Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not fair to compare Montreal to Paris. There are plenty of things to do in Montreal and it is a vibrant and cosmopolitan city but it is simply not in the same league as Paris.
Funny how people complain about dog crap and smells in Paris. Montreal has many things going on but it is definetely not the cleanest or best maintained city. When I was living in Paris my street in the 2nd arrondisment (this was a small side street in a mixed residential commercial area) was washed daily from Monday to Friday. You will not find this in Montreal.
It is not fair to compare Montreal to Paris. There are plenty of things to do in Montreal and it is a vibrant and cosmopolitan city but it is simply not in the same league as Paris. Funny how people complain about dog crap and smells in Paris. Montreal has many things going on but it is definetely not the cleanest or best maintained city. When I was living in Paris my street in the 2nd arrondisment (this was a small side street in a mixed residential commercial area) was washed daily from Monday to Friday. You will not find this in Montreal.
I agree with the bold. I love Montreal, and it is very pretty to look at, but let's not act like it's particularly "clean." Downtown (and beyond... Hello Rue Ontario!) is littered with garbage, bums, urine smells, which is to be expected for a city with its level of density.
I'm a US citizen who spent three weeks in Montreal a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time on the metro. In the time it took to go 3 stops, I'd see people from every continent on earth. I went to language exchange events that were packed with expats from all over. There is a lot going on in MTL, and I wished I could have stayed longer. I don't see how it could be called "provincial" in any commonly accepted sense of the word.
1. Are the people "country bumpkins"?
No. I'd say it is definitely one of the more sophisticated North American cities. There are plenty of book shops, including niche ones. The city centre has many people socialising in it; it is not abandoned at all and not at all only aimed at business. The people seem to care about their appearance and are interested in cultural life. They don't seem to be content with spending their whole life in the burbs, and consequently there is little urban decay. In this sense, it is one of the least provincial cities in North America, if not the least provincial after NYC.
2. Is the city culturally isolated?
Somewhat, relative to its size.
Yes: The situation with Montreal is that it is somewhat cut off from its own surroundings, which makes it more unique but less influential or integrated, especially now that the Anglo establishment is almost demolished. Great English cultural phenomena like the orchestra are getting renamed to sound more French, the theatres moved away for the most part, the Anglo-Franco conflict is no longer very central to Canada, etc. It also suffers from the fact that the US is quite US-centric and tends to treat Canada as irrelevant, even the important and large cities. Whenever you get stats, city comparisons, detailed data, etc., there is national division. They don't want to learn from Montreal because they see it as too distinct. A book tour would definitely include NYC, Chicago, LA, likely Toronto, but might skip Montreal because of the language.
No: Montreal is still a major and important city which benefits from proximity to NYC and Boston. The US intellectual elite is very Northeast-centric, and Montreal is quite prominent in the region. The situation would have been better if there was some large serious city in upstate NY on the Canadian border. Anything that doesn't have to do with language, such as music (whether serious or pop), the film industry, animation, or game development is quite developed and well-connected in Montreal. It does have some world-renowned institutions, such as festivals like Fantasia, McGill University, or Cirque du Soleil, but these are no match for the likes of Hollywood or Harvard.
3. Does it produce many culturally important people? Or does it doom its people to irrelevance?
It does produce much of Canada's intellectual elite, but with a caveat. Culturally and intellectually important people with Montreal connections like Leonard Cohen or Charles Taylor don't seem to be very prominently connected to Montreal in the public imagination, while those who do dwell on it like Mordecai Richler are not especially prominent. It doesn't have a Woody Allen or a David Lynch who make the city familiar to the world public. Still, by Canadian standards, only Toronto is above Montreal, with Vancouver trailing somewhat behind and the rest being very far behind. Toronto looks more bland than Montreal, but it is actually pretty good for cultural life. Many high profile people have Montreal connections, but you wouldn't know that.
4. Is the city in general well-known?
It is certainly a world-renowned city. I can easily picture a European who has not heard of Portland, San Diego, Cleveland, or even Philadelphia, but has probably heard of Montreal and has some sense of what it is. However, this sense is probably vague, and they probably think it is very French.
5. Is the city physically well-integrated with other major cities around it?
Somewhat by American standards, not so well by European. Whereas in Europe linguistic diversity is the norm, so a city that does not speak one of the major languages is at no disadvantage, Montreal ends up being somewhat sidelined by the English character of North America. Moreover, major European cities tend to be close to one another (e.g., by North American standards, Oxford is part of "London metropolitan area"). Montreal is not in the middle of nowhere, but it is somewhat off the beaten road - less like Barcelona and more like Madrid. France, alas, does not seem to care very much about Quebec, and there is no connection as there is between e.g. Australia and the UK. It is not non-existent though, and seems to be somewhat improving lately.
It would have been great if there was a high speed cheap train between NYC and Montreal, but it is unlikely to happen.
6. Is Montreal integral to an important region?
I'd say it is very important for Canada, modestly important but not irrelevant for the Northeast, and absolutely central to French Canada.
