Festivals and Events as Everyday Life in Montreal’s Entertainment District

Abstract

Cities struggle to balance vitality and livability, and noise is at the center of many of these debates. Preconceived ideas on the sonic expectations and needs of groups of city users can be misleading, particularly in entertainment districts such as the Quartier des Spectacles in Montreal (CA). We investigated what life was like in QDS for its year-round users during the 2019 festival season (the last before the COVID-19 pandemic), building on insights from residents, workers and visitors collected through online surveys. Respondents described an overall positive view of their district marked by a diversity of experiences and frustrations, with subtle intragroup differences between residents and workers. Age was an important variable framing these experiences, but unexpectedly, older respondents enjoyed their life in QDS just as much as younger users. Dissatisfaction with residing or working in QDS was rarely geared toward the frequency or loudness of festivals, but rather to other everyday life situations. Emergent from the data, we argued for the development of soundscape personas to refer to typologies of users whose experiences differ in terms of sonic priorities and evaluations. Our findings could inform strategies for organizing large events in urban areas, maintaining an awareness of diversity of users.

1. Introduction

Cities are often faced with the dual, and seemingly conflicting, expectations of vitality and livability. Those that oversee these challenges (municipal governments, planners, community leaders, etc.) can get caught relying on preconceived ideas on the expectations and needs of different groups of city users that turn out to be counter to the reality. This is often the case when working in the sonic dimension, where quiet is the assumed need. Quiet is positioned in opposition with louder cultural offerings like bars, terraces, and outdoor festivals. Nowhere is this contrast more pronounced than in entertainment districts such as the Quartier des Spectacles (QDS), a one-square kilometer entertainment district in Montreal (QC, CA), which combines entertainment with residential living, among other uses. Navigating the sonic needs of different district stakeholders (and particularly diverse users) and reconciling recreational activities such as festivals and events with livability pose a wealth of political, legal, technical and, of course, socio-economic challenges. Addressing these challenges usually relies on the underlying assumptions that (1) there is a well-defined group of residents and an equally well-defined group of tourists (with an entire economic infrastructure organized around their activities), (2) that all members within these distinct groups have the same needs and (3) that the two groups are in (sonic) opposition. In this view, conflict is unavoidable and expected; however, entertainment and tourism-oriented activities continue to be encouraged (or simply tolerated), despite the ‘noise’ they produce, to support broader urban economic and cultural objectives.

In this context, research (and practice) around the sounds of festivals has largely concentrated on the presumed burden placed on residents, particularly as measured through the traditional metrics of sound levels (in decibels) and noise annoyance (through complaints). For example, Ottoz and her colleagues explored in depth the recreational noise annoyance of residents in ‘movida’ areas–tourist areas with a booming nighttime economy, in Milan and Turin, Italy [1]. But focusing exclusively on reducing burdens for residents largely ignores the possibility that the sounds of festivals could be a positive resource for anyone but immediate spectators. Further, the potential for supportive relationships between overseeing agencies and residents has also largely been underexplored (see [2] for a recent proposal on incorporating residents’ perception on tourism development in Bruges, BE).

An emerging body of literature on over-tourism has documented beleaguered downtowns where tourists rival or outnumber the residents, in cities around the world facing complex processes of touristification, often focused on the plight of working class residents–described as lacking agency in countering change–versus more well-off visitors–seen as being more in control [3,4,5,6]. Paiva and Sánchez-Fuarros describe the differences between the experiences of residents and visitors in Lisbon by employing the concept of atmosphere, arguing that, while visitors enjoy a “premium atmosphere for touristic consumption” (p. 393) with strong sensorial components, residents experience the “collateral atmospheres” of what is left, i.e., how spatial, behavioral and sensorial transformations catered to tourists affect their everyday life at home and in shared spaces [7]. A qualitative study on life in the touristic Canal Belt in Amsterdam shows a slightly more complex relationship of engagement with one’s neighborhood and the visitors it attracts; the aging middle-class, longer-term residents acknowledge the uniqueness of their area and its role in creating their attachment and sense of place, to some extent identifying with the tourists that are coming for the “aesthetic and sensory experience of the unique landscape” ([6] p. 461). Their appreciation of the accessibility and the dynamic character of the urban area (to which tourists contribute) however coexist with a deep discontent on their neighborhood being treated as a ‘museum’ and a ‘theme park’ by certain visitors, leading to more nuanced discussions on selective place belonging.

It should be noted that the bulk of studies on touristification and subsequent conflicts are addressed in the context of cities with older historical city centers, often redeveloped to act as pull factors for visitors by city marketing strategies. The case of Montreal’s QDS stands out in this body of literature because we are shifting the focus to a unique entertainment district. Anecdotal evidence shows that Montreal is unusual in the sense that residents appreciate certain recreational activities just as much as tourists; for example, Bourdeau and his colleagues showed back in 2001 that tourists and residents express equally high levels of satisfaction while attending an urban festival in Montreal [8]. The situation of QDS, a full-time downtown festival district with almost 20 years of events, is unusual on an international stage, but perhaps less so considering the Montreal history [9]. Looking to attract more residents, tourists and in general a more diverse array of economic activities [10] in its city center–effectively centralizing the cultural life of Montreal, key stakeholders, including the City of Montreal, private developers and the cultural/tourism industry, created the Quartier des Spectacles Partnership (PQDS) in 2003. Backed by using standardized street furniture and signage, the one square-kilometer has been striving towards becoming a cohesive district with a distinct visual and cultural identity, in which the PQDS is responsible for event planning and programming as well as district maintenance [11,12].

