1. Introduction

2. Context – Quartier des Spectacles

3. Literature Review

4. Methods

5. Results

5. Results

The combined inductive and deductive analysis method helped to generate two main categories that define the at-home experience of residents and workers: first, the perception of the neighborhood and, second, the relationship between neighborhood spaces and the experience of festivals. Each of the two categories contained three broad themes that themselves aggregated a multitude of topics identified in the open coding, described in detail in Table 1 and the sections below. 

Table 1. Topics, themes and categories resulting from the coding process.

5.1. Perception of the Quartier des Spectacles

The sounds of festivals affected the participants’ uses of spaces and how they reconciled their different experiences as locals and festivalgoers with their sonic experiences framed by their perceptions of everyday life in their neighborhood. 

5.1.1. Why move to the Quartier des Spectacles?

All the participants had made the conscious decision to move to the QDS, whether it was 20+ years or a bit over a year before the data collection. The reasons for choosing the QDS were similar among the long-term residents and the recent transplants to the neighborhood: first of all, location, convenience, and accessibility and, second, expressed to different extents among participants, the festivals, the street life, and neighborhood ambiance (D5 – 59 years old [YO]). Across the board, the fact that the neighborhood is centrally located and well connected to the rest of the city through public infrastructure was a big incentive. For the younger participants, the aspect of convenience was essential, i.e., the ability to bike and walk to their everyday working and studying spaces. One of these younger participants stated that the festivals were a plus but definitely not a factor in their decision. The presence of festivals did make them engage more with the neighborhood, using the public spaces and participating in more social activities like exploring the festival area with friends. Furthermore, they used the amenities of their buildings, which they stated gave them the perk of participating in the festivals without having to mingle with people in crowds. D1 summarized their choice to move to the QDS as follows: “I wouldn’t say it influenced my decision like ‘oh, it’s Place des Arts, I’m going to go there’, but I was just happy; it’s fun. There are a lot of restaurants around, and it’s living; I feel it’s a living block, in this square kilometer round, there’s so many things you can do” (D1 – 23 YO). 

Some of the older locals, all living in dwellings farther from the main stage areas (see Figure 1), cited the festivals as an equally important factor in their decision to move to the QDS: “I used to travel fromVaudreuil for jazz, everyday […] it was a thrill that you just had to walk two streets to be at the Jazz Festival” (D6 – 59 YO). One participant reflected on the fact that living in a festival neighborhood means constantly going between two states of being (a local and a festivalgoer) that often intermingle:

I chose this neighborhood because it’s practical. We’re 10 minutes away by foot from Old Montreal, 10 minutes from downtown, 10 minutes from the Gay Village. It is full of things to do and see. So, as a resident, I made my choice. Also, as a festivalgoer, because, if one night I want to go and see a concert at the Jazz Festival, for example, and if I don’t like it, I am back home in 5 minutes.^[6] (R3 – 72 YO, translated from French)

The freedom of being able to operate between the two states is essential for quality of life: one of the younger participants, who moved in a year before the data collection started and moved out by the end of the 2019 festival season, clarified that, besides convenience, the festivals would represent an interesting plus as long as they did not disrupt their daily life. While the combination of attractive features was the main selling point for the apartment they were renting next to Place des Festivals, their expectations of living in the QDS were not met: 

[I] thought it would be nice to be in an area where there are fun activities taking place. We were told that the windows were made thicker than usual to drown out noise […], but you can still hear it; at night when there’s no other noise, you just hear the whole concert. We were told that Esplanade Clark [the previous name of Esplanade Tranquille] would be complete so we could enjoy it, however, it’s still under construction. We were told there will be nice little benefits of living that are not there. Paying more for this, that doesn’t seem [like it’s] worth it. (D2 – 27 YO)

We come back to this idea of knowing what to expect when moving to the QDS and the need to “accept” the downsides that might come with the advantages of living in a festival neighborhood in 5.1.3. 

5.1.2. How has the Quartier des Spectacles changed? 

The QDS, as a fairly recent denomination of the geographical area in which participants lived, has seen increased consistent growth in terms of, e.g., events or festival season durations in the past few years. The main change reported by participants was in relation to prices having gone up, particularly those of basic services as well as housing, due to new, expensive housing developments being built. One participant stated that they could certainly not afford to move to the neighborhood now; another one emphasized that housing in the neighborhood is too expensive for families. One participant specifically referred to gentrification as a term, but used it in a positive way, emphasizing the idea of associated improvement of the neighborhood. Even though the new, more tourist-oriented services might not be accessible to locals, one clarified that “I like diversity […], even if I don’t go to these fancy restaurants and bars, I like living among them. I just like to think that rather than having an empty field beside me, I like having a restaurant, even if I won’t go to it” (D6 – 59 YO). 

