Montreal not well known to tourists
A recent poll shows that Montreal’s attractions are not well known to world tourists although some point out the Olympic stadium as a feature, which is giving the tourism ministry hope for more money to “improve” the surrounding area. Olympic park management is also hoping to get a new roof onto the stadium by 2016.
Montreal is like many B-list towns, in that it’s not one or two big shiny or historic things that stand out here, but the general quality of life and visual texture of our streets that’s attractive. Unfortunately, bureaucracy has no idea how to extend or re-create that – and I’m not the first to wonder why.
We love the Plateau and Mile End and older streets like Wellington, Masson and Mont-Royal, but modern redevelopments – check out newly rebuilt areas like the new housing built behind Rosemont metro on the old city yards site, or the Faubourg Quebec stuff east of Old Montreal – are usually built of 100% residential complexes. You probably have not gone to look at those areas, because nobody has any reason to be there unless they live there. New Griffintown is likely to be the same. No reason for tourists to walk through these streets. People talk wistfully about re-creating a Plateau vibe, but build new condos right to the sidewalk edge without anything for passersby at street level – and wonder why these neighbourhoods become moribund dormitories full of strangers.
A traditional neighbourhood is a live thing. You see your neighbours in the streets, run into them at the store or the corner café, and people gradually build a web of friends and acquaintances (exes and enemies, too – let’s not get too sentimental). Human beings have been doing this since the first urban settlements were built. But now, when a building is a stack of pods from which you descend to the garage and drive away to do your shopping and eating at some random distant point, there is no life where you live.
This city badly needs to tweak and enforce better zoning to avoid the worst of this, but can they see the need to rebuild parts of the city in a better way? Montreal does not have the Eiffel Tower or Piccadilly Circus and our major known landmark is a stadium we don’t use any more. What we have to offer is the life in our streets – which is to say daily life, and not a corporately sponsored month of festivals every summer – and we need to recognize what creates it and learn how to foster and extend it, or we won’t have anything at all.

paul 14:09 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Bravo!
Marc 15:36 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Hampstead was a very early version of this. Not even a dep. in that town.
qatzelok 15:50 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
I’m very familiar with Angus Shops. I actually met one of the developers’ sons, and he stressed how green the construction techniques were.
That’s nice. You still have to drive everywhere, and the car volume and lack of pedestrians make this “lovely brick sculpture” just a big, dead maze of lookalike walls.
Bill Binns 15:55 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
We are a city on an island and we are about to build a new bridge. There is no reason why the new bridge could not be our Eiffel Tower or more appropriately, our Golden Gate Bridge. I wonder what the price difference would be between another ugly anonymous highway bridge and something that will immediately become an icon and a symbol of Montreal that will bring tourists here for generations?
Enough with the Olympic Stadium already. Most of the native Montrealers I know support tearing the thing down. Why in the world would a tourist want to leave downtown to go look at an empty stadium squatting in the middle of a square mile of concrete? The neighborhood is a wasteland of Dollorama’s and Tim Horton’s in identical strip malls.
I think Montreal’s best angle for tourism is playing up it’s quasi-European image. Sidewalk cafes, great restaurants, world class museums etc. A walking city full of interesting architecture. Keep the tourists downtown and in old Montreal where they are comfortable and safe and where there is ample opportunity for them to spend their money.
We also need to do something about our horrible third world taxi system and find a convenient way to get tourists from downtown to the the lookout on Mount Royal.
Beeper 16:48 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Great post!
Antonio 20:31 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
I disagree with your negative take on the development behind Rosemont Metro, formerly the site of municipal workshops and yards used to repair the City’s fleet of vehicles. The Quartier 54 development is mixed residential/commercial with a specialty grocer already set up as a tenant. Plus, the Borough is undertaking the refurbishment of the brown-brick art deco building at 700 Rosemont Blvd and turning it into the Marc Favreau library and community centre. There will also be a park developed behind the future library. I think it has a lot of potential to be far more than a “moribund dormitory” as you say. Plus, the influx of more affluent residents is already starting to have positive effects on nearby Plaza Saint-Hubert.
Doobious 20:32 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
Nice rant. You should vent more often. It’s pretty amusing.
