[Urban Shocker]

No, but I've seen one at Yonge and Sheppard.

Ooops! Bayview and Sheppard!

 

[DC83]

Amazing! Can't believe I missed these before.

I'll never understand how Longeuil is the way it is (i.e. ultra suburban) despite being a few hundred meters from Montreal's historic core!

 

[DC83]

Yes, the referencing of Hamilton with respect to Montreal was a little deliberate on my part. Both have potential to realize, but certainly not as financial/commercial capitals. Their glory days are past, for the most part... and as for the whole language issue, it has indeed been artificially propped up and it has been and will continue to be both the downfall of Montreal as well as a blessing in many respects.

If there is ever a challenge to Toronto's preeminence it is likely to come from the west and not the east, no matter how much you personally like the geography there.

I've spent enough time in both cities (grew up in Hamilton, school in Mtl) to realize they are both VERY SIMILAR cities; demographic, geographic & entertainment-wise!
Both have a LOT of potential, yet somehow can't grasp at it. Hopefully someday.. however, I'm not too sure I want Montreal to change really. It's awesome as-is!

 

[Tewder]

Yes, there's something about Hamilton too that is awesome in a way that Toronto just isn't (not that Toronto isn't awesome in many other ways of course) ... though I can't help but feel my wish that it stay the same is a little selfish. Given time this will all be moot, however, because development is not going to stop its inexorable march westward along the lakeshore any time soon.

 

[PUTOTO]

For cities, geography isn't an absolute factor for success; the economic activity of their people is much more important, as Jane Jacobs argues shrewdly in The Economy of Cities. Still, the great ravines and grand lake that could be mistaken by a visitor for a sea is hardly an inferior geographic context. There's no majestic process of a nation choosing a city, either. Toronto rose up through its own great economic activity and took over. PUTOTO, your reasons for Montreal deserving to be Canada's great city are all abstract and romantic, when in reality it's clear that Toronto deserves its place as Canada's great metropolis. Is it not admirable that a great city can rise up through its own hard work and go on to reach the most exceptional cultural achievements? Hints started to come over for a long time before its population exceeded that of Montreal in the 1970s, such as the city opening the first subway line in Canada in 1954, bringing Canadians the kind of infrastructure associated with the most significant metropolitan cities.

Montreal is the ancienne métropole. That era of national dominance is over and it's not going to come back. The gap is too wide now and not the result of any particular injustice, politics, or historical wrong. What one was associated with Montreal is really what Toronto is cementing today: the most sophisticated architecture, streetscapes that are both vibrant and beautiful, the best public spaces, the strongest national and cosmopolitan culture, and engaged diversity. Toronto is an amazing city that will win admiration of the country and the world as it continues to refine itself and become more impressively metropolitan. It may even become more bilingual. It's pointless trying to come with abstract and romantic reasons for why Montreal should be the national metropolis when the Toronto of today is such a vibrant and exciting place. Enjoy it and try to advance it.

You said my reasons for Montreal deserving to be Canada's great city are all "abstract and romantic", but aren't these "abstract and ROMANTIC" things great things better to have than not have for the cultural/financial capital of our nation? And my question was was it that difficult to find a place to meet these basic things, which is also suitable for other important things like trade, economy and business in this supposedly 2nd largest country in the world?

Having beautiful natural surroundings like great mountains and rivers for recreation/ tourism, having more pleasant weather conditions (for example, the less windier condition) for more pleasant lives of citizens, and having abundance of great& beautiful historic architecture are all super positive things "if we could have them". Having a bit more developable land in our territory before hitting the border is not abstract but obviously a merit.

Why could Americans achieve this "Romantic and Abstract" goodness for theirs (eg. NYC), Why Japanese and British (Tokyo& London respectively) were able to achieve AND did go ahead to achieve these seemingly unnecessary poetic(?) romantic(?) and abstract(?) things? Because these things are all clearly beneficial, healthy, even profitable things.

For example, Montreal had better geographical/ territorial merits than any other major cities in Eastern Canada including Toronto, Kingston, Quebec, and Hamilton. In terms of the balance, Montreal is a perfect place since it’s not a city buried in mountains like Seoul, Hong Kong, and even Vancouver, but it's neither a completely flat boredom without any mountains or rivers at all.
And I see Canadians did highly value this aspect and was going to build their New York City on the island of Montreal UNTIL 1970s, when separatist René Lévesque and his Parti Québécois came to power and start to destroy everything that Anlgos had and built, including English language and their companies.

Anyway, I agree as long as this language stupidity and restriction goes on (with whatever the justification), Montreal’s downturn will continue until it really hits the bottom. Some people say Vancouver will become 2nd largest city after Toronto as Montreal's continue to be abandoned by all the people (including immigrants & French speakers from outside).


I don't say positive things all the time just to amuse my audiences but Toronto Is no where close to perfect in terms of geography/ geopolitical location/ weather. But I also don't think those weaknesses guarantee that Toronto could never become a truly great city.

Chicago’s geographic “inferiority” is almost on the same level as Toronto’s (although Chicago has the nice river in the core). Instead, it has the "perfection" of city planning to compensate, and their great historic architecture can be a match even for Montreal and New York City.

