What are the benefits of demerging Montreal? Why not just leave it as one big city? Hell, I need some answers. Seriously, who would shrink a nice and large city? :bash:

You can't force people of other cities to be part of a city they don't want to be part of. At least not in a democracy. I'm glad they are reversing the decision. They forced the amalgamation against the residents will, and I can imagine how angry I would have been if that had of been my city. I didn't like the amalgamation that took place here, but from what I recall, there wasn't huge oppsition to it.

Tough subject.. but in my opinion (and mine only.. nobody get pissed please) it's a bit of a selfish decision where some ppl don't want their money going to the whole city, and stay just in the small city they once were.. but hey, when they go wherever in the world, and they're asked where they're from.. im sure they won't say "hey, im proudly a westmounter.." i'm sure they'll say "hell yeah, im from montreal.." so heh.. what you gonna do about it...

montreal keeps on being one of the best (if not THE best) cities in the world.. IMHO

joie de vivre á la montrealaise...
byebye

Some people would argue that very large cities can't serve each small individual area as well as small municipal governments can. Every government faces situations in which it must make the best decision for the majority of its constituants. If a decision is good for 70% of the city, there's a chance it will apply to the large original portion of the city, and the 30% of those who get shafted could be disproportionatly in the new areas. These new areas will have to grin and bear it, while at the same time remembering that they could have made their own decision before amalgamation.

Of course it could just be selfishness on behalf of the satellite municipalities, but they have the right to make their own decisions.

There should have been a vote prior to the merging and not after. To have already gone ahead and merged into one megacity and then have municipalities opt out one by one is dumb.
From what I have read 15 out of the 27 merged municipalities have chosen to opt out. According to the article I read a lot of these municipalities were either English speaking(they felt threatened that their Anglophile customs were in harms way) or wealthier(they believed their services would be diminished). Not saying this is so...just that this is what I read.
The politicians that promised these municipalities the later option of demerging in order to secure their vote and to win election ought to be ashamed of themselves. The merge had already ocurred...there would have been grumbling from some but it would have died down eventually. For those who were in favor of demerging, I can't believe they would vote for these people anyway...how could you feel comfortable voting for someone that promises something that they don't necessarily believe in(the demerger) but uses it as an election advantage to them? If they compromise once it is highly likely they will compromise on other important issues as well. Clearly they are of dubious character.
In the end...what will constitute the city of Montreal? Won't it end up being a patchwork of municipalities, some connected and some not? This part is Montreal but this part isn't...this section is Montreal but not that section. That is just plain goofy!

...In the end...what will constitute the city of Montreal? Won't it end up being a patchwork of municipalities, some connected and some not? This part is Montreal but this part isn't...this section is Montreal but not that section. That is just plain goofy!


That is already the case in a number of US metros. It may not be preferable, but it obviously isn't detimental

That is already the case in a number of US metros. It may not be preferable, but it obviously isn't detimental

I agree with you that it is not detrimental...I just thought it was goofy.

I am from New England and I know of no city within its states that have separate municipalities or cities within their cities. Having travelled to every US state I am not familiar with any city that has a separate city within its' city limits. I know of no city that completely surrounds another city geographically but that area that it surrounds is not a part of it. A separate city bound on one, two or even three sides of another city...yes...but bound on all 4 sides by a city and still calling itself its own city...no.

Los Angeles annexed several cities and each retains its own distinct characteristics and each still contains some of its own municipal services and many residents use their former city's name(ie, Pasadena) but they are in fact Los Angeles and are under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles.

I can write a letter to someone in New York City and address it as Brooklyn but Brooklyn is no longer its own city it is New York City. Likewise, here in Boston I can write a letter and address it as West Roxbury but it is still the city of Boston.

If there is a municipality that borders Montreal and it wants to retain its own city status, I can understand that...but if that municipality is completely surrounded on all sides by Montreal and it wants to be its own city...well, I still say that is goofy and I am not talking about the Disney character. All that aside, what is more interesting to me is that this Megacity had already been in effect for some time and the politicians that used this merger as a political wedge and the people who chose to demerge all seem to have served their own selfish interest and not be interested in Montreal as awhole.

