I felt slightly intimidated by the massive and impersonal high-rises and skyscrapers, some a good forty or fifty storeys (and visually pretty bland). I felt quite insignificant, like a small child on the sidewalk. And I felt a bit drained, as if the skyscrapers were sucking something out of me. They were too grandiose, too excessive.
The city had no central focus, it was just a huge sprawl of hotels, businesses and little squares, unlike Manhattan, which has Central Park, or Belfast, which has City Hall, or Sydney, which has the Harbour Bridge.
But having said all that, Montreal has its attractions. Like the Musée des Beaux Arts, which is full of fantastic artwork. We spent nearly five hours there, drinking it all in. Like the Parc du Mont-Royal, just above the city centre, where the belvedere at the summit has a panoramic view across the city. Like the Basilique Notre-Dame, sumptuously decorated and breathtaking.
We also went to the Musée d'Art Contemporain, but were surprised to find there was only one exhibition at the time, the rest of the museum being closed to install new exhibits. Which made no sense as there were dozens of blank walls which could have been hung with hundreds of artworks. Why weren't they? Lack of funding maybe? They must be disappointing an awful lot of tourists.
Accommodation-wise, we did very well. The last time Jenny was in Montreal she found a spacious hotel apartment complete with fully equipped kitchenette, and we stayed there again this time round (Le Square Phillips Hotel).
So Montreal didn't quite capture my heart, but it was worth visiting.
Pic: Le Vieux Port, Montreal, one of the better preserved districts
It's still on my list, along with Quebec. There's actually quite a bit of Canada I'd love to explore.
ReplyDeleteYou are a hard to please fellow Nick!
ReplyDeleteBijoux: There are lots of great places to see in Canada. Like Vancouver, Victoria Island, the Rockies, Quebec City. And there's no Donald Trump!
ReplyDeleteRamana: Not really. Some things (and places) I love instantly, others just don't connect. Unfortunately Montreal was one of the latter!
ReplyDeleteI've always stayed in old Montreal and like you find what they've done to a city I loved in the sixties quite unappealing, they could have done a lot better.
ReplyDeleteNow Quebec City? I adore it.
XO
WWW
www: What exactly is the point of a building 50 storeys high, apart from the obvious profit motive (fifty times the rent you'd get from just one storey).
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you looked at the high rises at night. Were the majority of the windows lighted? Were people living in all fifty stories? There are more and more people in the world, and they all must live somewhere. Better straight up than spread out all over the ground, like this country. IMHO.
DeleteJoanne: Good point about residents. We didn't explore the city after dark so I don't know how many buildings were residential. Our apartment overlooked a huge office building which seemed to be semi-deserted most of the time. As for global population, that's a hot chestnut I won't even touch!
DeleteI like the puddles, for children to run through!
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. We didn't see any pedestrianised areas, which is unusual in a big city. They would have been welcome among all the traffic-ridden streets.
DeleteI'm not sure that I'd ever want to stay in a City again - I'd visit though. Wow, I've not thought about that before.
ReplyDeleteOverall you enjoyed yourself, and that's the main thing.
Sx
Ms Scarlet: We always enjoy ourselves. We shrug off the downsides and drink in everything else! Belfast is a great city because it's spacious and on a human scale - very few high-rises and lots of interesting old buildings.
DeleteI've traveled extensively through Canada and lived very near it once. but my memories are almost a lifetime ago now! so I'm sure what I remember of a place has changed drastically. I loved Quebec City and Montreal. but that was so many years ago. actually most large cities all seem to be alike don't they? at least nowadays. and I'm with you. what is important to me now are any city's GREEN SPACES! and the charm of the older architecture it hopefully has kept!
ReplyDeleteTammy: Absolutely, so many cities look just like any other city - lots of high-rises, brand names like Starbucks and Subway, office workers scurrying to their workplace, tourist buses etc. A lot of Montreal could just as easily be Seattle or Portland. And yes, I think green spaces are so important. A large park in the middle of a city makes such a difference. So do lots of trees.
ReplyDeleteI went to Quebec a few years ago and liked it well enough. Good food, that's for sure. But Montreal I haven't been to since I was 4 1/2 - my family went to the World's Fair there in '67.
ReplyDeleteAgent: Montreal must have changed a good bit since you were there. A lot more skyscrapers, a lot more traffic. At least nobody's encroaching on the Parc du Mont-Royal.
ReplyDeleteI have never been to Montreal but always got the idea that it was considered to be sort of "European" and old world in style. YOur description makes me wonder if I am thinking of somewhere else. I don't think I'd have liked it much either if it as you describe.
ReplyDeleteJenny: No, I wouldn't call it European or old world in any way. As opposed to say, Berlin, which has very few high-rises and lots of old buildings and is a lovely city to wander about in. It also has a central focus in the form of the big road going through it, the tree-lined Under den Linden.
ReplyDeleteYou don't make it sound very appealing, Nick!
ReplyDeleteLiz: Well, if you like a super-modern city with little trace of anything historic or scenic, then Montreal is for you. But it's not the sort of city that I find appealing.
ReplyDelete