Currently, Toronto is booming, but not like others what Toronto is truly lacking is great design architects and politicians who can understand them and see the big pictures for the city, not just short-term economic profits.
To me Toronto seriously needs a lot of innovation and transformation to really make people to forget about its weakness like Chicago does. For example,

- the Gardiner Expressway and part of Don valley Parkway must be buried. I don't know why they have to ruin some of a little natural merits that Toronto has.
- Toronto's top most beautiful/valuable historic buildings demolished by the "greedy fathers", should be restored.
- Toronto should have much better masterplan for its skyline, I personally prefer Chicago to Mexico City or Sao Paulo style, especially when the populations so incredibly small.
- Build at least 2~3 more skyscrapers taller than/as tall as CN Tower. No scenic mountains? But truly great skyline !
- Make Toronto's green belt area twice as dense as what it is now. (Like Montreal is surrounded by the Larentide, Adirondak and Appalachian mountains. New York and LA also have the massive mountain ranges right beside of the city to enjoy and breathe. But All Toronto’s got is the very thin strip of the green belt set up around the city and along the escarpment)
- Upgrade/ improve Toronto’s old, ugly and kitsch infrastructure. For example, they could make the hobbit tunnel style Yonge& Bloor station as good as Lonel-Groulx station in Montreal.
- Geographical transformation/ enhancement through massive civil engineering work. For instance, we could make more artificial islands for recreation/tourism purpose on the lake. Or could make Blue Mountains taller and more enjoyable, and similar kind of enhancement for Don River and/or Humber River.

Then here comes a major question: would making bold things like those (arguable b/o funding/ practicality) happen to advance Toronto be easier than simply repealing the miserable but undeniable curse on Montreal “the Bill 101” and make it officially bilingual and free, and let it naturally grow again in peace?

or (God loves Canada) both are possible things to happen?

or just giving up on asking too much for Canadian (cities) + moving to New York City would be far easier+healthier choice for myself?

 

[junctionist]

Repealing the language laws will have a minor impact at best on Montreal in relation to Toronto because it's all about economy. Language just isn't enough to explain the differences in growth. Romantic notions of the greatest city can be interesting, but those places rise to prominence for wholly concrete reasons like their economic performance. Little of New York's appeal seams to be attributable to setting (though it is interesting); it's mostly about the sheer metropolitan form of the city, the scale, and it's cultural effects. Many people who love London or Paris don't really pay attention to the natural geography of the region beyond the basics like the river that flows through either city. Natural geography may be a crutch for a second city which can't match the metropolitan geography of the leading city. We're merely in a transition period right now, where the economic base for Toronto is built up and growing further, the city is improving in a myriad of ways but still developing an appreciation for the pursuit of beauty and the romantic, for the city beyond the economic. It's best to stay here and be a part of the project of building the new national metropolis. All the obstacles can be overcome.

 

[Tewder]

Yes, and according to PUTOTO's theory San Fransico should be the central American city, which we know it's not.... and I do think he/she is exaggerating the scenic attributes of Montreal.

 

[old boy]

I think Toronto on the shores of Lake Ontario is impressive as a scenic attribute, not to mention an overlooked ravine system running throughout the city. It is easy to overlook the beauty of Toronto if your impressions are restricted to driving the 401. Toronto, as seen from the Islands, is spectacular. I think one needs to have an overriding bias against the city in order to sustain the kind of misery PUTOTO exhibits.

 

[PUTOTO]

Yes, and according to PUTOTO's theory San Fransico should be the central American city, which we know it's not.... and I do think he/she is exaggerating the scenic attributes of Montreal.

Look at topographic maps of the world carefully. I talked about the "balanced" perfection, and San Francisco is no where close to "the best in America", but perhaps just the opposite situation of Toronto.
In other words, if Toronto was built on an almost infinite flat plain, San Francisco is built on such a small/ limited plain with mountains and waters more than enough which become obstacles at a certain point of city's growth. That is one of the reasons why Americans chose LA over San Francisco as the most important major city on their west coast.

It is the same as Hong Kong or Seoul that I mentioned. For example, the City of Seoul (of 25 million metropolitan population) has clearly suffered due to its limited plains. Most residential buildings in Seoul had to be high rise, and air pollution was trapped in the relatively small basin completely surrounded by mountains. (Look at the topo map and close up Seoul area. You'll see it's built on a plain the size of City of Toronto, and around it is completely mountainous. That's how I used the expression "cities almost buried in mountains".

So, if you look for a "perfect" option which has the enough great lowland plain for a city to grow with the full potential (now and in future), AND scenic "romance" that will keep citizen's healthier + provide enjoyment and inspiration, Montreal is really one of the few hopes WITHIN Canada. (just to add, according to theWeathernetwork.com Toronto's air quality is most of the time shown as "low" while Montreal's is always "Good" or "Acceptable". Even North York far away from the downtown was "low" most of the time. Think about it)

Now, let me be clear. I'm not trying to insult you who chose and love Toronto so much here, neither I am a person says things indirectly (or passive aggressively). Toronto is a great city as San Francisco is. But it's not perfect after building so much fortune on it because of its many innate weakness including the geographic inferiority. Cities like New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Shanghai, London are not just blessed to be so great with many people rushed in to settle and live? Everything has the synergy effect.

But these "romantist" people do cosmetic surgery, facelift, etc. These people are the ones bodly trying to change the future, its fate. Japanese who thought their islands are too small for the 2nd largest economy and a country of 130 million population built man-made land (near their major cities) by land reclamation, perhaps bigger than the size of City of Toronto & Montreal & Vancouver combined. Germans are planning to make a mountain near Berlin. Here, Torontonians are making the Leslie Street Spit on Lake Ontario. So I do see some Torontonians see the needs and the efforts they make.

What I am trying to say here is
"Do more"

 

[Tewder]

Nobody would argue with that!