However, participants felt that their positive outlook on the changes in the QDS are not shared by everyone in the neighborhood. The sound levels of festivals and overall approach to sound management were perceived to have improved throughout the years – an initial concern for some locals with young children, causing them to move out – and the management of festivals was perceived to have also improved over time, with better planning of stages or crowd management, for example. Nonetheless, some participants argued that these improvements seem to have not dissuaded other locals from complaining and feeling that their neighborhood is changing for the worse. Participants who have lived in the QDS for over a decade referred to the experience of such locals, implicitly referring to those in the social housing complex; they were described as less positive towards the changes in the neighborhood, primarily brought about by the increased popularity of the festivals: 

[They say:] ’These people are taking our neighborhood’, ‘we can’t do our regular errands because of these people’, ‘things are closed off’, ‘we don’t feel at home, people are invading’ […] Maybe it’s not attractive cause they feel their neighborhood is being taken over by outsiders.” (D6 - 59 YO)

Finally, a growing fear was that the increase in residential projects in the neighborhood would actually eventually drive out the festivals, with some participants exhibiting protective behaviors toward the neighborhood’s character: “The problem is they’re building these high-rise apartments on the land where there used to be stages […] Everybody wants to live in the QDS, but there won’t be any more shows, like when all the stages move to Verdun. The buildings are squeezing out the events; that’s pretty scary” (D6 – 59 YO).

5.1.3. Who is the Quartier des Spectacles for? 

Participants placed an emphasis on who they felt the neighborhood is for, understood both as who could feel at home there as well as who its existing users are. Participants drew from their own experiences to project their own expectations onto other groups, speculating on whether existing amenities or street life would be suitable for these imagined other locals. In this sense, participants largely spoke of other locals as belonging to four different groups: the young (including students and young professionals), families, the elderly, and an additional, amorphous group of other residents who were more reticent about the festivals.

There was relative consensus among participants that the QDS is not suited for families, with reasons ranging from being of a certain age or having different sonic needs that come with having a family (“If I had kids, I wouldn’t see myself downtown […] I feel like there’s a point in your life when downtown is too much; it’s not what you really want, you want something calm” [D1 – 23 YO]) to a perceived lack of amenities suitable for family life, including schools, parks, or pools (although one pool does exist in the neighborhood). One participant clarified that there is an issue with families having left their dwellings due to the neighborhood being too loud for raising young children. Another participant added that the costs of living in the neighborhood, on top of the lack of amenities, can also be a deterrent for families. 

There was agreement that the neighborhood is suitable for younger dwellers; participants projected their own experiences on others, seeing themselves reflected (or not) in those using or living in the QDS. Young participants living in the neighborhood for a shorter period of time specifically referred to themselves as the main group of people that the neighborhood is geared towards. “I feel like Place des Arts is mostly young […] in my building, it’s mostly 30-year-olds or less. It seems the average is around or below that, so I feel like it’s a buzzing block. I wouldn’t say 60 or above. I didn’t really notice older people” (D1 – 23 YO). These participants further stated that “older” people might not necessarily enjoy the QDS due to its vitality and the constant sound and presence of festivals. One older participant added to this point of the neighborhood being geared towards the young, referring specifically to students: “My neighborhood is full of students. And there are some old people, but not that many. Even the type of noise coming is from the students, at night or something” (D6 - 59 YO).

This perception was, however, contested by other older participants, all above 50 years of age and having lived in the neighborhood for many years. The same participant who mentioned the students continued, with this seemingly contradictory statement: “My building …, practically no one has left. We bought when it was brand new, and there has been very little change. I think people really are happy to live here.” (D6 – 59 YO). While all the older participants clarified that the festivals and events are among the main reasons they moved to the neighborhood, some brought back the aspect of expectations. They stated they were aware of the challenges associated with living in such a neighborhood and that those complaining should accept the pros and cons: 

When you live next to the QDS, you know that you will have festivals, you know what you’re risking; it’s not guaranteed, but you risk having noise or a higher noise level. About the people who complain about the sound levels: I understand, sometimes it is excessive, but I think you have to stay open, because it’s normal that when there is a festival, there is a bit more noise or traffic, but that does not bother me at all.^[7] (R3 - 72 YO, translated from French)

