgary or Edmonton. I think this has to do with Winnipeg growing big before the auto age. But Calgary and Edmonton outside of the skyscraper districts don't seem to have places like the Exchange District, etc. Even looking at Photos, Portage Ave just seems way more big city than Jasper or 8th Ave.

I'm not going to slam you, cause I agree with you, and it's fact.

Winnipeg was 'the' city in the west up until the 1930s. Chicago of the North, you name it. Built like crazy, around the rail industry. When I was in Winnipeg I was amazed, and yet so jealous at all the beautiful old buildings lying around.

Vancouver was also large of a city, but it didn't build much rowhomes then because it didn't have the density.

Then Edmonton came along. Edmonton hit a big boom between 1907-1914, which is where much of the today's prewar buildings come from. We were still a relatively young city back then, but we were fair in size. Still quite small, but we were a pretty dense city (as were many other cities at that time).

Calgary was around too, but it wasn't as 'known' I'd say before WWII. It was an even smaller place than Edmonton. When you look at Edmonton and think it's young, Calgary is even younger (by a good 100 yrs). Calgary was a small prairie town.

Then in the 50s, 60s, and 70s both Alberta cities exploded in growth. The 50s neighbourhoods today like Queen Mary Park and Strathearn in Edmonton feel more mature, I think the same for Cal. I think Edmonton had over 500,000 by 1980 or so, from around 150,000 in the mid fifties. Calgary exploded in growth too, but it wasn't as known.

That is until the 80s and 90s when government incentives, etc. put Cgy on the map. The big oil companies offices moved there, and the city became the largest city in Alberta. You'll notice most of Calgary's area is 1970+ suburbs. Edmonton's is more spread out between the eras.

Regardless, Winnipeg has a lot more, and Vancouver, denser forms of old housing.

It doesn't help that Calgary and Edmonton brutally ripped apart a lot of it's old historic charm. Usually for promised development that ended up turning into parking lots. But some areas in both cities still remain with charm, or work of the little charm they have. Most old residential areas still retain their homes (although there is a lot of infill).

But if you look in terms of skyline and high rise density, Calgary and Edmonton certainly win. Edmonton has a long skyline that spreads I think 30 blocks, not to mention south of the river with the University of Alberta and Saskatchewan Drive. Calgary has a very tight dense core, and then a relatively dense Beltline with some high rises, but it's mostly in those two areas.

But then Montréal doesn't have as majestic a skyline as Toronto, but it is definitely denser.

[Martin Mtl]

i agree with this.

And another thing: Montreal's streets, especially on the Plateau, the Village and Old Mtl, are narrower than Toronto's. And that makes a difference in terms of the feel of density.

[circle33]

If by trash you man all the gays, then don't worry about me. I'll be among them and party with them.

By trash he means trash. Municipal workers, including garbage collectors, are on strike.

One very legitimate beef the Montrealer of 20 years ago had was the dowdiness of Toronto nightlife thanks to a 1 am last call and other Victorian era remnants that have mostly been shed.

[1ajs]

well that city worker strike could also turn into a booz strike on wensday sounds

[miketoronto]

PRIDE will have to show they can handle the clean up on their own, or the event could be cancelled because the city will not allow any events that can't fully clean up on their own.

[P Unit]

Miketoronto: They just said in a press conference that the city will be providing limited garbage pickup at the Pride parade. It's a pretty exceptional circumstance and having it turn into a massive garbage pile from the million + people in attendance would be a huge black eye for the city, not to mention a public health distaster.

[Gerrard]

PRIDE will have to show they can handle the clean up on their own, ot the event could be cancelled because the city will not allow any events that can't fully clean up on their own.

They'd never cancel the parade. Not even if the streets ran with sewage. It's waaaay too lucrative.

[Wooster]

If by trash you man all the gays, then don't worry about me. I'll be among them and party with them.

No, City workers on Strike. Piles of garbage on the street.

Not sure how you made that assumption of my meaning. :sly:

[WhipperSnapper]

I can't say I find the leaning poles or general condition of our public spaces as quaint. It's a serious concern and underlying problem behind the lack of respect and outright rudeness of my fellow Torontonians.

[francely57]

No, City workers on Strike. Piles of garbage on the street.


I don't think it'll be a problem for Martin Mtl, here we're used to strikes... and garbage on the street :rolleyes:




One very legitimate beef the Montrealer of 20 years ago had was the dowdiness of Toronto nightlife thanks to a 1 am last call and other Victorian era remnants that have mostly been shed.
:haha: Many (most?) Montrealers still think that. I even heard about an 11 pm last call!

[someone123]

I don't find the two cities to be that similar. Toronto is cosmopolitan in a way that no city could have been back when Montreal was still home to the big banks etc. The older parts of Toronto are kind of similar but are only a very small part of the modern city. Most of Toronto is housing pods and office parks inhabited by people with little or no connection to the rest of the country, or even the rest of the city or province. I could be wrong or my information could be out of date, but I remember reading that Montreal still had more native-born Canadians than any other city.

I like both cities, but feel more of a personal/cultural connection to Montreal even though I've spent less time there. Toronto is much larger but lacks the strong sense of place you find in some other Canadian cities, particularly Montreal.