That is already the case in a number of US metros. It may not be preferable, but it obviously isn't detimental

Since I did not pose it in a direct question above...I will now. Exactly what "number of US metros" are you referring to that contain cities that completely engulf a geographical area yet have completely separate cities within those boundaries. I am a US citizen and this sure would be news to me. A "number of US cities" that have separate cities within their city limits...I don't think so!

There was actually an entire thread on this issue in the local American forums either here or on SSP. The only metros that I can recall at the moment are Detroit, LA, Houston, and Kansas City, MO. I'm not sure whether any of these places have had mergers since then.

Looking at my maps, Detroit surrounds Hamtrack and Highland Park, KC surrounds Gladstone and Raytown and Grandview (on 3.5 sides), LA surrounds West Hollywood and Beverly Hills (though they border each other), Culver City, San Fernando, and Santa Monica (except for the Pac. Ocean on one side) and nearly surrounds View Park and Windsor Hills. I don't currently have a map of Houston.

There are also some places in which parts of the city proper are nearly isolated from the rest of the Mun. like the LA panhandle which extends from central LA to the harbour near Long Beach. Pittsburgh has one of these, so does Boston (an area bordering the Charles River is cut off by Brookline). These are just the places for which I have maps immediately on hand. If I can find the thread, I'm sure there would be alot more info.

In addition to all this, many US metros have a much smaller central city to metro ratio than does Montreal. MTL contains about 1/3 of the Areas pop. while there is a thread in the American section here talking about US cities with 10x larger metros.

I'm not saying this to be defensive. This isn't even an issue I would be defensive about. I'm just trying to provide some prespective. :)

Ah ha! Found it: Cities within cities (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=218918) This should be interesting.

There was actually an entire thread on this issue in the local American forums either here or on SSP. The only metros that I can recall at the moment are Detroit, LA, Houston, and Kansas City, MO. I'm not sure whether any of these places have had mergers since then.

Looking at my maps, Detroit surrounds Hamtrack and Highland Park, KC surrounds Gladstone and Raytown and Grandview (on 3.5 sides), LA surrounds West Hollywood and Beverly Hills (though they border each other), Culver City, San Fernando, and Santa Monica (except for the Pac. Ocean on one side) and nearly surrounds View Park and Windsor Hills. I don't currently have a map of Houston.

There are also some places in which parts of the city proper are nearly isolated from the rest of the Mun. like the LA panhandle which extends from central LA to the harbour near Long Beach. Pittsburgh has one of these, so does Boston (an area bordering the Charles River is cut off by Brookline). These are just the places for which I have maps immediately on hand. If I can find the thread, I'm sure there would be alot more info.

In addition to all this, many US metros have a much smaller central city to metro ratio than does Montreal. MTL contains about 1/3 of the Areas pop. while there is a thread in the American section here talking about US cities with 10x larger metros.

I'm not saying this to be defensive. This isn't even an issue I would be defensive about. I'm just trying to provide some prespective. :)


Well, since I don't have a map or better yet an Atlas handy, I can't comment on some of the above mentioned cities.
I am only speaking of other cities being totally encapsalated(as in all 4 sides)by another city and yet being its own city. I am not aware of them. You mentioned KC surrounding Gladstone, Raytown and Grandview on 3.5 sides but that is not totally surrounded by. West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica were all annexed by Los Angeles even though they have their own separate municipal services.
You mentioned an area in Pittsburgh and in Boston but that area in Pittsburgh is not encapsulated and neither is Brookline encapsulated by Boston. Again, I am only talking about being completely surrounded by another city. But I guess there are some.

Anyways, I do appreciate your point of view as well as anyones and I did look at that link you put in which is indeed interesting...and certainly worthy of further exploration. I am always open to learning and understanding new things and appreciate you presenting it to me.

