One person is dead and at least four others have been injured in a shooting in Rivière-des-Prairies Monday evening.
Update early Tuesday: the above links and other accounts now indicate that two people have died in this shooting.
As dwgs notes below, the death count is now three.
A study by La Presse finds that swimming pools and other water features aren’t equally distributed around the city. Anjou has the most, while CDN-NDG and Pierrefonds-Roxboro have the least.
It may not be fair, but it isn’t surprising, given that the history of the development of each borough is different, and some were independent cities till 2002 with their own agendas.
I’m pretty sure there are a LOT more backyard pools in Pierrefonds then there are in Anjou. Totally unscientific, but just looking at Google Maps, you can see examples of areas in Pierrefonds where almost every house has a pool:
https://goo.gl/maps/wTL2cjM2LD5dCmoWA
Maybe they have less need for public installations?
Not sure how to explain CDN-NDG has so few, though, other than maybe lack of space that can be converted to pools / jeu d’eau. From looking around on Google Maps, they seem to have less backyard pools than Pierrefonds.
Maybe because in NDG there’s access to public pools like the YMCA etc.? It’s a lot easier to go to the pool than maintain one. That’s where the reality of pool ownership slaps you in the face (and in the wallet!)
So, I poked around neighbourhoods a little more and found that there are parts of Anjou that also have tons of backyard pools (I said my method was unscientific!). Ex:
https://goo.gl/maps/RcDydvgoPvfwVaJH9
Not sure why Anjou is so blessed with public pools now. There are not very many statistics on this stuff. The most recent I could find was from 2012 and was for the whole of Montreal, not by neighbourhood.
@Uatu: that’s what the article is saying, though: there are far fewer public pools and water features, per capita, in CDN-NDG than in other parts of town. Though would the YMCA qualify as public?
Research by Google Earth. Not bad at this level! I had the impression Pierrefonds was the “poorer half” of Pierrefonds-Roxboro, but I may have been mistaken.
They mention a total of 372 “installations” across the whole city so they must be talking about city-owned stuff only. I can think of 4 non-pool water features added to parks in my neighbourhood in the last 10 years.
The part of Pierrefonds west of Roxboro is considered more high-end and wealthy than the poorer, less-privileged part of Pierrefonds east of Roxboro.
(Yes, Roxboro actually cuts Pierrefonds in two.)
Wait, Google maps shows me that Pierrefonds-Roxboro is an entirely separate neighbourhood from Pierrefonds? What the hell?
The prevalence of private pools in richer areas of the city means that the children of the richer get less socialization than the less rich.
This isn’t necessarily an advantage for them or for society as a whole. Tiny, backyard pools with one or two people in them… isn’t the same kind of social activity or social infrastructure as a large public pool with many swimming and social functions.
Backyard pools don’t build community or friendships.
I dunno but I guess it depends on the people because the rich pool owner I knew in the neighborhood invited everyone. Friends, neighbors, classmates etc. swam in that pool during birthday parties, St Jean BBQs, high school graduations…. Then again he was a working class guy who worked his way to the top so he was pretty generous.
The Black community celebrated Emancipation Day on Sunday to remember the date on which Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1834. Some took the opportunity to remind us that Canada’s history with slavery should not be forgotten.
Experts say this city needs a noise observatory and that we missed an opportunity to study the beneficial effects of the relative quiet that accompanied the 2020 Covid lockdown.
Wasnt that a projet electoral promise
I’m all-in when it comes to studying noise and its effects on well-being (and I do believe the effects are negative) but I’m not sure the “missed opportunity” was as good as this article suggests. The main reason being the pandemic itself.
Whenever you do a study, you need a control against which to measure the thing being studied. In this case, if you’re studying “well being,” then the stresses of the pandemic throws everything off. So you’d be comparing NOISE IN A TIME OF NO PANDEMIC against LESS NOISE IN THE TIME OF A PANDEMIC, and those things don’t line up.
Of course that’s just my first reaction. A closer look might reveal that they could have compared the first three months of the pandemic (pretty noiseless) with the second three months, and then the next three months, or something like that. In all cases, the pandemic is a constant, not a variable. I just don’t know if two or three months is a large enough time frame to see measurable differences.
Isn’t the point that if a noise observatory had been collecting data during the pandemic, it would provide a benchmark for how noiseless our environment could be? Sort of a lower limit to how quiet things could get without interventions designed to reduce loudness. It’s a missed opportunity in that sense – we could have know how “naturally” quiet our city can get. Don’t confuse this with a baseline – just an interesting moment in which a hopefully once-in-a-lifetime set of circumstances could have been documented. Simiilarly, the curfew months could have provided valuable data on how quiet nights could be if all non-essential activity is forbidden.
I think both Joey and Blork are right. To Joey’s point, we could have collected data on how quiet our city could be, definitely. And to Blork’s point, seeing how noise affects us is different during a pandemic as opposed to not in a pandemic. The effect of less noise on, for example, mental well-being would get messed up on account of how the sanitary measures affected mental health.
I agree with all of you. The first few months of real lockdown were so unusual, and the prospects at that point so uncertain, that comparing it to any other time would show a whole slew of other mental disquiets, I think.
But last summer was blissfully peaceful under the approach path, I have to say.
I remember noticing how quiet it was at night in April/May 2020. I’d go stand at the end of my driveway and it was like being off in the country somewhere. Mine is already a very quiet street (you might see six cars an hour after dark) but there’s a boulevard about 300 metres in one direction and another one 400 metres in the other. And at night I can even hear the roar from the highways (132 and 20) even though they are kilometres away. But oh, back then, that blissful silence.
A teenager was shot in St-Léonard Sunday night, following a scrap. He’s not expected to die.
denpanosekai 22:33 on 2021-08-02 Permalink
Damn that’s upsetting.
dwgs 06:32 on 2021-08-03 Permalink
CBC now saying three. Madness.
Mr.Chinaski 09:36 on 2021-08-03 Permalink
Do you still have an up-to-date homicide map? What’s the “score” this year?
Kate 09:55 on 2021-08-03 Permalink
As you’ll see in the sidebar (if you read the blog on a computer browser) there have been 16 homicides this year. This is the 2021 map.
Mr.Chinaski 16:04 on 2021-08-03 Permalink
So basically we’re at 17, last year we had 25 in total. Statistically, it’s in the standard deviation. Before yesterday, we had the same % proportionally to August, and it was the pendemic year when everything stopped.
So it’s mostly media that’s hyping the “dangerousness” of 2021 and Montreal as homicides have never been as low since the early 1970’s.
Kate 19:57 on 2021-08-03 Permalink
Why 17?
Blork 09:28 on 2021-08-04 Permalink
Kate, a small request regarding the murder map: can you change the base map to “Light Political” or “Mono City?” That would remove all those highway markers yet still leave the roads visible. (I find the highway markers very distracting when trying to visualize patterns on the map.)
Kate 09:34 on 2021-08-04 Permalink
Only for you, Blork.
Blork 11:09 on 2021-08-04 Permalink
Yay!