[MTLskyline]

Imagine if the two cities were actually one huge one. The skyline of this city would be insane. (9.3 million+ metro area would put it in direct competition with the likes of Chicago, London and Paris, etc.)

[circle33]

:haha: Many (most?) Montrealers still think that. I even heard about an 11 pm last call!

It wouldn't be hard to argue that Montreal is still the more lively place, but the gap between the two is not as great as it once was.

Not sure about the 11 pm last call. Pubs and clubs can serve until 2 am.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm not going to slam you, cause I agree with you, and it's fact.

Winnipeg was 'the' city in the west up until the 1930s. Chicago of the North, you name it. Built like crazy, around the rail industry. When I was in Winnipeg I was amazed, and yet so jealous at all the beautiful old buildings lying around.

Vancouver was also large of a city, but it didn't build much rowhomes then because it didn't have the density.

Then Edmonton came along. Edmonton hit a big boom between 1907-1914, which is where much of the today's prewar buildings come from. We were still a relatively young city back then, but we were fair in size. Still quite small, but we were a pretty dense city (as were many other cities at that time).

Calgary was around too, but it wasn't as 'known' I'd say before WWII. It was an even smaller place than Edmonton. When you look at Edmonton and think it's young, Calgary is even younger (by a good 100 yrs). Calgary was a small prairie town.

Then in the 50s, 60s, and 70s both Alberta cities exploded in growth. The 50s neighbourhoods today like Queen Mary Park and Strathearn in Edmonton feel more mature, I think the same for Cal. I think Edmonton had over 500,000 by 1980 or so, from around 150,000 in the mid fifties. Calgary exploded in growth too, but it wasn't as known.

That is until the 80s and 90s when government incentives, etc. put Cgy on the map. The big oil companies offices moved there, and the city became the largest city in Alberta. You'll notice most of Calgary's area is 1970+ suburbs. Edmonton's is more spread out between the eras.

Regardless, Winnipeg has a lot more, and Vancouver, denser forms of old housing.

It doesn't help that Calgary and Edmonton brutally ripped apart a lot of it's old historic charm. Usually for promised development that ended up turning into parking lots. But some areas in both cities still remain with charm, or work of the little charm they have. Most old residential areas still retain their homes (although there is a lot of infill).

But if you look in terms of skyline and high rise density, Calgary and Edmonton certainly win. Edmonton has a long skyline that spreads I think 30 blocks, not to mention south of the river with the University of Alberta and Saskatchewan Drive. Calgary has a very tight dense core, and then a relatively dense Beltline with some high rises, but it's mostly in those two areas.

But then Montréal doesn't have as majestic a skyline as Toronto, but it is definitely denser.

Just to add to this, this is why Winnipeg seems like a bigger city:

(figures rounded to nearest 100)

Winnipeg

1890 - 25000
1901 - 52000
1910 - 170000
1924 - 194900

Calgary

1891 - 3900
1901 - 4100
1910 - 43700
1920 - 63300

Edmonton

1891 - 700 **
1901 - 2600 **
1910 - 24900 **
1920 - 61000

** Stratcona (south side of river) was a separate town until 1912

Another telling comparison, both 1887:

From Wikipedia:
Winnipeg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Main_Street%2C_Winnipeg%2C_MB%2C_1887.jpg

From Glenbow.org
Calgary
http://ww2.glenbow.org/dbimages/arc7/o/na-5400-1.jpg

[kool maudit]

Toronto is cosmopolitan in a way that no city could have been back when Montreal was still home to the big banks etc.


you know they left in the 60s and 70s and not the 20s, right?

[niwell]

Great post.

I find that downtown Toronto feels considerably larger than Montreal. The main streets are similar, though it's clear that with a few exceptions there was a lot more money in Montreal 100 years ago. The inner residential areas are considerably different in appearance, but surprisingly similar in practice. The 3 story triplexes in Montreal are contrasted by the 3 story houses (sometimes attached, sometimes not) with a unit on each level here. The built form of the Toronto's inner city is interesting that it appears to be almost completely comprised of single family houses, but this is a bit misleading. Most places from the 1890s onwards were built with multiple units from the get go, though had a relatively high owner occupancy rate by North American standards.

The older areas of Montreal seem to stretch a bit further than in Toronto, but not by that much really. Some of the stuff built in the 50s in Toronto is surprisingly urban as well.

[Martin Mtl]

No, City workers on Strike. Piles of garbage on the street.

Not sure how you made that assumption of my meaning. :sly:

I'm sorry. My mistake. I didn't realise about the strike, so I simply made the assumption because for me, next weekend in Toronto = Pride = Gays. Maybe it was stupid of me, but I guess now you can see why I made that assumption. Sorry again.

[MonkeyRonin]

Man I love Montreal. I think its inner city like mentioned feels denser and more built up due to all the apartment houses, etc. Where Toronto's inner city is mostly single family homes and semi's on very small lots.

Where is this inner city of mostly single-family homes you speak of? 60% of people in Toronto live in apartments (if anyone is interested, its about 80% in Montreal), higher in the inner city. 25% live in single-family detached houses, mostly in Scarborough, North York, and Etobicoke...i.e not the inner city. You will at least some throughout the city, but in inner areas they typically won't house more than 5-10%.

