The Lives and Deaths of Cities

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Brasseurs du Temps
L'Aubergiste
British Hôtel

Also, earlier this year: Les Vilains Garçons.

I've never been to any of them but I've seen them in Aylmer. So sad that they are gone as those are the types of places that my wife and I like when we visit Quebec.

I can see why those types of places are closing because they are likely much more affected by rising costs and with people having less disposable income. And places that rely too much on sales of beer and other alcoholic beverages are more at risk.

In Timmins we haven't had any restaurant closures that I can think of and in fact had places open during and after the pandemic. But, none of them were anything good with the exception of one that opened and is owned and run by family members of mine haha. But everything new is more focused on takeout and delivery apps where very few people dine in.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

On the other hand..

There's another trend in grocery called "skimpflation", where they reduce the quality of the ingredients in the product, by adding more artificial flavourings, removing expensive fats for cheap oils, etc. Like ice cream for example. Take a close look at the ice cream section next time you're at the supermarket. You'll notice some of the SKUs are labelled "frozen dessert" or "frozen dairy dessert" instead of "ice cream".. because they no longer have any cream in them. It's now skim milk powder and vegetable oil.

I worry that while "shrinkflation" might make people healthier, "skimpflation" will make people less healthy.

Eat less package foods and you'll avoid that crap. Let's be honest, the reason 1 in 3 adult Canucks is overweight or obese (and getting worse) is not because of ingredient quality in the ice cream. It's because they are eating ice cream by the tub. There's long been an obsession with quantity over quality in the US and Canada. The people who buy the "frozen dessert" are exactly the type of people who need shrinkflation.

[Nashe]

Food: On the flip side, it's a great time to go on a diet and control your portion sizes. We're shopping at less and less "chic" grocery stores... saving money at places like Giant Tiger and No Frills and (gasp) Walmart. You gotta hunt a bit, but it definitely saves money.

Large City Vibes: I kinda (naively, I'm sure) see Toronto becoming like a blended wine. All of the components are there, but the medley isn't as potent/aggressive/unique as the constituent parts. It's still good, don't get me wrong (who doesn't like a nice blend?) but it's very different than the unique (and often hit/miss) vibes you get from smaller cities that have less "balanced" notes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

My friends who live there tell me how wonderful of a place it is to raise children. I've visit Montreal quite often and don't see how the city represents the whole province's political climate. Some of it sure but most people in the city are quite open to the outside world.

I find that a lot of ROCers tend to exaggerate the "political climate" in Quebec and its effects on everyday life. Sure there have been issues with language since... forever, and even laïcité has been a topic of discussion for about a dozen years. I don't really think anything has changed that much recently when it comes to this stuff. Just more of the same so if you could hack it in 2016 you can certainly hack it now.

As for Montreal if anywhere is a potential flashpoint it would actually be it, as opposed to other regions of the province where there tends to be more of a consensus on such matters (though not necessarily unanimity). Montreal has a large number of people who espouse the Québécois consensus living next to large numbers of people who espouse the ROC consensus. You don't have that in most of the rest of Quebec so that's why "political climate" actually matters more in Montreal than elsewhere. Still, as I said I don't see much of a change recently out there on the streets.

Sometimes I think that when ROCers cite the "political climate" in Quebec it's just code for "I should be able to speak English everywhere I want there and everyone I encounter should respond to me in that language".

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Loco101

My friends who live there tell me how wonderful of a place it is to raise children. I've visit Montreal quite often and don't see how the city represents the whole province's political climate. Some of it sure but most people in the city are quite open to the outside world.

If you can ignore the politics and the potholes, Montreal is a fantastic place to raise a family, as long as you are prepared to exert the effort to learn French. It has layers of urban fabric that are unmatched in Canada. It has the most extensive set of walkable neighborhoods. It is still, relatively-speaking, affordable for renters and home buyers. The taxes in Quebec are of course higher but the benefits to parents (e.g., daycare) more than make up for it. The healthcare system is, however, quite creaky.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

If you can ignore the politics and the potholes, Montreal is a fantastic place to raise a family, as long as you are prepared to exert the effort to learn French. It has layers of urban fabric that are unmatched in Canada. It has the most extensive set of walkable neighborhoods. It is still, relatively-speaking, affordable for renters and home buyers. The taxes in Quebec are of course higher but the benefits to parents (e.g., daycare) more than make up for it. The healthcare system is, however, quite creaky.

