I suppose it’s for Women’s Day that Le Devoir asks the question whether city layouts are hostile and dangerous for women, particularly at night.
I take the point, but the studies cited, Guide d’enquête sur la sécurité des femmes en ville (1993) and Guide d’aménagement pour un environnement urbain sécuritaire (2002) are probably among the reasons for the city’s move to light up the back alleys, so that it’s hard to find any real darkness in the city. This was praised at the time. I’m of two minds about it: it may be safer but at the expense of making other things worse.
Meezly, good Côté cartoon on your point below.
Report on Saturday’s demonstration in front of the consulate.
Meezly 12:09 on 2025-03-08 Permalink
There’s a protest gathering at the US Consulate right now “pour nos filles.” Apparently google erased International Women’s Day from its official calendar.
Joey 13:28 on 2025-03-08 Permalink
During the city’s consultations on Jeanne-Mance Park and the portion of Mt Royal Park that abuts Parc Ave, a woman spoke up and implored the city to maintain the existing street lighting along Parc Avenue and in the park. She explained that without adequate lighting, she would feel unsafe walking from downtown to Mile-End.
A while later I was speaking with a man who was somewhat involved in the project, who was waxing philosophic about how it’s cool that at night the park is pretty dark – “it’s fun to have some darkness in the city.” I couldn’t help but think that, generally speaking, the men who make decisions about our urban environment really have no idea how dangerous a city can seem. Anyway, I reminded him that there was plenty of darkness to explore on the mountain after sunset…
Kate 13:52 on 2025-03-08 Permalink
Meezly, you have caused me to clutch my head. Hard.
Joey, but I don’t think many women would embark on a solo walk through a park or down a back alley at night, lit up or not. Probably most men would tend to avoid them, too.
Chris 13:58 on 2025-03-08 Permalink
>…how dangerous a city can seem
Stress on the *seem*. In fact, we are one the safest places in the world.
Robert H 16:03 on 2025-03-08 Permalink
I recall a conversation I had with one of my cousins years ago about Boston where we both lived (not together) for a while. We discussed our weekly routines, the places each of us would go and when, and at one point as I described mine, her eyes widened with astonishment and some disapproval, it seemed. So I asked her what was the matter. She looked at me as if I couldn’t see what was in front of my face and responded, “FEMALE!” She was appalled at the places I routinely visited or passed through and specifically the hours, frequently after dark, when I did so. I didn’t see what the big deal was, and I took for granted my freedom of movement as a male. It didn’t occur to me that she had to think differently and anticipate factors or situations that I completely ignored. It was a wake up call for me, I admit.
Meezly 11:22 on 2025-03-09 Permalink
@Kate, Coté is spot on as usual 🙂 I’m also of two minds. Better urban lighting alone isn’t going to make women feel safer nor remedy a societal issue. Plus, light pollution.
Kate 11:37 on 2025-03-09 Permalink
The light pollution is a pain and we know it isn’t great for animals, birds or people. Might be confusing to plants, too.
My back porch would be more of a pleasure in summertime, except there’s a bright alley light a few doors down that shines right in. I should just be glad my bedroom doesn’t face it.
maggie rose 14:11 on 2025-03-09 Permalink
Using shields to direct lights downward would go a long way to reduce glare. Also, using controls like dimmers, timers and motion sensors would both save energy and address the other unwanted issues. A couple of years ago, someone installed a strong glaring unshielded LED light atop a small building a few blocks away from me. It doesn’t brighten my rooms, but whenever I look across at the sky in that direction, well I can’t for very long as it’s so strong. I’m pretty sure it’s on 24/7. The big increase of urban light at night negatively affects local & migrating wildlife, as well as human health. And then there’s our lack of dark skies. A good question is ‘who is the light for, and what do they need?’ Cheap LED’s tend to be a problem because of the blue light they give off.
I follow dark skies people on social media, just as an interest of mine. When I was a kid and went out for an ice cream with my dad at night in the 50s in NYC, we could look up and see a LOT of stars. This interview with a Canadian who accidentally got a job researching light pollution in Berlin is a fun & informative read. Transcript of audio: https://tinyurl.com/28j75kd7
maggie rose 14:21 on 2025-03-09 Permalink
Just realized the audio interview is actually better than the transcript.
Joey 09:55 on 2025-03-10 Permalink
Yeah, the insanely bright lights in our alleys is a little nuts, especially since so many people have motion-activated lights (and security cameras rolling 24/7). The replacement of the old street lamp bulbs with the new LED ones must have reduced light pollution since they concentrate the light in a much smaller area than the previous ones. Although there’s a light at the corner of Villeneuve and St-Urbain that has been blinking for weeks and apparently the city won’t get to it for a few months. Efficiency!
Anyway, yes we need to be more mindful of light pollution (and noise pollution – excluding bars and clubs, enough of that already), but I don’t think we need Parc Avenue to be totally dark between Pine and Mt-Royal…
CE 10:59 on 2025-03-10 Permalink
Years ago, I had some people over at my apartment including some people visiting from a small town. A woman who was at the party left to go to the dep and one of the out-of-town attendees got quite angry at me for “letting” her go out into the night alone as a woman. I (a man) was confused and and told her I’d accompany her if she asked but wouldn’t impose, especially for a simple dep run. The discussion concluded with the Montrealers concluding that the city is absolutely safe enough that it would be a bit condescending for a man to assume that a woman needed him to go outside at night. It was an interesting discussion.