[ue]

^I think he's meaning the historic forms of residential. Like Montréal had triplexes in 1910 and Toronto just had single family houses for the most part. Mont developed a lot of different residential styles, but TO didn't at the time cause it was smaller.

[Martin Mtl]

Where is this inner city of mostly single-family homes you speak of? 60% of people in Toronto live in apartments (if anyone is interested, its about 80% in Montreal), higher in the inner city. 25% live in single-family detached houses, mostly in Scarborough, North York, and Etobicoke...i.e not the inner city. You will at least some throughout the city, but in inner areas they typically won't house more than 5-10%.

I think it's pretty obvious: the old neighbourhoods of Montreal just don't have detached house units.

[MonkeyRonin]

Like Montréal had triplexes in 1910 and Toronto just had single family houses for the most part.

No...never in Toronto's history has it had "single family houses for the most part". And the closest its ever gotten to that would probably be in the 1980s or 90s anyway, not 1910. In 1910 it would have been rare to see any form of housing outside of (3-storey Victorian) semis, rows, and store-top apartments. The single-family houses came later, not first.

[O-Town Hockey]

No...never in Toronto's history has it had "single family houses for the most part". And the closest its ever gotten to that would probably be in the 1980s or 90s anyway, not 1910. In 1910 it would have been rare to see any form of housing outside of (3-storey Victorian) semis, rows, and store-top apartments. The single-family houses came later, not first.

Man, go visit The Annex, Kensington Market, and Cabbagetown and tell me that the early 20th century homes of Toronto weren't primarily single-family dwellings. It's nothing bad, it's just the way the city is built. It's rare to see a stand-alone home in most central Montreal neighbourhoods. As a result, Montreal has a much greater (what I call) secondary density than Toronto, but Toronto's highrise living kills Montreal's.

[Gerrard]

Man, go visit The Annex, Kensington Market, and Cabbagetown and tell me that the early 20th century homes of Toronto weren't primarily single-family dwellings. It's nothing bad, it's just the way the city is built. It's rare to see a stand-alone home in most central Montreal neighbourhoods. As a result, Montreal has a much greater (what I call) secondary density than Toronto, but Toronto's highrise living kills Montreal's.

The may appear to be single family dwellings but they were never intended to be and most have never been. Most of those multi story Victorians were always multiple family dwellings. Most of Cabbagetown and even the Annex), despite their gentrified appearance were always home to multiple families (my father grew up in one in the 30s) in what appear to be single family homes. Most of those homes that appear to be for single families in Kensington Market, aren't and never have been. Even Edwardian apartment buildings were built to blend seamlessly into the landscape of the neighborhood and appear as large estates rather than apartments. Of course I'm talking about the core, when you get into the eastend beyond Riverdale, it's a different story.

It's actually very deceiving and that's exactly what was intended by the city fathers.

[MonkeyRonin]

Man, go visit The Annex, Kensington Market, and Cabbagetown and tell me that the early 20th century homes of Toronto weren't primarily single-family dwellings. It's nothing bad, it's just the way the city is built. It's rare to see a stand-alone home in most central Montreal neighbourhoods. As a result, Montreal has a much greater (what I call) secondary density than Toronto, but Toronto's highrise living kills Montreal's.

Okay, Kensington Market...

1.3% of residential units are in single detached houses. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-597/P3.cfm?Lang=E&CTCODE=1049&CATYPE=CMA

And as we can see, most of the housing stock consists of semi-detached and rowhouses, most of which are divided into multiple units.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/333/21425857.jpg


The Annex and Cabbagetown are much the same, albeit with an ever-so-slightly higher share of detached homes.

[theman23]

No, City workers on Strike. Piles of garbage on the street.

Not sure how you made that assumption of my meaning. :sly:

Well, seeing as you just hinted at one group of people being "trash", I don't think its too much of a stretch to believe you might be saying another group of people are also "trash".

[Rumors]

Not another bash the hell out of Montreal thread. :yuck:

[harls]

^ wtf are you talking about? I see no bashing here?

[kool maudit]

if i am not being accused of belittling toronto, i am instead charged with "bashing" montreal. n'importe quoi.

i think this walkups v. houses thing is getting a little abstracted and more-than-meets-the-eyeish. for all the talk of side doors and weird partitions and hidden structural density -- all of which may well be valid -- there is a visual difference between a street like palmerston and street like rue laval that contains certain truths about the culture of the cities at the time of construction, as well as their size, wealth and age. toronto's old residential streets can be many wonderful things -- ornate, urbane, dense, imposing and versatile -- but they do not have that wall-like element that is more characteristic of the continent's first wave of cities, from big ones like new york through medium ones like montreal or philadelphia to little ones like wilmington.

this element does create a feeling of urbanity and tends to be recognized in north american culture as a classically "big-city" characteristic (though, as i pointed out, it exists in small cities too) -- even if that can be argued to be illusory, or even if other structure-types can claim the same level of urbanity as measured by statistics and figures.

whew.

[Mille Sabords]

Kool Maudit's post is welcome not just because it is well written, but because it finally gives voice to an ungrudging affection that I think already exists (and should spread more) among people who appreciate big cities for what they are, history included.

I was in Toronto a couple of weeks ago for work and walked all over the St. Lawrence Market area. I could easily see myself raising my family in that neighbourhood. Everything's nearby and the whole place is pretty child friendly.