7. Is it cosmopolitan?
Somewhat. Cosmopolitan doesn't mean having many immigrants and ethnic food, but it does mean that you might find someone like e.g. a controversial author from Iran living there. Unfortunately, that sounds more like NYC, maybe Boston or Toronto, but not so much Montreal. Now, it could be that Montreal would have none of such things like e.g. Tokyo or Moscow, but it would still be the unambiguous hub of a huge region.
In sum, it is not a provincial city and not at all provincial by North American standards, but it has some isolating traits. Whereas in Europe it would have been a clear advantage because people would still care about its culture, in North America it is a bit less clear. It would have been better if the Anglo community did not get decimated. It did not interfere with the French-Canadian culture, only strengthening its identity and distinctiveness, but helped broadcast the culture of the city. Alternatively, if the Quebecois had their pre-revolution fertility rates, that would also be helpful because French Canada over which Montreal holds monopoly would be less tiny.
. It would have been better if the Anglo community did not get decimated. It did not interfere with the French-Canadian culture, only strengthening its identity and distinctiveness, but helped broadcast the culture of the city..
Thoughtful post, but on this point most francophones would strongly disagree that the anglo community was a benign influence on French Canadian culture. Even less that the anglo community it helped strengthen francophone culture, as you claim.
It really hasn't been the case for a while but the attitude towards francophone culture for a very long time was to suppress it, or at least to circumscribe it into a corner and put a socio-economic tourniquet on it in the hopes that it'd die or wind down on its own, and certainly not expand.
Perhaps one can argue that the culture ended up flourishing anyway due to a closing of ranks and barrelling down in the face of adversity, but even so, none of that can be attributed to the benevolence of Montreal's anglo community.
Well in terms of architecture let's be honest: Montreal's is decent for NA and one of the best and probably one of the best but compared to any reasonably prestige city in Europe it is totally supbar.
European cities are older-often much older-than North American cities. European cities have had much more time to accumulate interesting architecture.
Thoughtful post, but on this point most francophones would strongly disagree that the anglo community was a benign influence on French Canadian culture. Even less that the anglo community it helped strengthen francophone culture, as you claim.
It really hasn't been the case for a while but the attitude towards francophone culture for a very long time was to suppress it, or at least to circumscribe it into a corner and put a socio-economic tourniquet on it in the hopes that it'd die or wind down on its own, and certainly not expand.
Perhaps one can argue that the culture ended up flourishing anyway due to a closing of ranks and barrelling down in the face of adversity, but even so, none of that can be attributed to the benevolence of Montreal's anglo community.
Well, that it is exactly what I would argue - not the intention, but rather the outcome. In my view, suppressing a culture that has nowhere to flee often makes people identify with it more strongly. For example, the current situation with French being a minority language Canada-wide is a great influence on French-Canadians, who refuse to give in to the annoying guilt trips and historical self-flagellation combined with amnesia about the good things characteristic of white English speakers.
The problem with suppressing the Anglo-Montrealer culture is that it had somewhere to flee. Thus, pushing it enough simply kills it. It eliminates the good stuff like the old Montreal Anglo community, Anglo-Montreal heritage, theatre and literature - all the things that are fine and vulnerable and easy to destroy. For example, many of the historical plaques in Montreal are French-only, even in places which were obviously made by the Anglo community, like some of the Irish churches. Meanwhile, the oppressive globalising English influence remains, and it is present through stuff like big corporations rather than anything native Montrealer. I often see Montreal being treated as a French-Canadian city with some global influences, even though a good chunk of its culture was historically Anglo as well, but now in the public imagination it is as if it never existed.
My impression of Anglo-Canadian culture is that it got beheaded with the partial death of Anglo-Montrealer culture. Elite Anglo-Canada was centred on Montreal for most of its existence, but it has been pushed out of it, and now it is poorly capable of rebuilding itself in Toronto. It lost its most sophisticated and treasured centre, and it doesn't even seem to remember that.
My view is that Anglo-Canadian culture has always had trouble distinguishing itself from the American.
Regardless of whether its nexus was Montreal or Toronto.
I live in Canada and have no issue thinking myself 100% Canadian, Do you have some examples of Canadians having trouble distinguishing themselves from Americans? no one in my Canadian Anglo social circles has a problem thinking themselves Canadian.
Location: Montreal -> CT -> MA -> Montreal -> Ottawa
17,330 posts, read 33,070,788 times
Reputation: 28903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Thanks again for giving this some thought.
My view is that Anglo-Canadian culture has always had trouble distinguishing itself from the American.
Regardless of whether its nexus was Montreal or Toronto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
I live in Canada and have no issue thinking myself 100% Canadian, Do you have some examples of Canadians having trouble distinguishing themselves from Americans? no one in my Canadian Anglo social circles has a problem thinking themselves Canadian.
This is interesting. I'm a born-and-bred Canadian. Even during all the years that I lived in the U.S., I was distinctly and proudly Canadian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