This difference in perception on who the neighborhood is for could be influenced by the fact that the younger participants tended to rent and were planning only a temporary stay in the neighborhood, thus remaining relatively detached from the community life and using the QDS in more limited ways. In contrast, the older participants owned their dwellings and lived in the QDS for longer, becoming more attuned to the local realities. Even in that case, the implicit aspect touched upon by participants is the choice of having moved to the neighborhood for the enjoyment of its liveliness or accessibility, which is not necessarily the case for people living in the social housing complex. All participants chose to move to the QDS (and that, realistically, also biases our results), so their positive evaluations of the neighborhood and their sonic experiences were usually contrasted with those who either did not understand the consequences of moving to the QDS or who do not appreciate the advantages it brings: “instead of thinking ‘Wow we’ve got like world class musicians playing here for free for us, we just have to walk two feet to get there,’ it’s like ‘Oh no, I never go there, there’s too many people, the crowds are terrible’” (D6 – 59 YO). 

The same participant referred to geographical differences between those “who complain” and those who don’t: “The people in the condos don’t complain. It’s people in low-cost housing who complain.” The “low-cost housing” expression sheds light on how a particular narrative is projected onto a certain category of QDS residents. Of course, public housing residents can be young, old, or part of a family; yet, those living in private housing were using living conditions as the primary lens to understand their needs. Thus, a fourth group of amorphous, reluctant QDS dwellers is perceived to exist, for whom the neighborhood is not considered a good match but who have no “say” in the matter upon becoming residents. Going full circle with the aspect of QDS amenities, a participant clarified that the reluctance of some in the HJM might not only be due to the noise and the crowdedness of festivals but also to the realities of not having access to necessary amenities to sustain family life in the neighborhood (R1 – 63 YO).

5.2. Spaces and the Experience of Festivals

The intrinsically sonic experience of festivals is tightly interwoven with the participants’ experiences of various neighborhood spaces and influences the perceived quality of the boundaries between home and public space, shaping the dynamic of their everyday lives throughout the year and even more so during the festival season. Participants painted a picture of a festival season with added amenities, change in function of spaces, and increased crowdedness, all evaluated as making the neighborhood livelier. This was set against the backdrop of sounds coming from a diverse programming of festivals, heard as a welcome “vibration” to the neighborhood after the cold season. The participant working in the neighborhood stated that the festival season “[i]s the most exciting period of time in the year; the rest of the time it’s really dead and quiet, and the whole neighborhood is not as fun as during the summertime. During the summertime, people are happy, so I don’t think [it’s crowded]; even so, it is crowded in a positive way” (R2 – 28 YO). An older resident concurred: “It becomes crowded, but that’s positive, for me. You know, there are a lot of people. There is also traffic, but I’m not thinking of that, I’m thinking of the people; it’s lively, it’s festive”^[8] (D4 – 74 YO, translated from French). Festivalgoers enjoying their time were described as adding to a pleasant ambiance in the neighborhood: “I like to be in it; even if I don’t talk to these people, I like to be surrounded by people who are happy to be there, who are on vacation, because people on vacation feel good” (D6 – 59 YO). This process of cyclical neighborhood transformation is something that participants living in the QDS for more than one festival season quickly grew accustomed to, especially sonically. One resident summarized their experience by contrasting it to the sounds of everyday life, like construction, traffic, or nightlife: 

In the beginning of the summer it feels like [there is] a new sound which captures my attention and makes me wonder “What is happening?,” especially if I open my balcony door. After a couple of weeks, it starts to be an “expected” sound, and we kind of get used to it. In fact, sounds coming from construction in the morning or cars and people at night have a more profound effect on me and my everyday life. (D3 - 25 YO)

The increased crowdedness does not, however, mean homogenous groups of people, even within the same events; the diversity of festival programming itself was perceived as ensuring that “there is something for everyone” (D5 – 59 YO). Most participants insisted on the idea that, across locations and genres, most festivals are “family friendly” and provided enjoyable opportunities for children, that audiences were generally “respectful” and did not “cause trouble” (D4 – 70 YO). The older participants were overwhelmingly positive in their evaluations of audiences and wary only of “heavy” music festivals, being particularly negative towards Pouzza Fest (a punk festival). Two of the younger participants acknowledged that a mixed audience with different intentions is to be expected from such events, which could make the festival experience feel unsafe at times. 