Kool's right, our flagship city is our biggest laboratory of humanity, culture and economics and as such it has lots to teach, good and bad, but it's never dull and the stakes are always high. That's what makes big cities thrilling.

To me, Montreal is just as great an inspiration but for different reasons. So are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Quebec City and Winnipeg.

What I can't stand is the people who'll say that I have Toronto's balls in my mouth for saying these things. It's the type of pettiness that keeps Canada firmly in kindergarten when it comes to urban dialogue.

[habfanman]

I grew up in Ontario and lived in Toronto and the GTA for 8 years and have lived in Montréal for almost 3. Other than a few surface similarities the 2 cities have very little in common.

I'll leave it at that.

[big T]

^absolutely (directed at Kool's post)

I was in NYC a couple of months ago and couldn't help notice how many parts of the outer boroughs (specifically Brooklyn) felt like Montreal's inner residential areas. I can't remember the name of the street, but for a split second I could have sworn I was back on Cote-St-Luc and Clanranald.

This of course is not a shot at Toronto, which I also happen to like a great deal. It is in fact one of my favourite cities in the world, from what I've seen anyway. But it simply isn't part of the same "wave" of settlement / coming of age, as you put it.

I think Richard Florida called Toronto "the LA of the North" or something to that effect. I realize this will not go over well with many here, but there is some truth to that in my mind's eye. At the very least, it's pretty clear that Toronto boomed much later than most other eastern cities, which might be skewing my / our perception of it as "LA-ish" in comparison to its surroundings.

Anyway, the way I understood Kool's contention was from an utilitarian perspective, and in that respect I certainly agree that Toronto has taken over Montreal's former role, albeit with a decidedly contemporary flair, as it should. That makes it a fascinating place to experience, too.

[ue]

Okay, Kensington Market...

1.3% of residential units are in single detached houses. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-597/P3.cfm?Lang=E&CTCODE=1049&CATYPE=CMA

And as we can see, most of the housing stock consists of semi-detached and rowhouses, most of which are divided into multiple units.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/333/21425857.jpg


The Annex and Cabbagetown are much the same, albeit with an ever-so-slightly higher share of detached homes.

Don't see why you'd be debating this. You should be lucky Toronto has the different styles of housing in old style, as apparent by that aerial. It actually makes me kinda jealous. We mostly had tudor, prairie, victorian, etc. homes and a few apartments around the downtown, and a couple in the oliver neighbourhood. It may not be to the extent as Montréal, but be lucky you've got the variety of old housing you guys do. :)

[Andy6]

if i am not being accused of belittling toronto, i am instead charged with "bashing" montreal. n'importe quoi.

i think this walkups v. houses thing is getting a little abstracted and more-than-meets-the-eyeish. for all the talk of side doors and weird partitions and hidden structural density -- all of which may well be valid -- there is a visual difference between a street like palmerston and street like rue laval that contains certain truths about the culture of the cities at the time of construction, as well as their size, wealth and age. toronto's old residential streets can be many wonderful things -- ornate, urbane, dense, imposing and versatile -- but they do not have that wall-like element that is more characteristic of the continent's first wave of cities, from big ones like new york through medium ones like montreal or philadelphia to little ones like wilmington.

The truths are also probably truths about the introduction of fire codes and changing ideas about crowding, sanitation and health in the late nineteenth century. Toronto had a noteworthy aversion to apartment buildings, of which pre-1920s versions are scattered very parsimoniously around the old areas of the city, in contrast even to a newer city like apartment-loving pre-1920 Winnipeg.

Perhaps there were also issues of space, with a need in Montreal to concentrate large numbers of working people close to what was a more concentrated industrial area. In Toronto, not as focused on its port, industry sprang up all over the city, including suburban villages like Swansea and Yorkville, and therefore the workers' housing could be more spaciously arrayed in the form of two-storey terrace housing or even modest side-by-sides. I have no idea whether this is true, not being an expert in the history of either city, but maybe someone can turn it into a better theory.

[MonkeyRonin]

I grew up in Ontario and lived in Toronto and the GTA for 8 years and have lived in Montréal for almost 3. Other than a few surface similarities the 2 cities have very little in common.

And wasn't that in the 80s or 90s? Also, "GTA".

[habfanman]

And wasn't that in the 80s or 90s? Also, "GTA".

Mid 80's to early 90's: 3 in Oakville, 1 long year in Mississauga and 4 downtown.

[MonkeyRonin]

Mid 80's to early 90's: 3 in Oakville, 1 long year in Mississauga and 4 downtown.

Well, all I can say is that things change here pretty fast, and Toronto of that time isn't quite the same as it is now...

And that Oakville and Mississauga are pretty dreadful. :)

[niwell]

The truths are also probably truths about the introduction of fire codes and changing ideas about crowding, sanitation and health in the late nineteenth century. Toronto had a noteworthy aversion to apartment buildings, of which pre-1920s versions are scattered very parsimoniously around the old areas of the city, in contrast even to a newer city like apartment-loving pre-1920 Winnipeg.



Perhaps surprisingly it comes down to the puritanical attitude of the city at the time. Apartment living was synonymous with all of the urban ills that existed in large cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston and perhaps even Montreal. Hence the construction of "single family dwellings" that had multiple units. Richard Harris covers this a bit in his book "Unplanned Suburbs".

