Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Montreal has the prettier downtown. Philadelphia has the more impressive downtown. Philadelphia is also progressing more. But if I were a tourist, I'd pick Montreal before Philly...for now.
To be fair, it seems kind of strange, especially from someone on from Montreal.
Montreal has the edge over City Center in almost every metric as far as my experience goes. Philly may have a larger volume of office space, but Montreal is the more active and enjoyable pedestrian experience. Infinitely better for bikes, and a good distance ahead in transit. As far as how the size "feels," I'd say it's close with an edge to Montreal.
To be fair, it seems kind of strange, especially from someone on from Montreal.
Montreal has the edge over City Center in almost every metric as far as my experience goes. Philly may have a larger volume of office space, but Montreal is the more active and enjoyable pedestrian experience. Infinitely better for bikes, and a good distance ahead in transit. As far as how the size "feels," I'd say it's close with an edge to Montreal.
I think that's a very fair assessment. I think the key difference is that, like essentially every American city outside of New York--and even among a top tier pedestrian American city like Philly--there's still definitely room for improvement compared to a city like Montreal, which simply has a higher footprint of very active, vibrant neighborhoods that have embraced more of a thoroughly European culture.
Certainly not dramatically more than Philly, but enough to, as you say, give it an edge.
The good news for Philly is that it has a fundamentally pedestrian/bike-friendly structure and a fantastically vibrant core--but it just needs to continue to "connect the dots" of vibrancy and continue to liven the dead zone stretches in between, which is exactly the strategy that's being employed.
And in fact, Philly has the potential to be the most Montreal-like American city as it continues revitalizing, due to their similar density, size and Euro-influenced culture.
I think that's a very fair assessment. I think the key difference is that, like essentially every American city outside of New York--and even among a top tier pedestrian American city like Philly--there's still definitely room for improvement compared to a city like Montreal, which simply has a higher footprint of very active, vibrant neighborhoods that have embraced more of a thoroughly European culture.
Certainly not dramatically more than Philly, but enough to, as you say, give it an edge.
The good news for Philly is that it has a fundamentally pedestrian/bike-friendly structure and a fantastically vibrant core--but it just needs to continue to "connect the dots" of vibrancy and continue to liven the dead zone stretches in between, which is exactly the strategy that's being employed.
And in fact, Philly has the potential to be the most Montreal-like American city as it continues revitalizing, due to their similar density, size and Euro-influenced culture.
Very good match up overall.
It's true, from everyone that I know who has visited Philly and MTL or live in both cities respectfully say that they're basically the same. Philly has taller buildings and more office towers, while Montreal has more people walking downtown, better for bikes and slightly more vibrant. But at the end of the day, it's a close call since they're both similar. Both are going through a renaissance, high residential population, many college/university students, high amount of retail etc..
To be fair, it seems kind of strange, especially from someone on from Montreal.
Montreal has the edge over City Center in almost every metric as far as my experience goes. Philly may have a larger volume of office space, but Montreal is the more active and enjoyable pedestrian experience. Infinitely better for bikes, and a good distance ahead in transit. As far as how the size "feels," I'd say it's close with an edge to Montreal.
Montreal probably has more tourist appeal to the average american, due to its euro-flair, but I highly doubt that it is ahead in transit. While montreal has a good system it lacks a fully unified and electrified regional rail, and light rail.
Montreal probably has more tourist appeal to the average american, due to its euro-flair, but I highly doubt that it is ahead in transit. While montreal has a good system it lacks a fully unified and electrified regional rail, and light rail.
Montreal has great coverage subway wise, we also have a train that connects downtown to the suburbs. Also, they're planning to build a 67km long REM with a possible 2nd extension. It'll unify subway lines with train and the REM.
Anyone have any opinions on how the two downtowns compare in their transitions to and integration with the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the core?
Also, the built form of the outlying neighborhoods of Montreal is eerily similar to those of Philly.
Architectural differences aside, wouldn't the street in the below pic be right at home in South Philly? http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/r...6/IMG_2091.jpg
(credit to Atanga of Skyscrapercity)
I think if you ignore the architectural vernacular, Philadelphia is the US city most similar in built form to Montreal. The CBDs are both similar-sized, gridded, and have a mixture of high-rise and human-scaled development. The outlying neighborhoods also gridded streets with development all the way up to the curb and seemingly similar amount of separation between retail-dominated streets and residential streets.
I've heard Boston being thrown around as a better comparison for Montreal than Philly, but in built form I feel like Philly
much more strongly resembles Montreal.
Montreal probably has more tourist appeal to the average american, due to its euro-flair, but I highly doubt that it is ahead in transit. While montreal has a good system it lacks a fully unified and electrified regional rail, and light rail.
Montreal has an extensive commuter rail network with its Main Line being electrified. The biggest part in Montreal's favor is the heavy rail rapid transit system which has a much better network than the the single meeting point of Philadelphia's two rapid transit lines. Montreal's commuter rail is also better integrated with its rapid transit lines with transfers available to the subway at multiple different points that include outside of downtown stations. What's more, Montreal's systems have far more aggressive expansion plans than Philadelphia's so this difference is likely to become greater in the near future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Comparison of central shopping districts
