Against the backdrop of this overall positive evaluation of life in a festival district and the effect of such festivals over the atmosphere of QDS (as indicated through a basic quantitative analysis), we narrow our analysis below on the subtle differences between the experiences of respondents of different ages and with different statuses (as a resident, worker or visitor). Considering our sample size, we focus first on the data included in the free responses rather than the quantitative evaluations. We first explore the role of festivals in defining the district character and, for residents, inquire what made them choose to move to QDS. To further substantiate the qualitative findings with observed trends in Likert scale evaluations, we occasionally refer to the quantitative data when relevant to report on an integrated analysis between qualitative and quantitative data.
3.3.1. QDS Character
A first question asked respondents to describe the character of the district in a few words, without further indication on what aspects to focus. An in-depth look at the free responses showed that small differences could be observed between residents of different ages; for the older residents (i.e., over 40), the most important aspect of QDS is the recreational one, and, subsequently, the festivals and events taking place. For younger residents the emphasis was placed, albeit subtly, rather on the dynamic or eventful character of the district in general and where the presence of young people was appreciated. Equally important for both groups was the fact that QDS has a very accessible location that makes it an easy arrival and departure point for whatever urban activities respondents need to engage in. Thirdly, a crucial aspect for older residents was that QDS accommodates a mixture of activities and users–a heterogeneous district; this mixture is not all positive though, with some respondents singling out processes of gentrification or the presence of people experiencing homelessness, referred to, interestingly, only outside of the festival season.
Compared to residents, for those working in QDS (who have a median age lower than that of residents), the focus was similarly on the recreational aspects and the festivals and large events. For older workers (n = 3), QDS is a “place of culture, creation, life” (“lieu de culture, de création, de vie”) (R1). For younger workers (n = 7) the focus was, besides arts and culture (n = 6), also on the social aspects of use and diversity of users (or lack thereof). Like residents, one worker described it as a “mix of festival goers, people working in the office, and homeless” (R27). Interestingly, however, another called QDS “homogeneous” (R16) (i.e., not diverse) and a third pointed, harshly, to aspects of “social cleansing” (R9) in QDS, a statement with highly likely negative undertones, implying also a move towards a homogenization of users and a potential removal of e.g., people experiencing homelessness.
The young respondent who both lived and worked in the district had a far more negative view of QDS when asked to simply describe the district focused on “construction, noise, concrete” (“construction, bruit, béton”) (R7). This comment touched upon the quickly developing nature of the built environment in the district that, for many residents and users of QDS, takes over the everyday experience and poses more challenges than the festivals and events (see e.g.,
Section 3.3.2.2).
Like residents and workers, the third group of users–visitors (n = 1 for over 40, n = 3 for under 40), detailed the cultural aspects of the district and its dynamic nature, with one respondent also highlighting an interesting mobility aspect: “easy to navigate when it becomes pedestrian” (“facilement navigable lorsqu’il devient piéton”) (R18).
Overall, and unsurprisingly, the character of the neighborhood was defined across respondents by the festivals and events, the diversity of users and uses and the accessibility of the district itself. However, it was only residents and workers–those who spend more time in QDS-who also referred to social diversity or issues such as construction work, whereas visitors focused on the cultural aspects that make QDS a popular destination. Nonetheless, the QDS experience is more complex across respondents, and we delve deeper into the appreciated and less appreciated aspects of life in QDS, where the less glamorous aspects of the district are addressed.
We first focus briefly on the role that these character-defining festivals and events might have had in residents’ decision to move to QDS in the first place.
Decision to Move to QDS
Given the relatively young history of QDS as an entertainment district (approximately 20 years), at least compared to other traditional touristic neighborhoods, as well as the relatively high proportion of survey respondents that who had been living in the area for over a decade, we asked residents whether QDS played a role in their decision to move.
Again, responses differed along age categories. Among the younger respondents, five out of six said that the character of QDS played a role in their decision to move: one said it accounted for “15%” (R25) and two other respondents said that they wanted to move to a “nice entertaining place”, with one of the two saying it is the reason they moved there in the first place. A fourth respondent stated disappointment with the fact that what was promised in terms of soundproofing for the sounds of festivals and events was not delivered; this made their residential experience unpleasant leading them to eventually move out, despite their initial excitement with moving to QDS.