[niwell]

there is a visual difference between a street like palmerston and street like rue laval that contains certain truths about the culture of the cities at the time of construction, as well as their size, wealth and age. toronto's old residential streets can be many wonderful things -- ornate, urbane, dense, imposing and versatile -- but they do not have that wall-like element that is more characteristic of the continent's first wave of cities, from big ones like new york through medium ones like montreal or philadelphia to little ones like wilmington.



This is an excellent observation. Though the comparison of Palmerston is not a great one, as it was an exclusive gated street built far later than the surrounding neighbourhood. I digress though. The density in old Toronto is pretty high, and the city was among the densest in North America in the early 1900s. The difference from other cities at the time is twofold. One: the attitude towards apartments which led to the image of single family housing lining the streets. Two: the more or less uniform density across the city. None of it was of very high density, but by the same token there were no low density areas. This has much to do with the policies of the Toronto Street Railway prior to the loss of their concessions and formation of the TTC.

This is a topic that I've delved into in the last year or so and find extremely interesting. Especially the appearance driven ones.

[miketoronto]

Toronto is the second most dense inner city in North America after NYC.
Infact Toronto fits about one million people in an area of less than 60 sq miles.

[habfanman]

Well, all I can say is that things change here pretty fast, and Toronto of that time isn't quite the same as it is now...

And that Oakville and Mississauga are pretty dreadful. :)

Oakville is actually quite nice south of the QEW. Mississauga is simply a suburban disaster zone.

The only changes I ever notice in Toronto are more condos and office buildings, nothing else ever seems to get done. Still talking about the DRL, still destroying the waterfront, still talking about the Gardiner, and that 'thing' at Yonge and Dundas.. a square that was purpose-built to be tacky and ugly. There never seems to be any overall plan, just let the developers run wild and scatter a few half-assed improvements here and there.

[MonkeyRonin]

The only changes I ever notice in Toronto are more condos and office buildings, nothing else ever seems to get done. Still talking about the DRL, still destroying the waterfront, still talking about the Gardiner, and that 'thing' at Yonge and Dundas.. a square that was purpose-built to be tacky and ugly. There never seems to be any overall plan, just let the developers run wild and scatter a few half-assed improvements here and there.

I was talking more in terms of the general culture and atmosphere of the city, though I'm not surprised you see nothing else. It is icky Toronto after all. Everything that happens here is a failure by virtue of it happening here. :tup:

[theman23]

Oakville is actually quite nice south of the QEW. Mississauga is simply a suburban disaster zone.

The only changes I ever notice in Toronto are more condos and office buildings, nothing else ever seems to get done. Still talking about the DRL, still destroying the waterfront, still talking about the Gardiner, and that 'thing' at Yonge and Dundas.. a square that was purpose-built to be tacky and ugly. There never seems to be any overall plan, just let the developers run wild and scatter a few half-assed improvements here and there.

Except half of these are changes. Funny how you decided to throw them in there to make a rant about how "things in Toronto never change". Did you get lost halfway through your first sentence?

[le calmar]

Just for the fun of it, some aerial shots of random inner city neighbourhoods:

Toronto

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9121/torm.jpg


Montreal

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1612/mtlo.jpg

Calgary

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8341/calizk.jpg


Vancouver

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/199/vanq.jpg


Winnipeg

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/336/winbnj.jpg


Ottawa

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5734/ottq.jpg


Edmonton

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1588/edmonton.jpg


Quebec City

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9963/12556658.jpg

[ue]

^what no edmonton :P? you know, edmonton has a lot more 'older neighbourhoods' to choose from ;)!

[habfanman]

Except half of these are changes. Funny how you decided to throw them in there to make a rant about how "things in Toronto never change". Did you get lost halfway through your first sentence?

Well the waterfront would fall under the "condos and office buildings" category and Dundas Square.. that thing defies easy categorisation. It definately has changed but the opportunity to create a truly great public space was lost when the first giant beer can was installed. It's not what was first envisioned for the site.

[le calmar]

^what no edmonton :P? you know, edmonton has a lot more 'older neighbourhoods' to choose from ;)!

I was thinking about Edmonton but didn't add it for some reason but added it now, along with Quebec City :P It's interesting to see the differences in the street grid between those cities, and I just noticed how Quebec City's street grid was chaotic, even in the outter suburbs. I mean, what the hell is this? Ottawa looks a little strange too.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5052/qc2.jpg

[Andy6]

From this we can conclude that all cities are virtually identical.

[theman23]

Well the waterfront would fall under the "condos and office buildings" category
You haven't been paying attention then.

the opportunity to create a truly great public space was lost when the first giant beer can was installed.

Why?

[ue]

based on le calmar's images I'd say the density goes in this order
-Montréal
-Vancouver
-Ottawa
-Québec City
-Toronto
-Winnipeg
-Edmonton
-Calgary

[niwell]

^Yeah, it doesn't....

So the moral is that images of select inner-city neighbourhoods do not represent the overall density of the inner-city.

And this thread is beyond off-track.

[someone123]

you know they left in the 60s and 70s and not the 20s, right?

