The Lives and Deaths of Cities

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It really is one of the most interesting cities in the Americas. Nothing else in Canada compares. It has lived so many lives.

Edit: Maybe its current, vaguely desultory second-city status is a form of retirement or respite from everything it has gone through. Like Alexandria or Thessaloniki.

Why do you think francophone and anglophone Canadians have been fighting over control of it for decades?

(No one fights over Toronto! )

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And I think pretty much everyone agrees that even without the language politics and separation threat, Toronto still would have overtaken Montreal as Canada's largest and most powerful city. It was written in the stars that it would happen. Montreal might have held out longer and might be closer to Toronto in size today, but at least without Bill 101 it would arguably have lost its soul and probably just be a bigger, grittier Ottawa today.

I disagree with this assessment. Lots of non-English speaking cities have dynamic economies. It's convenient for separatists to blame Bill 101. Bit of a sour grapes argument. Really, it was the separatism that drove the exodus. Not the push to preserve French. Who wants to invest or stay invested in a region that is promising to undergo the chaos of separation? There's no way to be sure your investment is safe in that kind of environment. And not only did Quebec have a referendum once. But twice in 15 years. I can't imagine anybody really wanting to seriously invest in that kind of a political environment.

I think way too many Quebecers are simply naive to how capital works. It's why they don't understand the impact of those referendums. Hence why you get this naïve nonsense about, "They left because we made them speak French."

Just imagine, you incorporate a business under federal law in Montreal. Quebec decides to leave. Your business now goes from being subject to English Common Law to Civil Law in a country that has not really thought through much beyond language and culture issues. Imagine betting a multi-billion dollar business on, "They'll figure it out.". We'll you wouldn't do that. And that's exactly why the major businesses that could, decided to decamp for the nearest major Canadian city with no political risk (Ottawa would be risky too).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I disagree with this assessment. Lots of non-English speaking cities have dynamic economies. It's convenient for separatists to blame Bill 101. Bit of a sour grapes argument. Really, it was the separatism that drove the exodus. Not the push to preserve French. Who wants to invest or stay invested in a region that is promising to undergo the chaos of separation? There's no way to be sure your investment is safe in that kind of environment. And not only did Quebec have a referendum once. But twice in 15 years. I can't imagine anybody really wanting to seriously invest in that kind of a political environment.

I think way too many Quebecers are simply naive to how capital works. It's why they don't understand the impact of those referendums. Hence why you get this naïve nonsense about, "They left because we made them speak French."

Just imagine, you incorporate a business under federal law in Montreal. Quebec decides to leave. Your business now goes from being subject to English Common Law to Civil Law in a country that has not really thought through much beyond language and culture issues. Imagine betting a multi-billion dollar business on, "They'll figure it out.". We'll you wouldn't do that. And that's exactly why the major businesses that could, decided to decamp for the nearest major Canadian city with no political risk (Ottawa would be risky too).

Oh the separation menace played a huge role too. Wasn't suggesting otherwise. But without Bill 101 Montréal would not be a mainly francophone city today.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Oh the separation menace played a huge role too. Wasn't suggesting otherwise. But without Bill 101 Montréal would not be a mainly francophone city today.

Maybe. But it's disingenuous to pretend that Montreal was deindustrialized by Bill 101. And you're not the first Francophone I've heard that from. A pretty ridiculous suggestion because lots of companies routinely operate in countries with different languages. Change of language isn't a threat. Change of laws is a different matter.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Just imagine, you incorporate a business under federal law in Montreal. Quebec decides to leave. Your business now goes from being subject to English Common Law to Civil Law in a country that has not really thought through much beyond language and culture issues. Imagine betting a multi-billion dollar business on, "They'll figure it out.". We'll you wouldn't do that. And that's exactly why the major businesses that could, decided to decamp for the nearest major Canadian city with no political risk (Ottawa would be risky too).

Every business in Quebec has to abide by Quebec law, which is to say the civil code. In terms of corporate registration and its obligations, the differences between registering federally and provincially are trivial.

[ssiguy]

This thread is getting way off track so no more Montreal/Quebec separatism talk, there is already a thread for that.

This thread is a very timely one as many of our cities {large & small} are suffering from death by growth. All of our cities are suffering from rising homeless populations, drug addiction, traffic woes, wealth inequality, overburdened transit systems, and unfortunately have no financial resources to solve the problems.

Provincial gov't are already under financial pressure especially due to skyrocketing health costs and Ottawa is going out of it's way to make the situation worse for our cities by bringing in 1.1 million people a year and then forgetting about them and letting the cities deal with it. With Trudeau at the helm the situation will only become worse. Is it time for our cities to put Ottawa's feat to the fire and collectively state that they will no longer be providing any housing or social services to anyone other than a Canadian citizen? Is this the only way we will see real change?

Is it time for our cities to follow labour's lead by organizing and going on strike and withdrawing their services until they get a better deal? Perhaps it's time for our cities to put a collective gun at Ottawa's head.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This thread is getting way off track so no more Montreal/Quebec separatism talk, there is already a thread for that.

