Chris deWolf has a thoughtful piece on the development and depredations of the Quartier des Spectacles (illustrated with an old photo by yours truly) but I would add a few details to his description. He mentions that an “abandoned building” was turned into a jazz centre, which in a sense is true, but the Blumenthal building and the Wilder Building at 1455 Bleury, facing the Cinema Imperial, were never just abandoned. They used to be vibrant centres of cultural activity.
Dance studios, galleries, small film production companies – early in its career the Montreal Mirror had offices in the Blumenthal, looking across at the Spectrum – as a general-purpose bohemian writer and designer I was inside the Blumenthal often for various reasons and it was a veritable hive, as was the adjoining building on Bleury.
Before Jean Charest was elected in 2003, the PQ had big plans for the Balmoral block. Everything was to be torn down and a brand new giant glass pavilion constructed on the site. All the tenants of those buildings were given marching orders and they all left, but the PQ’s plans collapsed and the buildings were left empty. I believe the Wilder Building remains empty, while the Blumenthal is now the “Maison du Festival Rio Tinto Alcan”.
The Tremblay administration recently passed a motion to support artists but this is closing the proverbial barn door after outright sacks of this kind have taken place, replacing actual working artists with show fronts like 2-22 and the Maison du Festival Rio Tinto Alcan.
Chris’s piece is very much worth reading, but this is a piece of the picture I felt compelled to add.
Steph 22:30 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
^ that looks like St-Denis facing south, just north of Maisonneuve.
Kate 22:47 on 2012/04/25 Permalink
Actually, it’s Berri. The Îlot Voyageur is at left.
Adam Hooper 00:00 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
“Was this worth expelling CLASSE for, Mme Beauchamp?” — a strange comment, no?
Do you mean, “Mme Beauchamp should have known that her actions would inspire other people to become violent, therefore she is responsible for the violence other people cause?”
(That’s the most generously I can phrase it, and it still brings about my gut reaction, “you’re blaming the victim.” I know most don’t think Mme Beauchamp is a victim, but I can’t bring myself to assign her an iota of direct blame for tonight’s events.)
Alex L 02:22 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Une autre manifestation pacifique violemment réprimée qui devient émeute. Shame, Beauchamp.
Ian 04:59 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Lagacé nails it. This entire anti-student stance on the part of the government is nothing more than political sleight-of-hand. Law’n'Order! Stiff Upper lip! Vote PLQ! What a joke.
Antonio 06:24 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Yes, Lagacé sure nails it, doesn’t he? I’m not sure which he nails more… his moral bankruptcy by blaming last night’s violence on anyone but those who actually perpetrated it? or his intellectual bankruptcy by conflating every policy issue with the tuition increase and addressing and/or distinguishing none of them intelligently? Nails it, indeed. And the choir here laps it up. Congratulations.
Kevin 07:07 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Yeesh, not even 24 hours after Lagacé slammed CLASSE for having absolutely no interest in negotiation…
http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lagace/2012/04/25/la-classe-et-sa-vision-dune-%C2%AB-negociation-%C2%BB/
mdblog 07:25 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
So sad that for $1625 people are willing to destroy the city.
Quebec is broke. If students don’t want to pay more for tuition, they should have some serious proposals about where Quebec should curb spending elsewhere because we can’t expect to go into more debt indefinitely. Right now the “strikers” are simply wasting our collective wealth (sabotaging public transit, vandalism, cancelling a school-year, etc.).
I know the police aren’t angelic but their heavy handed responses are predictable and therefore avoidable. There are ways for the students to negotiate for what they want; it’s just that these ways are not as simple, easy, or as appealing to the revolutionary mindset as marching in the streets.
Hamza 08:07 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@mdblog
Yea, $1625 times X , x being every student who will be attending university for the next five years (after which who knows? another hike?) .
Whatever happens, I hope people will sit down next time and talk from the beginning instead of having to resort to urban warfare before being ‘allowed’ to have a voice, as Lagacé points out.
And I’m STILL not hearing anyone from the pro-hike side decry the human beings who are being injured in the violence, rather than the usual broken windows. But what should we expect from frothing-at-the-mouth ‘law and order’ [read:fascist] capitalists?
mdblog 08:33 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@Hamza
Do you really believe that people who aren’t opposed to the tuition hike a) don’t care about people being hurt, and b) are “frothing-at-the-mouth ‘law and order’ [read:fascist] capitalists”?
If all the students involved in these demonstrations have your world view then there really is no hope for a civilized settlement.
Stop the world. I want to get off!
Ian 09:02 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@mdblog – how to curb spending? Gee, that’s a tough one. How about here – a spending increase of $236 million dollars between 2012-2014 for Loto-Quebec while student tuitions are expected to produce $159 million within the same period? http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/Budget/2012-2013/en/documents/budgetplan.pdf
Kevin 09:02 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@Hamza
No question discussions from the beginning would have been better, and I hope the next generation of student leaders will have the maturity to not walk out as this group did 18 months ago.
And I hope the next politicians will refuse to let students walk away from the table.
mdblog 09:17 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@Ian – Very good idea. I’d support that plan. I just don’t think that marching in the street will get you that. As Kevin points out, it takes maturity to not simply walk away from the table when the going gets tough.
Marching and making noise is easy. Sticking with a tough negotiation is not.
Jonathan 09:32 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@Kate Are you insinuating that because someone disagrees with you they can throw rocks, assault police officers and destroy public and personal property? Seems a bit archaic to even the most simple minded. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
A better question would be is $350 worth all this trouble?
Josh 09:49 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Thank you, Adam. I really can’t believe anyone would have the nerve to blame last night’s events on a politician. The protesters proved Beauchamp right for having excluded CLASSE, actually.
