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?