This thread is a very timely one as many of our cities {large & small} are suffering from death by growth. All of our cities are suffering from rising homeless populations, drug addiction, traffic woes, wealth inequality, overburdened transit systems, and unfortunately have no financial resources to solve the problems.

Provincial gov't are already under financial pressure especially due to skyrocketing health costs and Ottawa is going out of it's way to make the situation worse for our cities by bringing in 1.1 million people a year and then forgetting about them and letting the cities deal with it.

With Trudeau at the helm the situation will only become worse. Is it time for our cities to put Ottawa's feat to the fire and collectively state that they will no longer be providing any housing or social services to anyone other than a Canadian citizen? Is this the only way we will see real change?

Is it time for our cities to organize and go on strike and withdraw their services until they get a better deal??

I agree with everything you're saying but I would just like to point out that out of all those immigrants coming in many of them will leave. The government knows this that's why they are bringing in an unprecendented amount of people. We are already seeing a record number of immigrants leave now. You are right though, even if only half of those immigrants stay it will still add the housing crisis among other things.

I saw this recent article posted elsewhere about people leaving. It's not just the high COL that is driving people away.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anti-worki...ain-why-they-re-leaving-canada-1.6634641

[Loco101]

I find it interesting how some comments on here seem to suggest that the largest American cities are doing so much better than the largest Canadian ones. But the three largest U.S. city metro areas (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago) are all losing people while the metro areas of the three largest Canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) are growing quite rapidly.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Toronto must have the most new, under construction and proposed skyscrapers of any place in the Western Hemisphere.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Every business in Quebec has to abide by Quebec law, which is to say the civil code. In terms of corporate registration and its obligations, the differences between registering federally and provincially are trivial.

Trivial today and to you. Not so much to shareholders staring into the abyss of independence. Like I said, a lot of Quebecers don't understand capital. And sovereignists are always ready to minimize and trivialize the concerns of capitalists, despite a proven track record (inside and outside Canada) of capital fleeing instability.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Provincial gov't are already under financial pressure especially due to skyrocketing health costs and Ottawa is going out of it's way to make the situation worse for our cities by bringing in 1.1 million people a year and then forgetting about them and letting the cities deal with it. With Trudeau at the helm the situation will only become worse. Is it time for our cities to put Ottawa's feat to the fire and collectively state that they will no longer be providing any housing or social services to anyone other than a Canadian citizen? Is this the only way we will see real change?

Is it time for our cities to follow labour's lead by organizing and going on strike and withdrawing their services until they get a better deal? Perhaps it's time for our cities to put a collective gun at Ottawa's head.

Cities have zero rights under our Constitution. They are creations of the provinces. And the feds don't really tell them what to do. The feds simply use the purse to achieve their goals. Funny. I don't see any cities turning down Housing Accelerator Funding. All of them are modifying zoning to qualify. If any city refuses to comply, their funds simply get re-allocated. You can campaign and tell your city to refuse the funding.

As for cities and problems of growth, many of them are entirely the fault of cities. How many decades have we discussed Missing Middle Housing? This many years have they been hiking development fees instead of raising property taxes? My only complaint is that the feds aren't more aggressive with cities. The CPC is promising to give them even more stick.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I find it interesting how some comments on here seem to suggest that the largest American cities are doing so much better than the largest Canadian ones. But the three largest U.S. city metro areas (New York, Los Angeles and Chicago) are all losing people while the metro areas of the three largest Canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) are growing quite rapidly.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Toronto must have the most new, under construction and proposed skyscrapers of any place in the Western Hemisphere.

There's not a lot of options in Canada though. The US has a lot of cities and a diverse economy. Canada doesn't. There's a lot of industries where your only choice might be TMV or even just T.

Also, those skyscrapers are exactly the problem. I wish people didn't see them as symbols of success and saw them as policy failures. It's only thing to have skyscrapers for offices. It's another to stuff people into shoeboxes in the sky because there city doesn't want to build gentle density everywhere. Those skyscraper condos are actually contributing to misery in the GTA.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, those skyscrapers are exactly the problem. I wish people didn't see them as symbols of success and saw them as policy failures. It's only thing to have skyscrapers for offices. It's another to stuff people into shoeboxes in the sky because there city doesn't want to build gentle density everywhere. Those skyscraper condos are actually contributing to misery in the GTA.

Heresy on this forum but totally true.

[MolsonExport]

Maybe this belongs in the housing thread, but it is cool to see Montreal being extolled as a place offering lessons in housing and urban design, after so many decades of the city being labelled stagnant or declining (or worse: that horrible McLean's article/cover from about 13 years ago).

Learning from Montreal: An Affordable and Inclusive City

[MolsonExport]

• Video Link

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's not a lot of options in Canada though. The US has a lot of cities and a diverse economy. Canada doesn't. There's a lot of industries where your only choice might be TMV or even just T.