The one younger respondent who did not move to QDS due to the dynamic nature of the district had a very strong opinion on the choice of setting festivals in the city center and raised other issues associated with living in QDS (such as construction work, a point that was later addressed by respondents across the board), stating they were considering moving out: “at least festivals are not continuous, like the construction work. […] I’m considering moving out because of 1. Construction, 2. Pollution (noise, light, air), 3. Too many noisy and too large festivals and events, to the point that it becomes an enormous challenge to walk through the crowds simply to do my groceries!” (“au moins les festivals ne sont pas sur une base continue à comparés aux constructions. Mais quelle idée de mettre des spectacles aussi volumineux au centre-ville? Je ne comprends pas du tout l’aménagement urbain de Montréal. Je pense à quitter à cause de 1-Constructions 2-Pollution (sonore, lumineuse, air) 3-Trop de festivals et évènements bruyants et trop volumineux ou cela devient un défi énorme de marcher dans les foules simplement pour aller faire l’épicerie!”) (R7).
Half of the older respondents (n = 6/12) answering the question stated that it did not play a role in their decision to move to the district; three of them detailed that they moved to the district before QDS was a “thing”, with one clarifying that they did enjoy being close to the events. The other half who did state QDS as a reason to move was attracted by the combination of festivals and access to work and other services (n = 3), with one respondent stating that they found the “neighborhood life [to be] pleasant” (“vie de quartier agréable”) (R30).
This further shows, perhaps unsurprisingly given the size and duration of the festival season, that the festivals and events have become intimately connected with QDS and are part of its identity. That makes them carefully considered elements of life in the district and that, together with its accessibility, might have already (and in the future) influenced the decision of people to move in (or out).
3.3.2. Evaluations of QDS
We delve more deeply into situations singled out by respondents that led to positive or negative experiences, each time linking the experience back to the sonic dimension/auditory experience. That was of course very much related to the character of the district, so respondents often repeated elements that they cited in the previous section.
3.3.2.1. Appreciated Aspects of the Experience in QDS
The quantitative evaluations of the role of festivals and events on the character and life in QDS revealed that residents give overall higher ratings across aspects of safety, liveliness, etc. compared to those who work in the district. For residents, across all ages, in describing the character of QDS, its atmosphere was most important, with an emphasis on its dynamic/lively nature (4.75/5, SE = 0.1, “animé“ in French) and attractiveness (4.45/5, SE = 0.18). This dynamic nature was coupled with evaluations of it being busy (and not necessarily in a negative way) and, unsurprisingly, eventful. Furthermore, those living in the district agreed that the festivals and events also made the district more socially and economically diverse (3.80/5, SE = 0.24 and 4.00/5, SE = 0.23, respectively).
These findings were corroborated by the free responses: for residents of QDS, accessibility and proximity to other services in the area are appreciated points of living in QDS, for both older (n = 12) and younger respondents (n = 6, including the younger respondent who also works in the district); older respondents emphasize the added benefit of having quick access to various cultural activities (n = 4). Aspects of aesthetics or the overall atmosphere of QDS are also important, while one younger respondent emphasized the dynamic nature of the district that brings with it an aspect of belonging: “there is always something happening and you feel like you are a part of something” (R24). Interestingly, two younger residents discussed morphological/architectural points, and one of them adding a sonic layer to that built environment emphasis, stating that QDS becomes “quiet once you get off the main streets” (R15).
Those working in the district appreciate the same aspects as above, with this time younger respondents emphasizing the importance of “access to the cultural offerings” (“l’accès a l’offre culturelle”) (R4). The younger workers also appreciate the diversity of users i.e., the “mix of tourists and locals” (R27) and the sounds of diverse users occupying the public spaces of QDS. In a similar vein, an older worker stated they appreciated the effects of pedestrianization, enjoying the conversations of passers-by and “the square when closed to car traffic” (“[l]a place lorsque fermée à la circulation automobile”) (R11), likely referring to the flexibility of the many public spaces in the district that fulfill many roles (such as the Place des Festivals, that is one day a large plaza with fountains, and the next the location for an event with stages and thousands of attendants).