It is interesting to consider the fact that Montreal was never really simultaneously modern and economically dominant. Modern Canadian immigration policy dates to 1967, for example, and even before then Toronto had been at times receiving more than half of all of the immigrants to Canada. Furthermore, the Quiet Revolution that helped bring Montreal into the modern era was also associated with its economic decline. The liberalization was necessary but it was also reactionary and at times harmful.

If you go back much earlier there were times when Montreal was much larger and more diverse than Toronto, but no city in Canada was a real metropolis in global terms. I would argue that there has never previously been a globally competitive metropolis in Canada along the lines of what Toronto is today, even if other cities and towns were at times larger.

I do not consider myself an expert in this area but that is what I see and I think it is easy to draw superficial parallels between cities that are fundamentally very different. I'd like to read a bit more about Quebec history from the 1960s-70s era since it's personally interesting to me (my relatives left Montreal in the 70s for Halifax and still have some of Maurice Duplessis' stuff sitting in their basements - they have lots of stories to tell of that era and earlier).

The only changes I ever notice in Toronto are more condos and office buildings, nothing else ever seems to get done. Still talking about the DRL, still destroying the waterfront, still talking about the Gardiner, and that 'thing' at Yonge and Dundas.. a square that was purpose-built to be tacky and ugly. There never seems to be any overall plan, just let the developers run wild and scatter a few half-assed improvements here and there.

I don't actually mind Yonge-Dundas Square much, but I agree that it does feel contrived. Public sector money in Toronto would be better off focused more directly on institutions and services the city actually needs.

The scale of Toronto's modern public works is kind of sad relative to the size and wealth of the city. Unfortunately, this is true of almost every Canadian city. American cities seem to do better when it comes to pushing through a few "visionary" projects, but then again they are worse off when it comes to many simple social and economic factors.

[miketoronto]

I think Richard Florida called Toronto "the LA of the North" or something to that effect.

The reason Toronto is called "the LA of the north" has to do with both cities have similar and the highest metropolitan densities in North America.
Both cities suburbs are mostly tighly packed houses with smaller yards than you find in other cities, etc.

Differences however are that Toronto's inner core and downtown is much more vibrant and important to the region than downtown LA. And we have much better transit services and ridership, and our unique suburban high-rise clusters.

But in terms of density, both cities are similar. And this stems from a higher density of housing across the entire metropolitan areas, where places like NYC are dense at the core, but very low density in the suburbs.

As for Toronto's single family housing, large swaths of the inner city are semi-detached and detached housing. This includes Riverdale, The Beaches, North Toronto, High Park, Parkdale, The Annex, Rosedale, East York. I don't think this is a bad thing. Infact I think it is good in a way, because it has kept the inner city a family place where families will raise kids, instead of fleeing the inner city because there is only apartments.

[O-Town Hockey]

I was thinking about Edmonton but didn't add it for some reason but added it now, along with Quebec City It's interesting to see the differences in the street grid between those cities, and I just noticed how Quebec City's street grid was chaotic, even in the outter suburbs. I mean, what the hell is this? Ottawa looks a little strange too.

Ottawa's street grid is a bit chaotic as the streets tend to orient perpendicular to the water (2 rivers and a canal) and, as a result, not a very consistent grid pattern. Also, I think the older a neighbourhood is (Ottawa's Glebe being 140 years old) the more chance you have to lose the traditional grid pattern. It's been through so many eras of development and decline that some streets no longer line up and new streets have popped up where only laneways existed previously. This isn't the case for all central neighbourhoods as Ottawa's Centretown has an amazingly well-preserved grid pattern. Just a thought.

[kool maudit]

this is getting canada forum-ey already. let's try to remember that the goal of this thread was complimentary.

also: i like dundas square. fuck it - these things are a part of the 21st century city - so what if we know that new york had one when toronto didn't. new york had one when tokyo didn't too... we don't get pissed off at frankfurt for building skyscrapers.

giant beer cans can legitimately be said to be part of our public realm, shared culture and common understanding. yonge and dundas is the commercial centre of a great mercantile city - it is not going to be surrounded by palaces or churches or any other symbols of foreign orders.

i should go on record: for all its problems, the commercial/mercantile empire of the western nations has brought humanity a lot of wealth, freedom and ease. we're not going to ignore, say, the texas-sized patch of garbage in the pacific over it, but neither should we tear it down (or worse, live in it but act like we want to tear it down for reasons of social distinction or cachet).

giant beer cans and robots that say the names of car companies and peanut-men in monocles and spats are a central part of this culture and it's ok for them to be prominent in our cities. for what it's worth, i think they can be fun, clever and far less ponderous than royal houses or cathedrals. this is who we are. we're not a nation of land-owning aristocrats that somehow, regrettably allowed this stuff to claim our squares, and neither are we a nation of scholar-monks who need to be cleansed of our commercial residue. we're a merchant democracy.

dundas square stands.

[flar]

just a note on the built form of some cities...