Most of the ROC-perceived headaches about the place kind of disappear if some level of French proficiency is acquired. It's really not that hard.

In my opinion, it's an excellent place to raise a family for many of the reasons you listed, which is why we deliberately relocated here from Toronto. The offerings are just very, very attractive. Almost automatic bilingualism for our son is such a major win. I'd argue that nothing opens you up to the world more than knowing multiple languages.

But yes, the healthcare system is not so good.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sometimes I think that when ROCers cite the "political climate" in Quebec it's just code for "I should be able to speak English everywhere I want there and everyone I encounter should respond to me in that language".

Mmm.... I agree.

I've noticed one exception, however. Come Osheaga weekend, every large group of 20-somethings from Markham or Richmond Hill will contain one token friend who goes to McGill and can speak basic, passable French (for which they should be applauded, particularly within the current context). This friend is central to the operations of the group and conducts all interactions/interventions with the Québécois.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Zeej

In my opinion, it's an excellent place to raise a family for many of the reasons you listed, which is why we deliberately relocated here from Toronto. The offerings are just very, very attractive. Almost automatic bilingualism for our son is such a major win. I'd argue that nothing opens you up to the world more than knowing multiple languages.

But at least half of Torontonians speak another language than English and raise their kids in it.

I don’t think the average Torontonian is any more blind to the world than the average Montrealer. It’s certainly more blind to the Francophone world. It’s probably more blind to a particular vision of Canada that a Montreal-based political class set for the rest of the country in the 1970s. But it’s not more blind to what the world has to offer, in aggregate.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sometimes I think that when ROCers cite the "political climate" in Quebec it's just code for "I should be able to speak English everywhere I want there and everyone I encounter should respond to me in that language".

Couldn’t agree more. Even in Rimouski I’ve had multiple encounters where I’ve completely butchered my French in front of strangers, and they were very nice about it and even understand the struggle because they know firsthand that French is a very difficult language to learn. if you make the effort to speak French they more likely than not will appreciate and even correct you. Some cases they would even switch to English anyway because it made me more comfortable (and probably wanted to practice their English anyway).

In fact I think one of the problems is that it’s taboo to correct someone’s English in the rest of the country, and in France/Québec correcting someone is to help them. I bet people who talk about the “political climate” are disgruntled anglo Canadians who got their horrid French corrected by a Quebecer and felt it was an attack on their identity .

Back to the topic, I agree with the consensus about Montréal building something special, but I think y’all are being a bit too harsh on Toronto. There’s nowhere in North America besides NYC imo that has better cuisine, and the thing that makes Toronto special is that you can find everything. Whether you want the skyscrapers by the lake, the mansions by the ravines, or the grunge in Danforth there’s everything in between. Personally, I wish more neighborhoods were like the West Village and Corktown but hey different strokes for different folks.

Also, go to any other North American city and you won’t find the foot traffic that Toronto has in the Downtown besides NYC and maybe Montreal. The nightlife is pretty damn good as well especially for people in their early-mid 20’s such as myself. It’s a big reason why I’m visiting again during my Christmas vacation. Also, we don’t give enough credit for their relatively extensive streetcar network protecting a lot of the vibrancy in the inner city neighborhoods.

Toronto is a city of vanity and I’m very superficial so that must be why I like it lol.

[kool maudit]

It was interesting to read some of the rebuttals to my idea that Montreal is adrift. But I should clarify: it is not that the city's skill (best in Canada) at urban design and infrastructure is unimportant. It's not that quality of life in Montreal is low and it is certainly not that Montreal should be an Anglophone city (if anything, I agree with Jane Jacobs on that).

It's the metrics. It's the context.

Montreal is oblique to its North American peer cities for linguistic reasons but it does not directly compete with places like Lyon or Geneva either. It seems to perceive itself as following the path of Amsterdam or Copenhagen, but those cities do not only have automated mass transit and bike lanes. They have stock exchanges and embassies as well.

Early 20th-century Montreal may have been a kind of high-Gini "fireplace Chicago", but it was also a giant and a record-breaker. Could the city be overcorrecting in the opposite direction?

How many flights does Montreal's airport have? How many assets do its companies control? How many headquarters does it have? If we shift away from economic power, or rule it to be an irrelevant marker for this city, what are the endowments of its universities? What does its main library look like? Is it home to prominent architects, or are the prominent architects of the era, even if based elsewhere, represented in its large constructions? How renowned are its museums?

Is Montreal ascending in either absolute or relative terms?