Rounding up this view of QDS, visitors to the district also emphasized the aspect of the diversity of uses, with a focus on the recreational activities and cultural aspects. Two younger ones also highlighted the car-free nature of the spaces, namely that they are pedestrian “gathering spaces” (R23).
To sum up, festivals and events, as well as the dynamic atmosphere of QDS during festivals was an appreciated aspect across ages and status of QDS users. Older respondents emphasized the access to many events (mostly cultural), as well as various services, while several younger respondents enjoyed the broader dynamic nature of the district as well as more pointed aspects like the temporary pedestrian nature of the spaces and the creation of new public spaces, in which diverse activities could be enjoyed.
All respondents, across ages and status, when prompted about what they appreciated about the sound environment in their district, referred to the sound of particular festivals and temporary events taking place in QDS.
Respondents listed festivals they enjoyed and attended, among which the Jazz Festival, the Francos of Montreal (a festival promoting francophone culture), Festival TransAmériques (FTA—a theatre and dance festival) and a festival built on the edges of FTA–OFFTA, for avant-garde expressions of art. The common thread of these festivals is that they are large festivals with multiple stages and events going on over multiple days, are well monitored through extensive fencing and often occupy most of the district, attracting large crowds of visitors. They offer both free (often outdoor) and paid (often indoor) diverse programming that includes local, national and international performers. Among notable temporary installations, two respondents singled out the Balançoires, an appreciated interactive sound art installation where people of any age can go on a swing to make musical sounds.
Such festivals and events are overwhelmingly referred to as an appreciated element of life in the district and specifically on its sound environment. One older resident summarized their festival season experience as: “All festivals, with few exceptions, have a positive impact on my social life and the neighborhood” (R20). Two younger respondents, one working in QDS and one visiting, refer to events that they enjoyed that did not themselves create noise, but rather led to ‘vibrant’ uses by people–a welcome type of sound, showing the positive effect of the festivals and events beyond the dreaded “crowdedness”.
Beyond the expected positive evaluations of pleasant and lively/dynamic atmospheres, both residents and workers stated that their most appreciated festivals had a positive impact on their mood (3.72/5, SE = 0.24, and 3.90/5, SE = 9.23, respectively) as well as feeling like they are taking a break from their everyday life (3.90/5, SE = 0.2, and 4.00, SE = 0.45, respectively). When looking at differences between age groups, the effect on mood of younger respondents was markedly higher than for older ones (4.20/5, SE = 0.2, and 3.57/5, SE = 0.24, respectively).
Interestingly, two older residents connected the appreciation of the sound environment with ideas of “respect” (of the rules, presumably), for example “the sound level respected by the festival organizers” (“niveau sonore respecté par des organisateurs de festivals”) (R29). This was confirmed by a younger worker, who appreciated “the proactive approach of the members of QDS to follow up on requests” (“[l]a proactivité des membres de QDS pour le suivi des demandes”) (R10).
Thinking longer term, older residents (who also lived in QDS for longer), highlighted how changes in the morphology of the district actually led to positive changes in the sound environment, and thus to less exposure to noise: “a few years ago there were many noises during the events, but multiple buildings were built since. That created walls that attenuate the noise. I almost don’t hear ‘the music’ at all anymore” (“Il y a plusieurs années il y-avait beaucoup de bruits lors des événements, mais plusieurs édifices ont été érigés depuis. Ça crée des murs qui atténue le bruit. Je n’entends presque plus la ‘musique’.”) (R6).
The younger resident who lived and worked in QDS (who was generally quite negative about their life in QDS) nonetheless appreciated moments with less noise: “On Sundays, there is no construction and less events; it’s very relaxing” (“Les dimanches il n’y a pas de constructions et moins d’évènements, c’est très reposant.”) (R7).