Old Toronto is not as dense as Montreal but still quite dense. It's not just single family homes, though that was the ambition for early Torontonians. Toronto had many rowhouses, and is of course famous for its semis. The look of Toronto's rowhouses and semis is a very narrow 2.5 storey brick house with one or two story bay windows and front facing gable. They typically have very small front yards and some are on lots as narrow as 14 feet. Where they are single detached houses, they are built 6 inches to a foot apart, so they might as well be rowhouses as far as density is concerned. There are very few apartment buildings from the Victorian era (due to the fire code), but quite a few from the early 20th C. The early 20th C housing in Toronto is more likely to be single detached, but still many semis and they are still built very close together and 2.5 stories. Usually no driveways, parking in the back via alleys.

I'm surprised that few have commented on the endless commercial strips in Toronto, that is a cool feature of the city that helps define the urban fabric beyond downtown.

The housing and commercial strips of old Hamilton are built almost exactly the same as Toronto.

Ottawa is much different in housing form from Toronto and Hamilton, with a mixture of Quebec and Ontario. There are some plexes in Ottawa, though they often seem to be double decker instead of the triple decker ones in Montreal. Ottawa's housing is not uniform either, the streets are always a jumble of styles and eras. Although Ottawa has some rowhouses, the dominant form of the older housing (which is much less extensive than in Toronto/Hamilton) is 2 storey single detached wooden homes on narrow streets (see Hintonburg/Mechanicsville and parts of Lowertown). From old pictures of Ottawa, it appears that much of the downtown area that is now occupied by office buildings was once a hodgepodge of little wooden houses. Many of these nighbourhoods are gone now, so the old part of Ottawa seems less extensive. Sandy Hill is most like Ontario, with brick and stone construction, and also a fair number of rowhouses. The majority of the Glebe is early 20th century 2.5 storey single detached. It developed very slowly, as you go west a number of the homes were built into the 1930s. There are some older parts of the Glebe around Bank St that are Victorian, and a few rowhouses, but it's generally not as dense as older parts of Ottawa, as there are larger front yards and more space around the houses. Overall I'd say that the old parts of Ottawa are slightly less dense and urban than Hamilton and Toronto, but more urban than London and Windsor (Windsor is surprisingly urban for those unfamiliar with it).

[kool maudit]

i do like toronto's long, straight strips. montreal's always dipping out of view and staying intangible.

[rousseau]

i do like toronto's long, straight strips. montreal's always dipping out of view and staying intangible.
Yeah. On the other hand, would it kill Toronto to have some commercial side streets? Strolls in Toronto suck because you only go straight for miles, unless maybe you make it to Bloor, say. The only notable exception (and a good one, of course) is Kensington.

P.S.: kool maudit, you sometimes say things that I hadn't realized I was thinking. I envy you that.

[G.S MTL]

I was just in Toronto this past weekend and I enjoyed it....I feeel like every time i go to Toronto it gets busier and busier in the downtown core...... a lot of people there during the day... :)....Yonge street is cool.. i like it ...i wish MTL had something similar to that...like dundas square....it makes it feeel and look like a big city.. to me of course lol.... umm nightlife in toronto well i have visited maybe 11 times and Its not like MTL but i enjoy T.O....OH i also love Pearson Airport!!.....so organized and quick... i mean i landed and i got my luggage like litterally 10 minutes after landing lol it was great!!!!

[kool maudit]

we should turn the foot of mcgill college into a sort of commercial area... it's already bust as hell, it has many surfaces and walls, excellent buildings and a very monumental feel - if done right it could be one of the best such places.

ps: thanks, rousseau.

[NetMapel]

we should turn the foot of mcgill college into a sort of commercial area... it's already bust as hell, it has many surfaces and walls, excellent buildings and a very monumental feel - if done right it could be one of the best such places.

ps: thanks, rousseau.

I visited McGill before and I loved the area around their front gate. It's got so much history there and I totally would hate to see the area changed. Historic buildings go well with historic university :)

[G.S MTL]

we should turn the foot of mcgill college into a sort of commercial area... it's already bust as hell, it has many surfaces and walls, excellent buildings and a very monumental feel - if done right it could be one of the best such places.

ps: thanks, rousseau.

yep!! i can seeee it.....

http://blog.jpmonette.net/images/blog/0050/avenue-mcgill.jpg
http://blog.jpmonette.net/images/blog/0050/avenue-mcgill.jpg

[kool maudit]

I visited McGill before and I loved the area around their front gate. It's got so much history there and I totally would hate to see the area changed. Historic buildings go well with historic university :)

not near the roddick gates - that would be terrible - but near sainte-catherine and mcgill college. that way, the avenue would become a sort of passageway from the elegant unversity grounds, through the high-toned environs of the sherbrooke street businesses down into the chaotic mercantile strip... that would be awesome.

[G.S MTL]

I love our saint catherine st

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/105514554_14f487d1cf.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherdewolf

[vid]

You have to credit the photographer, not paste the url of the image below the page. Where did you get the image from? The image's url doesn't tell you.