But to put things in perspective, just visit the suburbs. Every single one of the problems you mentioned, an order of magnitude more severe, for miles and miles on end. Compared to that hell, a condo in Griffintown would be pretty sweet, even if the streets are deserted and the nearest cafe is a 10 minute walk away.
Chris 22:09 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
So many of our problems are due to car culture. And it shows no sign of abating. :(
Kate 23:30 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
OK Antonio, I will have another look at the Rosemont metro development soon and post about it. I admit to mostly having peeked in from outside and seen only condos. I was aware of the art deco building they kept facing Rosemont, but they seem to be taking their time over fixing it up.
TC 23:54 on 2011/12/20 Permalink
This post hit on what I love about Montreal. It isn’t just the older areas along the river, in fact what I really enjoy visting are St. Denis, the Main, the Plateau. There is a great vibe in the town, the French and English language mix is unique. Overall, I sense things are a lot more relaxed than in other North American cities.
@Bill Binns: Boston, where I live, built a new bridge, the Zakim, that has become one of the emblems of the city. It is actually the widest, although not at all the longest, suspension bridge in the world.
Bill Binns 07:32 on 2011/12/21 Permalink
@TC – The Zakim is a great example. Even though you cannot walk over it, it can be seen from all over the city and is a beautiful gateway into Boston from the north. It’s certainly a lot more attractive than the bridge it replaced!
ant6n 19:05 on 2011/12/21 Permalink
The stadium is one of the main attractions of the city. You can’t just tear and down and construct another symbol somewhere else, just cuz the surrounding area is not so nice – it makes much more sense to just make the area around the stadium nicer.
Antonio 21:30 on 2011/12/21 Permalink
Kate, the delays in refurbishing the art deco building are due to a budgetary squabble between Rosemont-Petite-Patrie and the City. A borough councilor told me that the parties have settled their differences, a design has been chosen as has a prime contractor and the thing should be finished by spring 2013.
Robert H 23:39 on 2011/12/21 Permalink
Doobius, je suis d’accord généralement avec ton opinion à l’égard des banlieue (surtout si c’est Laval/Mississauga) mais ce que Kate a ecrit n’est pas un “rant” plutôt qu’un analyse réfléchi de l’attrait de Montréal. C’est vrai que notre ville n’est pas une déstination touristique à l’échelle de Londres, Paris, New York, ou Los Angeles (“B-list town”–Kate, personne ne peut vous accuser de voir tout en rose). Cependent, elle a bien expliqué le charme subtil de la métropole du Québec: il s’agit de l’ambience et l’atmosphère des quartiers caratéristiques. TC de Boston disait presque la même chose. N’oublions que pour les résidents de Boston et de New York, les deux vedettes aux palmarès touristiques, Montréal est une déstination préférée. C’est pourquoi je suis sceptique quant aux grands projets visée à attirer les touristes à la recherche de la prochaine nouveauté. Le but primaire devrait être l’amélioration de la ville pour ceux qui y habitent. Ça fait, les visiteurs viendront. Par example, Bill Binns a raison que le remplacement du pont Champlain est une occasion qui vaut les dépenses nécessaires pour qu’on fasse quelque chose de spécial comme le pont Zakim à Boston (mais bien sûr plus haut et plus long). Un tel projet d’infrastructure bien fait pourrait rapporter les retombées au-delà d’un autre féstival ou événement.
Merci ant6n: on devrait pas démolir le stade olympique; ce n’est pas trop tard d’en faire bon usage…faudrait qu’on le croit.
Marc: Hampstead comme Ville Mont Royal sont les cousines de English Garden Suburbs…ville dortoirs classiques.
qatzelok: Les Angus Shops, pas mal mais on aurait pu faire de mieux. Les rues pourquoi sont-elles si larges. On n’a pas besoin de tout ce béton.
Kate 14:19 on 2011/12/22 Permalink
Antonio: thanks for the info. I’m glad they’re keeping that building and fixing it up.
Robert H: être “B list” n’est pas une insulte. Montréal est une bonne ville pour vivre, mais ne soyons pas naïfs, nous ne sommes pas dans la même ligue que Paris, Londres, New York ou Tokyo.