Some of the cities we might think about as "well, it's not some sort of huge metropolis but people there live pretty well" can also pull off some big stuff. Copenhagen has opened 35 24-hour metro stations in the past 20 years. One of them is located at its new, USD 500m opera house. It is still renovating all of its squares and lanes as well, and Novo Nordisk has invented a new drug that fat Americans are gobbling at such a speed that the central bank is struggling to maintain the exchange rate.

It's a brand-new drug that was invented out of nothing in Copenhagen and all of the money from it is going to Copenhagen in giant bags.

What I am saying is, Montreal as viewed from the outside can give the impression of a place that is doing the best with what it has, which is certainly more than one can say for most Canadian cities, but how are we doing on "what it has"? How are the fundamentals?

Viewed dispassionately, one could say it is a very nice city, but a weak one. It used to be a very strong one that was maybe not so nice. Surely it would be better to score highly on both.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

Toronto is a city of vanity

If only. I think it is much more of a penny-pinching city, albeit one with a very large pile of pennies.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But at least half of Torontonians speak another language than English and raise their kids in it.

I don’t think the average Torontonian is any more blind to the world than the average Montrealer. It’s certainly more blind to the Francophone world. It’s probably more blind to a particular vision of Canada that a Montreal-based political class set for the rest of the country in the 1970s. But it’s not more blind to what the world has to offer, in aggregate.

Mmmmaybe. Toronto perhaps more than any other city does have xenophilia as part of its contemporary ethos. Though Montreal almost certainly has the largest share of its population that is trilingual of any city in Canada and the USA. Montreal isn't just 90% French Canadians who happen to know English.

I am also pretty sure that in Montreal ethnic communities hold on to their old languages longer than they do in Toronto and most places. I've seen studies but am too lazy to look it up right now.

Italian Montrealers speak Italian, French and English, whereas Italian Torontonians may speak Italian and English.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

But at least half of Torontonians speak another language than English and raise their kids in it.

I don’t think the average Torontonian is any more blind to the world than the average Montrealer. It’s certainly more blind to the Francophone world. It’s probably more blind to a particular vision of Canada that a Montreal-based political class set for the rest of the country in the 1970s. But it’s not more blind to what the world has to offer, in aggregate.

I'm not asserting that Toronto is necessarily at a deficit. I'm pointing out that here, bilingualism can be, despite the prevailing political winds, very easily achieved to the point where it has become the default for younger generations. This is a net advantage over many places in the anglosphere. Perhaps not so much Toronto, which as we all know is extremely diverse and very global in its outlook. My post wasn't meant to be an indictement of Toronto - we very much enjoyed our time there, but ultimately it was time to move on. Now, we very much enjoy visiting!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

If only. I think it is much more of a penny-pinching city, albeit one with a very large pile of pennies.

As the chosen city of Canada's most monied classes, Toronto can be said to underperform a bit relative to everything it has working in its favour.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It was interesting to read some of the rebuttals to my idea that Montreal is adrift. But I should clarify: it is not that the city's skill (best in Canada) at urban design and infrastructure is unimportant. It's not that quality of life in Montreal is low and it is certainly not that Montreal should be an Anglophone city (if anything, I agree with Jane Jacobs on that).

It's the metrics. It's the context.

Montreal is oblique to its North American peer cities for linguistic reasons but it does not directly compete with places like Lyon or Geneva either. It seems to perceive itself as following the path of Amsterdam or Copenhagen, but those cities do not only have automated mass transit and bike lanes. They have stock exchanges and embassies as well.

Early 20th-century Montreal may have been a kind of high-Gini "fireplace Chicago", but it was also a giant and a record-breaker. Could the city be overcorrecting in the opposite direction?

How many flights does Montreal's airport have? How many assets do its companies control? How many headquarters does it have? If we shift away from economic power, or rule it to be an irrelevant marker for this city, what are the endowments of its universities? What does its main library look like? Is it home to prominent architects, or are the prominent architects of the era, even if based elsewhere, represented in its large constructions? How renowned are its museums?

Is Montreal ascending in either absolute or relative terms?

Some of the cities we might think about as "well, it's not some sort of huge metropolis but people there live pretty well" can also pull off some big stuff. Copenhagen has opened 35 24-hour metro stations in the past 20 years. One of them is located at its new, USD 500m opera house. It is still renovating all of its squares and lanes as well, and Novo Nordisk has invented a new drug that fat Americans are gobbling at such a speed that the central bank is struggling to maintain the exchange rate.