Also, those skyscrapers are exactly the problem. I wish people didn't see them as symbols of success and saw them as policy failures. It's only thing to have skyscrapers for offices. It's another to stuff people into shoeboxes in the sky because there city doesn't want to build gentle density everywhere. Those skyscraper condos are actually contributing to misery in the GTA.

Interesting point to read on SSP.

North York around Yonge is the perfect example of this with residential skyscrapers standing almost right next to single-family homes. I know people in the towers aren't poor for the most part but there is still a huge abrupt dichotomy between how much space there is in the SFHs versus in the condos.

It's like we're protecting the spacious privilege of a few (landed gentry as Lio says) and packing everyone else who isn't into much smaller spaces.

When a more "missing middle" approach to housing development would allow way more people to live in somewhat more spacious digs.

(I mean, I fully realize that there are reasons for this, and I know why we aren't razing entire SFH neighbourhoods to build missing middle Haussmannian Paris six-storey buildings. It's still a failing in that we're not producing good housing outcomes for millions of Canadians, in all sorts of ways.)

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Heresy on this forum but totally true.

Yes it is. Shocking how reserve the reaction has been to that idea.

In Vancouver (and Victoria) new multi-family is either concrete towers or these 4-5 story wood frame apartment buildings. I would much rather be in one of the towers than those wood frame buildings.

We should be aspiring to be a modern city and not aspiring to be new-Paris.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Yes it is. Shocking how reserve the reaction has been to that idea.

In Vancouver (and Victoria) new multi-family is either concrete towers or these 4-5 story wood frame apartment buildings. I would much rather be in one of the towers than those wood frame buildings.

We should be aspiring to be a modern city and not aspiring to be new-Paris.

Screw that. Outside of a handful of Asian cities with very tight controls, there's never a place where the towers of today don't become the slums of tomorrow. And this is especially true in newer places where a nice new development is always a few months away.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Screw that. Outside of a handful of Asian cities with very tight controls, there's never a place where the towers of today don't become the slums of tomorrow. And this is especially true in newer places where a nice new development is always a few months away.

This is a bit of a slap-in-the-face post, because it almost feels like you're the only person in all of Canada who has thought that all of these newish towers in our cities could become shitholes eventually.

Kind of like Hillbrow in Johannesburg.

I wish you hadn't said it.

[niwell]

I'd be very wary of extolling Montreal's relative advantages in affordability as a result of urban design. Yes, it's true that the city has the most traditionally "urban" housing typology in older parts of the city, but there's nothing particularly special about current policies when it comes to development permissiveness (current rental laws help rental affordability while they last). The difference between plex neighbourhoods in Montreal vs tightly packed semis/rows in Old Toronto - many of which contain multiple apartments - isn't that wide on the ground. More aesthetic than vibe-related. One interesting thing of course is that Montreal was building plex neighbourhoods into the 60s, which can lead to some pretty dense albeit grim urban environments.

The differences lie elsewhere, and have been gone on ad-nauseum in other threads.
Maybe Montreal will escape ever-increasing costs. So far it's not on a great trajectory in that respect, so I'd guess if it does it will be related to other policy enacted at a higher level.

FWIW I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with highrise housing (even though it's not for me). The highrise communities built all over the GTA in the 60s/70s actually feature spacious layouts and can be very family-oriented. Some are in bad shape but plenty remain perfectly fine for the average person -in some locations they are actually very desirable even when next to new-builds (Yonge/Eg). You can say they're ugly but the physical layouts are inherently more efficient than point-towers. Regardless of that the biggest issue arises when things are built primarily with investors in mind and treated like a tradable security. FWIW Hillbrow was redeveloped almost entirely on spec with somewhat dubious funding sources.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

I'd be very wary of extolling Montreal's relative advantages in affordability as a result of urban design. Yes, it's true that the city has the most traditionally "urban" housing typology in older parts of the city, but there's nothing particularly special about current policies when it comes to development permissiveness (current rental laws help rental affordability while they last). The difference between plex neighbourhoods in Montreal vs tightly packed semis/rows in Old Toronto - many of which contain multiple apartments - isn't that wide on the ground. More aesthetic than vibe-related. One interesting thing of course is that Montreal was building plex neighbourhoods into the 60s, which can lead to some pretty dense albeit grim urban environments.

The differences lie elsewhere, and have been gone on ad-nauseum in other threads.
Maybe Montreal will escape ever-increasing costs. So far it's not on a great trajectory in that respect, so I'd guess if it does it will be related to other policy enacted at a higher level.

FWIW I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with highrise housing (even though it's not for me). The highrise communities built all over the GTA in the 60s/70s actually feature spacious layouts and can be very family-oriented. Some are in bad shape but plenty remain perfectly fine for the average person -in some locations they are actually very desirable even when next to new-builds (Yonge/Eg). You can say they're ugly but the physical layouts are inherently more efficient than point-towers. Regardless of that the biggest issue arises when things are built primarily with investors in mind and treated like a tradable security. FWIW Hillbrow was redeveloped almost entirely on spec with somewhat dubious funding sources.

And we can't say that about some of Canada's contemporary condo tower glass and steel forests?