An older visitor made a point on the expected ‘noisy’ nature of festivals, that might prove to be at odds with the experience of the other categories of respondents: “The Francos (and the jazz [the Jazz Festival], etc.) are OUTSIDE events and I like for the music to be loud, the crowds animated and noisy, for it to be movement everywhere, for it to be life. If I wanted quietness, I would go listen to classical [music] in a [concert] hall” (“Les francos (et le jazz, etc.) sont des spectacles EXTÉRIEURS et j’apprécie que la musique soit forte, la foule animée et bruyante, que ça bouge partout, qu’il y ait de la vie. Si je voulais du tranquille, j’irais écouter du classique en salle.”) (R5). The sentiment was agreed with by a younger worker, stating “a festival is never quiet” (“un festival n’est jamais calme”) (R16).
Together, these findings indicate that the long-term management and planning of the district together with spoken (11PM curfew, diverse programming attracting diverse crowds) and unspoken (fewer events on Sunday) norms contribute to a sense of predictability that frames the appreciation of festivals and events as well as a sense of predictability of the dynamics of QDS.
3.3.2.2. Less Appreciated Aspects of the Experience in QDS
The presence of the festivals and events does not come without criticism, but the brunt of the blame was rarely on festival themselves, but rather the associated activities and other aspects of life in the city center. The downside of the popularity of festivals and events could be seen in the fact that residents felt that the festivals and events also made life in the district cost more (3.95/5, SE = 0.18), attracting wealthier people to move to QDS (3.85/5, SE = 0.2), while marginally encouraging some in the district to move out (3.15/5, SE = 0.21).
An analysis of the free responses showed that older residents of QDS had diverse sources of complaints about their experience in QDS, including sound-related issues related to festivals and events, including early sound checks, length of certain shows as well as sound levels during certain shows (n = 4) and general construction work (with a very strong sonic component).
Aesthetic aspects like cleanliness and “the neglected look of multiple buildings” (“aspect négligé de plusieurs immeubles”) (R22) were also cited (n = 3), as well as concerns about other QDS users like members of different vulnerable communities and criminality in general (n = 4). One older resident also added the lack of parking spaces, and, on a similar vein, one younger resident mentioned issues related to accessibility by car during festivals.
Younger residents complained about the same noise-related issues, adding the sound of emergency vehicles and sirens during festivals (R21). Unlike older residents, who focus on other users of QDS, two younger residents cited the prices or lack of certain services in the district as a bigger concern (n = 2).
Workers in QDS shared complaints about festival noise and construction work, but younger workers reiterated, like younger residents, the lack of certain services as well as mobility issues, including limited car access and sharing sidewalks between cyclists and pedestrians. Like older residents, younger workers referred to people experiencing homelessness as a challenge in QDS, this time outlining “mass tourism” as a negative aspect (R17). Finally, a younger worker emphasized the difficulty of relating to QDS because of “the difficulty to identify oneself with the development projects in the neighborhood, an impersonal aspect” (“la difficulté de s’identifier aux projets de développement du quartier, côté impersonnel.”) (R9).
Despite apparent consensus among workers and residents on the dynamic and diverse character of the district, younger visitors to QDS (n = 3) pointed to a perceived lack of diversity as it is obviously geared towards larger crowds and that “it can appear empty during the night” (“il peut paraitre vide la nuit”) (R18).
It thus seems that, despite the appreciated diversity of the uses and users of the district mentioned in the previous section, there is a difference between what could make the neighborhood alienating or less appreciated between respondents of different ages, likely related to their own uses and priorities in district life. While older respondents (mostly residents) emphasised problematic users of the neighborhood, the aspect of lack of access to certain services or the price of existing ones is mentioned by younger workers. Interestingly, the question of an identity beyond festivals and events is raised only by younger workers and visitors-respondents with a likely shorter-term experience of QDS–who share an impression that QDS is largely geared towards larger crowds and tourism.
The sound environment is a key aspect of the QDS experience and not only an appreciated one; as already referred to above, for residents across ages, the music of certain festivals, either in genre or in levels, is a source of unpleasant experiences; to explain some of these complaints, residents refer specifically to the duration of shows and the fact that some festivals end late during weeknights. This lack of “respect” for expected times is reiterated by both an older and a younger resident when referring to the “quiet morning” rule.