5.2.1. Blurred lines: participants doubling as locals and festivalgoers 

Being at home in a festival neighborhood meant that the line between home and public festival spaces is porous, constantly blurred due to the nature of sound travelling well beyond the boundaries defined by the visual and the tactile. Festivals entered some participants’ home spaces sonically, disrupted their quotidian activities or went as far as affecting their quality of life and comfort as locals. There were also situations in which the sounds of festivals created a sonic continuum between home and public space, expanding the home space into the public one and allowing locals to engage in festival activities and become de facto festivalgoers without needing to attend physically. For one participant, the sounds of festivals changed their relationship with their building, encouraging new and more intense uses of home spaces while supporting adapted forms of social interaction: 

I have a terrace on top of the building, and sometimes we go there and see all the people, and it’s fun because we’re not in the mosh pit but we can still hear the music or listen. [… W]e started hanging out more on the terrace and grabbing a beer there, because there’s too many people to go to a restaurant. (D1 - 23 YO)

Three participants stated that through something as simple as opening a window, they could partake in the festivals without being physically there, showing how easily the boundary between the private and the public can be dissolved with the help of sound: “I live there; if I want to hear it, I’ll open my window. I feel like I don’t need to jump into the crowd now, because there’s a lot of people” (D3 – 25 YO). The second added that they “[w]ould talk about the performance at home; [the festival] encouraged us to sit on our balcony and have dinner while listening to it” (D2 – 27 YO). 

Hearing the sounds of festivals in the home has been described as having both a positive and negative effect on everyday life, sometimes concurrently, allowing participants to be locals and festivalgoers in quick succession:

On Saturday, I had family over, and the volume was pretty loud in the evening. We could hear some with the windows closed. We just had to talk a bit louder. On the same day at 10pm, we went on the rooftop to watch the fireworks while listening to the music of the festival, so that event had both a positive and negative impact. (D1 – 23 YO)

The same participant stated that there have been situations when hearing the sounds of festivals from home encouraged active participation in the public festival space: “The music was pretty cool, like classics, and I was like ‘what’s this show?’ [… T]hey were just covering famous songs, and they were blasting that downtown. So, I just ended up going out and seeing what it was, and that was fun” (D1 – 23 YO). 

The everyday outdoor spaces of the QDS provided the same opportunity for participants – particularly those living close to Place des Festivals – to navigate between being locals and festivalgoers: the sonic dimension of festivals acted as a live reminder of recreational activities taking place close to their homes, activities they could attend if interested. Multiple participants mentioned that, when walking in the neighborhood, their attention was attracted by various events, sometimes influencing the choice of where to “hang out […] after work”: “Whenever […] I go to the bank, I need to pass through the festivals, so sometimes I just pass by and add another 15 minutes or 20 minutes to hang around a little bit, to see something while I’m walking” (D3 – 25 YO). 

This increased porosity between home and public space during events provided unique opportunities for locals to engage with the festivals from the comfort of their own homes and to open up novel or more intense ways of using their home and neighborhood environment. Furthermore, overhearing and running into festivals became a type of sonic social event calendar, replacing what would be a lengthy commute for other urban dwellers with spontaneous, exploratory behaviors for people in front of their own homes. 

5.2.2. Being a local at home in the Quartier des Spectacles

Whether participants could hear the sounds of festivals inside their homes was dependent on how close they lived to the main stage area as well as the morphology of the neighborhood and buildings and the quality of the soundproofing in their homes. However, exposure goes beyond the spatial dimensions, and participants also discussed temporal aspects. These included differences between during and outside of the festival season, between day, evening, and night (festivals should end by 11pm), as well as between weekdays and weekend (with weekends allocated to festivals and events and weekdays to “everyday life”). The sounds of festivals led to discomfort when they interfered with home activities, increasing their levels of annoyance and impacting their coping strategies. Participants referred to disturbed sleep patterns and a reduced ability to enjoy their time off, to interact with others, or to work during the daytime. For five participants, the discomfort was mentioned in connection to extraordinary situations and to specific non-regular festivals that impacted their leisure time or their sleep, like: 

It’s the Pouzza Fest there, with the shows that they do in the afternoon on the terrace. So, we can’t really hear each other; they have a big sound system outside […]. So, I don’t stay outside then; I go inside, and I close my door. So that’s quite inconvenient. (R1 – 63 YO, translated from French)^[9]

While participants who had lived longer in the neighborhood had occasional complaints, and most of them could sometimes hear the festivals in their homes, they emphasized that it rarely (if ever) impeded their everyday life and activities. It was however the three younger residents living close to Place des Festivals who heard the sounds of festivals in their homes to an extent that it affected their everyday lives. The sleep disruption aspect was the most problematic. Some participants credited air conditioning with the possibility of keeping their windows closed as well as masking the sound of festivals: 