It's a brand-new drug that was invented out of nothing in Copenhagen and all of the money from it is going to Copenhagen in giant bags.

What I am saying is, Montreal as viewed from the outside can give the impression of a place that is doing the best with what it has, which is certainly more than one can say for most Canadian cities, but how are we doing on "what it has"? How are the fundamentals?

Viewed dispassionately, one could say it is a very nice city, but a weak one. It used to be a very strong one that was maybe not so nice. Surely it would be better to score highly on both.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Montreal, even though I myself indicated that its renaissance still appears quite fragile.

It's still somewhat handicapped by the fact that the business culture of the country it is a part of, often doesn't even see it as the country's second city. Though I suppose this is an improvement over the decades when one sometimes had the impression that Canadian business wanted to punish Montreal for having been forced (sic) to get out of town.

Ultimately, in order for it to attain its full potential as you've described (or at least make a play for that type of status), then the "Jane Jacobs" solution you refer to probably needs to be applied. Though that wouldn't come without some big risks. (I also don't think hardly anyone aside from us thinks about or realizes that - not even the PQ I'd guess.)

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Is it home to prominent architects, or are the prominent architects of the era, even if based elsewhere, represented in its large constructions?

Is Montreal ascending in either absolute or relative terms?

I'm going to bite off this morsel, as it relates to the city being ascendent (or not), as it's what I do.

I don't think the city markets the areas in which it could be considered 'mighty' very well. I also don't think that Montrealers are terribly preoccupied with its 'rayonnement à l'international.'

Montreal, and Canada at large, is not home to any starchitects. There's no Bjarke Ingels, no Hadid (RIP), no Foster. Gehry was born in Toronto but decamped for Los Angeles decades ago.

That being said, Montreal and Canada at large has and is developing some superb designers who contribute locally and internationally.

Provencher Roy, Saucier + Perrotte, the recently deceased Claude Cormier (RIP) are all very obvious examples of home grown talents who shape our city and who have been solicited to shape others as a result of their success. Our main library was designed by John Patkau. He's kind of a big deal. It's been a while since I.M Pei and Mies Van de Rohe have worked to erect our towers, but in the meantime, and in part inspired by their works, we've cultivated a generation of our own visionaries.

And just for fun and kind of because you asked, Montreal has 3 fortune 500 companies (Canada has 14). Copenhagen has 1 (Denmark has 3). Stockholm has 0 (Sweden has 1). We have 2 of the largest engineering companies in the world (2 in the top 30, add Stantec and Canada has 3).

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think you're being a bit harsh on Montreal

I am. I think we here on SSP Canada can be a little less-than-candid on that city sometimes. This is probably because its horizons are bound by the delicate compromises of post-1995 Canadian federalism. But it's too big to be a boutique or lifestyle city, like Charleston or Brighton, and it's too weak to be a North American giant. I think it's in an awkward place from the perspective of its own metropolitan history.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I am. I think we here on SSP Canada can be a little less-than-candid on that city sometimes. This is probably because its horizons are bound by the delicate compromises of post-1995 Canadian federalism. But it's too big to be a boutique or lifestyle city, like Charleston or Brighton, and it's too weak to be a North American giant. I think it's in an awkward place from the perspective of its own metropolitan history.

Enter Jane Jacobs, then.

Of course the Montreal Gazette disagrees.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/jane-jacobs-got-it-wrong

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I also don't think that Montrealers are terribly preoccupied with its 'rayonnement à l'international.'

I don't think so either, but I think this risks becoming a bit of a line, a bit like Berlin's "poor but sexy" thing.

The things that permit Montrealers to be a little insouciant about the metrics, things like its architectural heritage and infrastructure, are the products of earlier eras that were VERY MUCH about the metrics.

Maybe it's not so bad to take a decade or three like this, especially when things are a little awkward at the highest historical levels, but there is a price for that.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

. But it's too big to be a boutique or lifestyle city, like Charleston or Brighton, and it's too weak to be a North American giant. .

It doesn't need to be either though. Frankly, and as you've eluded to, Canada itself needs substantial change if any of its cities hope to attain North American giant status, particularly when viewed from the GDP or GDP/capita lense (imo, kind of a weak metric when comparing to US cities).

Montreal is a functional medium or large-ish city within the North American context. I think the 5-million person plateau that we'll soon hit grants you entry into the big city club. We are economically limited because we are in Quebec. We are economically limited because we are in Canada. It's just what it is.

There is no Chicago here. Maybe for the best.