Kate 10:41 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
I am sad that we have a provincial government calculating enough to be aware that excluding CLASSE would mean trouble, yet entirely satisfied to see parts of Montreal trashed in response to their decision because of the PR effect this would have on people like Adam, Josh and Jonathan above.
I am even sadder that there’s no viable alternative vote in Quebec now. Marois is a petty-minded xenophobe and François Legault is a worse muppet than Charest. When Charest calls an election, who the hell can I vote for?
Dhomas 10:48 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Kate wrote: “When Charest calls an election, who the hell can I vote for?”
Kate for Premier! ;)
marco 12:00 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Basically, do what CLASSE says or there will be violence and destruction of property.
I can’t believe students are being led off a cliff by such morons.
I wonder what CLASSE would have done to anyone in their ranks who opposed the strike. Goon squad anyone?
Stefan 13:05 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
This is classical divide-and-conquer tactics which the neo-liberal movement has employed for some time now (globally). Take from one group which represents a clear minority of votes and get applauded by the majority. Rinse and repeat for all groups outside your core voting group. Students are never a majority anywhere.
What the Charest government does not consider (or willingly permits to happen) is that they completely alienate a good part of this generation. A Quebec solidaire is needed.
Hamza 13:21 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
I’ll stop believing that you right-wingers are fascist thugs when you stop referring to students and their supporters as anarchist black bloc.
But seriously y’all, just cancel the hikes so we can all go back to our lives.
Marc 13:40 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@ Stefan: So a communist government is needed? Beacuse that’s what QS is. Don’t believe me? Go check out their platform. They also have a formal alliance with the Quebec communist party; if you’re a member of one, you’re a member of the other.
Anto 14:05 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@Marc: I’m having trouble finding the page where they talk about instituting a classless, moneyless state in Québec. Could you please provide a link?
Adam Hooper 14:25 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Kate: “PR effect”? I’m offended.
In my opinion, students and government alike should denounce violence and distance themselves from it. I will not blame Mme Beauchamp for violent actions of others, and I think most Quebeckers (including students) do not want a government that cowers before the threat of violence.
From what I understand, you’re implying that Mme Beauchamp is playing a giant chess game with Quebec, goading students into violence for a PR win. I don’t see what difference that makes.
ant6n 16:00 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@Adam Hooper
Government and police exist in one large hierarchy of responsibility; the students don’t. Therefore one can hold politicians accountable for the voilence of the police they implicitly sanction; but if some students want to go haywire, you can’t summarily blame all students.
JaneyB 16:07 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
I wonder why the Charest government is so preoccupied with violent acts by some students (or non-students…) and so blasé about having lost $700 million in UQAM’s development projects. Could it be related to the untendered contracts given to an American company (Busac) that in turn made significant financial contributions to their party? If the government had bothered to intervene in the Ilot Voyageur mess, the students would not be being forced to cover the shortfall.
I don’t understand why students groups are being held to a moral standard that this organized and elected government sails right over. If the government is serious about belt-tightening, why do they look the other way when some developer’s hand is in the till? As usual, following the money reveals a lot….
Adam Hooper 16:41 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
@ant6n: I think student unions imply a hierarchy. If there’s no hierarchy, whom would Mme Beauchamp negotiate with?
This can be debated, but I don’t understand how it relates to what I’ve written. I never blamed all students. Heck, I never blamed *any* students.
ant6n 16:47 on 2012/04/26 Permalink
Well, you write “I will not blame Mme Beauchamp for violent actions of others, …”. And I am saying that one can hold government responsible for violent actions of police to a much greater extend than one can hold the student unions responsible for the violent actions of some students. The student unions have only limited control over all students; and there are some mass group dynamics that the minister should be aware of.
Josh 13:58 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
Yeah, I have to say that comment was pretty insulting, Kate. Believe it or not, but it’s possible that people who disagree with you do think independently. You (and the people who support the students) don’t have the monopoly on critical thought.
We could all sit here and snipe at one another personally. I don’t think that accomplishes much. I guess you see it differently.
Kate 17:28 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
I think Charest’s quite the master of manipulation – you can’t be premier of this crazy place for a decade if you’re not. I heard him on CBC a few minutes ago, sounding like a sad uncle whose bad nephew had turned down a nice present. But all I could think of was this:
Josh and Adam Hooper seem to be angling for an apology. Do people on your other internet forums often apologize for their opinions?
Josh 17:55 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
When it’s personal, sure, sometimes I see people apologizing in forums on the internet. I’ve been known to even offer them from time to time when I’ve stepped over the line.
And apologize or don’t, it’s no skin off my back either way. I think you took a pretty condescending tone with some of us though.
Craig 17:58 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
Count me with Josh, Adam Hooper, and all the other right-wing, blood-sucking, baby-eating “fascist thugs” on this forum who may express a viewpoint that may diverge yours, Kate, which indeed seems to be the majority opinion on your site. We’re far from the “PR effect” dupes you take us for, and dare I say we’re part of the silent majority in this province.
Personally, I don’t think you owe anyone an apology. But I think you could be a lot more respectful of opinions that differ from left-wing boilerplate. And certainly less condescending.
Kate 18:12 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
You’re the one calling yourself a right-wing, blood-sucking, baby-eating fascist thug. I don’t call names.
Josh 18:15 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
I’m a card-carrying New Democrat, Kate. I have voted NDP since I was old enough to.
But presume and pigeonhole away!
Kate 18:39 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
Yes, that’s lovely, dear.
ant6n 22:21 on 2012/04/27 Permalink
left-wing boilerplate, eh.
Josh 15:42 on 2012/04/29 Permalink
There’s that condescension that I bet is such an asset for you when you encounter people outside your bubble, huh Kate?
Kate 16:38 on 2012/04/29 Permalink
Keep needling, Josh. It just shows you up.