[It was] Just for Laughs, or Jazz Fest, one of those nights; there was a big party and we could hear a lot. I was just surprised. I wasn’t trying to sleep, but I was just like ‘damn, this is really late and loud.’ I think it was like a Thursday or a Friday, end of the week. (D1 – 23 YO)

One participant was candid, describing that it was challenging “not sleeping on time (on a weekday) not having quiet, calm in my place; I had a headache one of the days and was not able to rest” (D2 – 27 YO), prompting the participant to “close the windows and just stay awake until the sounds were gone.”^[10] When it came to working from home, a participant referred to needing to alter their patterns of use of their own home in order to be able to conduct necessary tasks. Disruptions caused participants to engage in a range of compensatory behaviors; however, these aspects were intertwined with expectations of living in the neighborhood, especially for newcomers. The same participant, living closest to Place des Festivals and suffering most from disrupted everyday life, described both expecting sounds from festivals but also expecting a more serious enforcement of local noise regulations: “We were told [when we first moved in] that there’s a city sound regulation – by 11[pm] things are going to be over […]. A few weeks later it’s Jazz Fest, and we’re like: oh, it’s 12:30[am], and no, there’s still stuff going on” (D2 – 27 YO). Potentially the main reason why they decided to eventually move, they mentioned the frustration of being “sold” a false image of their home, while not being told about both disruptive festival noise as well as exposure to the sounds of nearby construction:

When we moved in last year, it was a new place, a brand-new building; their selling point was: ‘There’s festivals, you’re so close to everything,’ [but] during the day you hear all the construction […] from both sides, and at night it’s the concerts […]; there’s no break. I get why people wouldn’t share that, but that’s one of the things you should tell someone before they sign [their lease]. (D2 – 27 YO)

In general, less than half of the participants specifically mentioned the sounds of festivals as having a negative impact in their home environment; though audible, at times, the sounds of festivals in themselves were expected and were hardly the main source of complaints when it came to the festival season: “They’re pretty good at the sound, one concert not interfering with the other; they know how to do that – putting up stages and taking down stages – they seem to be experts at that” (D6 – 59 YO). It was the sound of everyday nightlife, instead, that was more problematic for some participants; two older participants referred to constant noise disruptions at night from bars and nightlife on St Laurent, a busy commercial artery that is home to a large number of businesses, bars, cafes, and restaurants that remain active throughout the night. While only one participant described experiencing a severe impact on their home activities due to the sounds of certain festivals, it is interesting to note that they were residents of newer dwellings, built very close to Place des Festivals, raising some questions on the feasibility of ensuring livability in the “heart” of the QDS.

5.2.3. Being a local in the public festival spaces

Locals’ expressed experiences as festivalgoers were usually positive, and their enjoyment of outdoor (public, festival) spaces was often described in relation to the diversity of people around, providing a welcoming ambiance. Participants referred to visiting various events, strolling with family members through the festival areas, and in general engaging in different forms of interactions with the space and people. Living in this neighborhood also increased the likelihood that locals would play the role of hosts for friends and family. The vitality of the neighborhood during the festival season, while not a significant enough reason to move out of the QDS, did bring about some challenges for everyday life in outdoor spaces. Having to traverse festivals while going about daily activities raised issues more connected with the spatial than sonic aspects of the neighborhood, including the recurrent topics of accessibility, comfort, and sense of safety: obstacles impeded participants’ ability to efficiently move around the neighborhood, like having to take detours while walking or driving because of festival-related disruptions or having their bags constantly checked due to festival safety protocols. As a consequence, the participant living in the QDS for the shortest period of time stated they had to “learn to adapt”: “We choose to walk around it now. Not being able to leave the apartment with the car when there were road closures, [we] changed the plans for certain days” (D2 – 27 YO). 

The role of crowds in perceptions of comfort was particularly important; while one (male) resident described the distribution of crowds as being particularly “distracting,” comfort was overwhelmingly discussed in connection to safety, unsurprisingly, by all female participants. Crowds and safety were mentioned as an issue during certain moments in time, especially at night or following the end of shows: “Sometimes it doesn’t feel that safe, like near the end of a show, there’s different groups of people, and I feel uncomfortable walking in the street” (D2 – 27 YO). Additionally, the crowds attracted by certain events were cited as causing discomfort; for example, the Under Pressure graffiti festival generated negative impressions of safety from two older participants who felt overwhelmed while needing to cross the festival space. Despite being minor annoyances to everyday life, these aspects are not so troublesome for a majority of locals to consider them as seriously affecting their quality of life or worth relocating for.

6. Discussion

7. Conclusion

8. Future Research

9. References