The specific situations triggering negative auditory situations for residents came from the more popular festivals such as the Jazz Festival (that could sometimes get crowded or go loud or until late in the evening) or festivals with a more bass-heavy type of music (like Pouzza Fest–a punk festival, or the Under Pressure Annual Graffiti festival) that affected residents’ sleep. Two other events (Nuits d’Afrique and the Montreal Marathon) were cited as having been unexpectedly loud, through early performances, setups or sound checks early during the day.
The person who worked and lived in the neighborhood had many complaints, citing issues daily (NB: all their responses were negative and often expressed their desire to move out, so a bias should be noted here): “Techno music was playing on some kind of loop at Igloo Fest […]! It was so loud that my windows (closed) were vibrating even though I was on the 26th floor! I even called the police! I almost failed my exam because the sound completely prevented me from concentrating. On other (and multiple) occasions, sound tests at 10am (I work nights) completely ruined my sleep. The shows between 7pm and 11pm were disturbing but tolerable, but the intermittent extra loud sound tests from 9am onwards and throughout the day were intolerable! Plus, when there is no festival noise, it’s construction! There is NEVER a quiet break for the residents of this area.” (“Une musique techno était joué en genre de boucle à l’Igloo Fest! […] C’était tellement fort que mes fenêtres (fermées) vibraient même en étant au 26e étage! J’ai appelé la police même! J’ai presque coulé mon examen parce que le son m’empêchait complètement de me concentrer. À d’autres (et multiples) occasions, les tests de son à 10am (je travail de nuit) ont complètement gâché mon sommeil. Les spectacles entre 7pm et 11pm étaient dérangeants mais tolérables, mais les tests de son intermittents extra forts de fois même à partir de 9am et pendant toute la journée étaient intolérables! En plus, quand il n’y a pas de bruit de festivals, c’est des constructions! Il n’y a JAMAIS de pause calme pour les résidents de ce quartier”) (R7).
These concerns of unexpected issues throughout the day were also raised by the younger workers, who complained about sound tests and festival-related activities that are disruptive for their work; workers also referred to noise issues from festivals and other events that are audible in their offices at night as well. Workers in the neighborhood highlighted other sources they find problematic, namely construction cited by both older and younger workers, with one older resident adding street musicians and one younger worker adding traffic.
One older resident referred to construction noise in relation to roadwork, with two additional residents mentioning the ventilation noise: “CONSTANT NOISE caused by the ventilation/air conditioning systems in the Berri Street apartments. Since they have been in operation, it is impossible for us to sleep in the summer with the windows open” (R21).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the two younger visitors did not refer to festivals and events as problematic, but rather cited construction noise and the sound of cars deterring them from using QDS too often: “the noise of passing cars in the neighborhood does not make me want to spend time there” (“Le BRUIT CONSTANT causé par les systèmes de ventilation/climatisation des îlot-apparts rue Berri. Depuis qu’ils sont en fonction, il nous est impossible de dormir l’été avec les fenêtres ouvertes.”) (R18).
However, even during the least appreciated events and festivals, the atmosphere/ambiance in QDS remained relatively highly rated (3.47/5, SE = 0.22 for residents and a lower 2.90/5, SE = 0.31 for workers), such as safety evaluations both for day and night.
The least appreciated aspects were thus only marginally related to festivals and events–and even in that case, the issues were related to when festivals go too late, some genres of music are too loud or when sound tests happen too early. Rather, the problems focused mostly on everyday annoyances: the presence of construction (noise) and subsequent issues of accessibility by car.
This explains that the experience in the district is nuanced and diverse according to users and uses and certainly leaves room for improvement both within the context of the festival season but also outside of it, with regard to everyday life. Furthermore, patterns can be observed among the responses of different categories of QDS users, which provide grounds to revisit presumed oppositions between reluctant residents and disrespectful visitors. We further document the underexplored perspective of workers in the neighborhood and highlight the extent to which older respondents enjoy the offer of the district. Below, we discuss the implications of the findings for research purposes (including some limitations encountered in our research process) as well as for practice, further exploring the concept of soundscape persona as it applies to a festival district.