[G.S MTL]

You have to credit the photographer, not paste the url of the image below the page. Where did you get the image from? The image's url doesn't tell you.

i found it on goodle but i know who he is...ill correct it

[Mille Sabords]

Ottawa is much different in housing form from Toronto and Hamilton, with a mixture of Quebec and Ontario. There are some plexes in Ottawa, though they often seem to be double decker instead of the triple decker ones in Montreal. Ottawa's housing is not uniform either, the streets are always a jumble of styles and eras. Although Ottawa has some rowhouses, the dominant form of the older housing (which is much less extensive than in Toronto/Hamilton) is 2 storey single detached wooden homes on narrow streets (see Hintonburg/Mechanicsville and parts of Lowertown). From old pictures of Ottawa, it appears that much of the downtown area that is now occupied by office buildings was once a hodgepodge of little wooden houses. Many of these nighbourhoods are gone now, so the old part of Ottawa seems less extensive. Sandy Hill is most like Ontario, with brick and stone construction, and also a fair number of rowhouses. The majority of the Glebe is early 20th century 2.5 storey single detached. It developed very slowly, as you go west a number of the homes were built into the 1930s. There are some older parts of the Glebe around Bank St that are Victorian, and a few rowhouses, but it's generally not as dense as older parts of Ottawa, as there are larger front yards and more space around the houses. Overall I'd say that the old parts of Ottawa are slightly less dense and urban than Hamilton and Toronto, but more urban than London and Windsor (Windsor is surprisingly urban for those unfamiliar with it).

These are good observations Flar and the only thing I would add is that much of the housing stock in the older neighbourhoods (including the Glebe) may still "look" like detached houses but have been duplexed, triplexed and fouplexed long ago. Also invisible from the street are the tons of rear additions that have been made over the years to detached houses after they became triplexes and have thus become eight-plexes etc. So, while the urban form continues to "look the same", the number of households per square km. increased quite a bit. (population may not have changed much, though, since the average number of people per household is now much smaller)

[miketoronto]

I love our saint catherine st


As far as I am concerned there is nothing like St Catherine Street anywhere else in Canada. That is one amazing street, and just has a beauty to it, big city feel, streetlife, etc. Add in that grand view up McGill College Ave etc.

You Montreal may people may hate St Catherine Street as some place that tourists must stroll down, but it is one amazing street.

[kool maudit]

if yonge became bloor south of dundas you'd have the same thing.

[caltrane74]

I think it would be cool if Montreal got a media square... I don't care what people say about dundas square being a rip off from Times Square. It is easily one of the most interesting and busy places in Toronto on the most consistant basis. - Even after 9 when the stores close up....there are still tonnes of people there in the spring, summer and fall.

I have a feeling if Montreal did a media square, you guys would probably do a better job than toronto's most mechanical approach to this urban space.

[Martin Mtl]

we should turn the foot of mcgill college into a sort of commercial area... it's already bust as hell, it has many surfaces and walls, excellent buildings and a very monumental feel - if done right it could be one of the best such places.

ps: thanks, rousseau.

Oh, please, no. Seriously, have you seen Dundas Square? I mean I like neon and video screens as much as the next person, but NOT static, backlit, highway-style signs. They are so boring, cheap and ugly. It would totaly ruin McGill College, which is pretty classy as it is.

[Martin Mtl]

This is a new public square that just opened in downtown Montreal, one of four being build around Place des Arts. I much prefer this to a Dudans Square type of public space.

Images from Flickr


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3627912486_ab538925e7_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/3627095609_23d8ea0312_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3303/3627098115_e183b1881c_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/3627906414_22afd8c835_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3627908406_aa17df5cd9_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2432/3627905396_b9f0c9ee7e_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2438/3614632364_20ac74783a_b.jpg

by pierre_indico

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3627793638_71e089b071_b.jpg

by urb_mtl

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/3627791852_9d7eb45dbf_b.jpg

by urb_mtl

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3627788472_8171256d46_b.jpg

by urb_mtl

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3627929908_8fd55ba274_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3627931118_e260295710_b.jpg

by clic101

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3626982263_41424dedaf_b.jpg

by urb_mtl[/QUOTE]

[vid]

If there are tonnes of people there after 9, why would the stores close up then?

[Martin Mtl]

Maybe a giant leed screen on the western blind wall of the Eaton Center. That would be cool. And some video screens on the base of the Rogers building. But where else? In any case, the city of Montreal doesn't allow for that, so we won't see anything like that unless they change de law. The corner of St-Laurent and Ste-Catherine will see some kind of leed actions with the future 2-22 building; it's glass wall, 8 storeys high, will act like a giant screen to promote music and theatre shows in the Quartier des spectacles. That should be pretty cool.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3573896825_de5fdfdd61_o.jpg

[Rico Rommheim]

My only complaint with la place du festival is the rather low-rent quality of buildings surrounding it. And that includes the despicable Hyatt.


Maybe a giant leed screen on the western blind wall of the Eaton Center. That would be cool. And some video screens on the base of the Rogers building. But where else? In any case, the city of Montreal doesn't allow for that, so we won't see anything like that unless they change de law. The corner of St-Laurent and Ste-Catherine will see some kind of leed actions with the future 2-22 building; it's glass wall, 8 storeys high, will act like a giant screen to promote music and theatre shows in the Quartier des spectacles. That should be pretty cool.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3573896825_de5fdfdd61_o.jpg


Wait...that's the 2-22??? You telling me this is the project that's causing all the NIMBYs to come out in droves because of its height???? I thought le 2-22 was to be a 15 storey tower!

[Martin Mtl]

Nobody is complaining about the heigh of the 2-22 (except the owner of Club Soda who made a fool of himself by doing so). It's the building accross the street, the future Hydro offices, that is controversial with it's 15 storeys. Only in Montreal.