MHV's comments are totally on point - and it is interesting that Montreal and NYC have similar "vintages".
Oh, and as to paving. The first paved street in NYC was in lower Manhattan. It was paved in the 17th Century and was, and still is, called "Stone Street".
I'm not sure about pavement in Montreal because everything is always repaved, but the earliest street we have is rue de la Commune, which follows the St Lawrence river. So to be precise, it's the path between a row of house and the river, not specifically between two rows of house. Of course, the river itself is our first highway.
I find Montreal and NYC fascinating similar in their small aspects: the delis/dépanneurs, the bagels, the smoked meat/pastrami/corned beef culture, the age of the buildings, the grid layout, the bridges and the skyline. Of course the intrepid ambition of the locals did not reach the paroxystic levels of NYC, but when I visited it last year I felt at home, much more than in any other city I've seen so far, including Toronto, Vancouver, Paris or London.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
I'm not sure about pavement in Montreal because everything is always repaved, but the earliest street we have is rue de la Commune, which follows the St Lawrence river. So to be precise, it's the path between a row of house and the river, not specifically between two rows of house. Of course, the river itself is our first highway.
I find Montreal and NYC fascinating similar in their small aspects: the delis/dépanneurs, the bagels, the smoked meat/pastrami/corned beef culture, the age of the buildings, the grid layout, the bridges and the skyline. Of course the intrepid ambition of the locals did not reach the paroxystic levels of NYC, but when I visited it last year I felt at home, much more than in any other city I've seen so far, including Toronto, Vancouver, Paris or London.
Michael,
During various periods of the 18th and 19th Centuries, NYC and Montreal were "rivals" as export centers to Europe.
It was most "telling" during the hey day of the fur trade. Montreal had better connections to the continental interior (i.e. source of supply) whereas NYC had a year-round port (as you know, Montreal becomes ice-bound in Winter). That meant that the longer distances from the interior to NYC were less of a competitive disadvantage than they might have otherwise been. [If you look at the New York State emblem - it includes a beaver - and not because they are "cute").
I always enjoy visits to Montreal because it is m/l the same "vintage" as NYC and so has the many-layers of history that one doesn't find in say Chicago or Toronto.
Although, to be honest, one has to go to Quebec City, or down to Mexico City to find really old "Euro roots" (with the latter even going back to pre-Columbian times!).
Let's keep picking, because that is surely a more useful path than ignorance, contradiction, vagueness, and disingenuousness. Streets are used for cars, that's about as accurate as could be. They do not "exist" for a specific purpose. Things just exist or they don't. If they would exist for cars, it means that their coming into being was justified by cars, which as you should have noticed by now, is simply not the case.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
Last edited by jd callow; 12-02-2006 at 01:09 AM.
Reason: jdc to give the OP a chance to recover his thread
During various periods of the 18th and 19th Centuries, NYC and Montreal were "rivals" as export centers to Europe.
It was most "telling" during the hey day of the fur trade. Montreal had better connections to the continental interior (i.e. source of supply) whereas NYC had a year-round port (as you know, Montreal becomes ice-bound in Winter). That meant that the longer distances from the interior to NYC were less of a competitive disadvantage than they might have otherwise been. [If you look at the New York State emblem - it includes a beaver - and not because they are "cute").
I always enjoy visits to Montreal because it is m/l the same "vintage" as NYC and so has the many-layers of history that one doesn't find in say Chicago or Toronto.
Although, to be honest, one has to go to Quebec City, or down to Mexico City to find really old "Euro roots" (with the latter even going back to pre-Columbian times!).
Thanks for the fur trade detail, I always think of fur trading as the only thing that ever happened in Canada, and nowhere else either.
I agree with the Euro beat of Québec and Mexico City, having visited both. The Zocalo cathedral always awed me for having been started in the 16th century (but the Aztec constructions take the biscuit for awe-inspiration, nonetheless).
Montreal's "euro vibe" is more the result of the last 20 years of sucking to the French to be their friends than of the last two hundred years. Montréal is for me a North American city first in its history, and I find the similarity with New York flattering for both towns.
__________________ Using film since before it was hip.
Thanks for the fur trade detail, I always think of fur trading as the only thing that ever happened in Canada, and nowhere else either.
...
Because of a larger, and more sparsely settled interior for a longer period of time, the Canadian fur trade "lasted" far longer than that in the US. Also, it was far more "managed" in Canada because of the exclusive franchise granted by the Crown to the Hudson Bay Company.
Rapid exploitation and depletion of the beaver in NY State and the US Midwest combined with ensuing rapid agricultural settlement was part of the explanation.
Unlike the US, Canada retained for far longer a remote, sparsely settled (primarily by Native Peoples and Metis - i.e. mixed blood) northern region - even as the St. Lawrence River valley and Upper Canada (Ontario) around both Lakes Ontario and Erie became agricultural.
Add to that the fact that being further north - the fur-bearing animal prey had thicker, more "premium" hides and it was inevitable that Canada would come to dominate the North American fur trade (and for such trade to become emblematic of Canada).
Few today realize how large the beaver (particularly) fur trade was. But every time you see a Buckingham Palace Guard in full regalia or a London "City" executive in a bowler - you are looking at a beaver on his head and a vestige of what once a major trading commodity!
Sorry for the history lesson.
Oh, BTW, the Romans paved the Appian Way over 2000 years ago - I guess they were preparing for Fiats and Alfas!
Cars can be distracting but I am always fighting fences and telephone lines. I hate them....fences in particlar. I have found very few fences that I want in a photograph.
Oh, say that again to the Critical Mass folks out there. You will get your butt kicked!
Anyway in Japan, which is very uncivilized for this matter, from next year, there will be new laws for the bicyclists to use the sidewalks instead of the regular car lanes. The bicyclists will still be permitted to ride on their bicycles on the sidewalks, which is pretty dangerous and something I never understand. I think more than enough pedestrians have died in the "bicycle" accidents already on the sidewalks, but the government doesn't recognize that as a serious problem.
Instead, the government thinks the car lanes are too dangerous for the bicyclists to go on. There are no bike lanes in the narrow streets in Japan because there's no enough space or whatever. But then, usually in big cities, there's not enough space in the sidewalks for the pedestrians, either! No one seems to argue about this.
When I walk around in the cities, I have problems with some people on their bikes on the sidewalks: When they try to pass me, I don't know which side to step off. When they are coming from behind, I simply cannot tell. They don't seem to have any rules or morals to practice, and I just don't want to get knocked over by some asshole on a bike when I'm out in the street taking some photos.
Linear Mode