Ordinarily I would not have got boogered up about this demerger thing but it was 1. The fact that this merger happened and has been in effect for a while and only recently it is coming as a referendum to these municipalities to demerge...it should have been done beforehand 2. The sneaky politicians who promised these municipalities the option of demerging in order to secure their own election victory and 3. All of this demerging and breaking away issues in Canada as in Quebec proposing to separate from the rest of Canada, Toronto wanting to form its own Province or Ontario breaking away from Canada because they both feel they are getting screwed by Ottawa, and Alberta wanting to break away from Canada because its views are more conservative than the rest of Canada and now there is yet another thread I found about Western Canada(I suppose that means BC)breaking away from Canada for whatever reason(when I saw that thread in a forum I did not even bother to read why). To me...it's like...stop already! It gets irritating to see and read about all the time and I am not even Canadian. Work out your differences and move on and just be Canada the great country that you are!

Whatever becomes of Montreal ultimately I wish it nothing but prosperity. I love Montreal and for that matter all of Canada and I think the United States is very fortunate to have it as a neighbor. Peace to our Northern neighbor!

In KC I only meant that Grandview was surrounded on 3.5 sides. Gladstone and Raytown are completely surrounded. I was in a hurry at the time and wasn't clear about this.

And yes, the people of the mergerd Montreal suburbs should have been able to choose for themselves. I was very angry that the merger was pushed through without concern for the resident's wishes. The residents made it exceedingly clear where they stood on the issue. I remember all the news coverage at the time about people holding protests, letter writing campaigns, etc. So ultimately I was pleased at the triumph of democracy.

There should have been a vote prior to the merging and not after. To have already gone ahead and merged into one megacity and then have municipalities opt out one by one is dumb.
From what I have read 15 out of the 27 merged municipalities have chosen to opt out. According to the article I read a lot of these municipalities were either English speaking(they felt threatened that their Anglophile customs were in harms way) or wealthier(they believed their services would be diminished). Not saying this is so...just that this is what I read.
The politicians that promised these municipalities the later option of demerging in order to secure their vote and to win election ought to be ashamed of themselves. The merge had already ocurred...there would have been grumbling from some but it would have died down eventually. For those who were in favor of demerging, I can't believe they would vote for these people anyway...how could you feel comfortable voting for someone that promises something that they don't necessarily believe in(the demerger) but uses it as an election advantage to them? If they compromise once it is highly likely they will compromise on other important issues as well. Clearly they are of dubious character.
In the end...what will constitute the city of Montreal? Won't it end up being a patchwork of municipalities, some connected and some not? This part is Montreal but this part isn't...this section is Montreal but not that section. That is just plain goofy!

Excellent point CANUSA!

True that something like 14 or 15 municipalities demerged, but just to give you an Idea, before the demerger, the city of Montreal had a population of about 1,050,000. After the merger, the population of the new city was approx. 1,850,000. Once the demergers occur(January 1st 2006) the "newer" city of Montreal will have a population of about 1,630,000. So as you can see, even though many cities decided to demerge, they only total 230,000 people. Also, every city(except one) that decided to demerge is located in the West Island. True that The West island is mostly english, but that's not why I'm also pissed.

One thing that we should be grateful for is that the two major suburbs who have major industrial parks (Ville St-Laurent and Anjou) decided to remain within the new city.

Jean Charest, the current prime minister of Québec, told the citizens of Montreal that he would allow them to demerge if he was elected. He did so, so the Liberal Party could come back to power after a 10 year absence. It was weak of him to do so, because they never gave the New city of Montreal a chance to prove itself. You can't say that a city won't work only after two years! They should have given the new city at least 5 years, to allow it to function properly, but NOOOOO, they had to do it fast. Bunch of idiots!

You can't say that a city won't work only after two years! They should have given the new city at least 5 years, to allow it to function properly.

I agree with you, this process needs more time to work properly.

(I'm just curious: What did Outremont and Ville-Mont-Royal voted?)

I know that Outremont stayed with the New City, but I'm not sure if TMR stayed as well? I know Westmount voted to demerge.(Obviously!)

Where's Montreal exactly?

Where's Montreal exactly?

Please tell me you're joking?

sorry

Everybody knows that Montreal does not really exist.

I know that Outremont stayed with the New City, but I'm not sure if TMR stayed as well? I know Westmount voted to demerge.(Obviously!)

in red, the «demerged cities» :

http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/images/Montreal-gmap-defusions.GIF