This central district is thus not just for festivals, but rather boasts a wide array of bars, concert venues, eating establishments, museums and art galleries, shopping opportunities, and other businesses, while also being home to an estimated 12,000 residents (pre-pandemic–see [3,13] for history and scope). QDS is a thriving, year-round district where large festivals and smaller events integrate into a vibrant urban setting. The festivals and events have been driving forces of a process of accelerated development of the district, with new mixed-use infrastructures developed to support diverse programmed and unprogrammed activities (like the Place des Festivals), and new residential and recreational areas built that invite new residents to join. Belanger and her colleagues refer to this process as the ‘daily life touristification’, “where potential residents are targeted as if they were tourists of their own daily life” [13] (p. 70). Despite this accelerated development, interestingly, “neither gentrifiers nor gentrified had voiced a feeling of invasion of their home territory” (p. 76). Referring to a previous 2016 study, the authors “wondered if residents identify themselves more with tourists than with critical residents” (p. 76), a finding confirmed also by the more recent study of Bild and her colleagues [3]. This latter study further showed that the district was arguably more appreciated by older, often retired, residents, who saw QDS develop and host increasingly more complex festivals in the last decade, providing evidence against the typical assumptions that older residents want to live in quiet neighborhoods.

Their finding challenges existing notions of aging in the city, particularly in relation to recreational activities and their sounds [14]. For example, Pinkester and Boterman showed how the aging residents in Amsterdam’s Canal Belt are aware of their own increased annoyance with the everyday sounds associated with tourists as well as larger events (usually street parties) that they found inauthentic and often vulgar [6]. Additionally, Yang and Kang argued that there is a change in sound preferences due to aging, leading older people to be “more appreciative of natural and cultural approved sound elements, [compared to young people, who] may prefer a high-arousal soundscape in public spaces” [15] (p. 75). Ref. [3] showed that older residents can, in fact, enjoy those “high arousal soundscapes” on their doorstep.

Besides touching on the aspect of residence and age in the district, we further argue that the experience of the workers in the district has received scant attention in these discussions; in general, the experience of workers active in tourist areas is only studied as it pertains to their work as employees in the tourism or development/construction sector (see mentions in passing for these groups in e.g., [13]). Their experiences are often analyzed through a financial, utilitarian lens and are considered temporary and removed from the everyday life in an area; they are seldom, to our knowledge, analyzed as additional potential users of touristified spaces i.e., spaces that become increasingly popular tourist destinations.

The context of the neighborhood as a long-standing entertainment district sets up a history and expectations that underpin the relationship that residents and employees have with it. In this paper, we thus ask: how do residents and people who work in an entertainment district experience life in a festival district? Are there differences between users of different ages? It should be noted that this study was conducted pre-COVID-19 and could serve as baseline to further investigate the effect of the pandemic on the entertainment district.

We discuss the complexity of the sonic experiences of various district users by building on the proposal outlined in [3]; in that paper, we put forward an idea that bridged methodological and practical boundaries by suggesting soundscape personas to profile the diverse nature of the people using the district, with age emerging as a particularly interesting factor that frames essential aspects of district users’ perspectives. We explore this idea deeper here, with a larger sample size, challenging common assumptions on age and enjoyment of festivals, or the presence of festivals and events and enjoyment of a district across diverse users.

2. Materials & Methods

2.1. Data Collection

2.1.1. Data Collection Protocol

We designed a survey on the experience of the 2019 QDS festival season, aimed to be completed by people who live, work, or visit the district. We piloted the survey in the summer of 2019 with diary respondents and interviewees as part of interviews with residents (reported in [3]) and, integrating their comments and insights, created an online survey using a combination of closed and open-ended questions. The survey was hosted on a secure McGill server. It was distributed in English and in French, and it took 30 min to fill in; all the responses were anonymous. The collected dataset was intended to set the basis for a larger longitudinal study on the festival experience, but that plan was put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.1.2. Recruitment

The recruitment of survey respondents was done using the QDS Avis Riverain (the neighborhood bulletin), sent out between December 2019 and March 2020 to those living in the neighborhood, through the platforms and mailing lists of partner organizations and companies active in the area (such as Table des Concertation des Faubourgs or MTL 24/24), McGill student mailing lists and word of mouth.

2.1.3. Research Instrument

The survey on the evaluation of the 2019 festival season had 6 sections, combining over 90 closed and open-ended questions, including:

• status as a person who lives and/or works in the district or a visitor;
• general impressions on the district and the effect that festivals and events had on their evaluation of QDS, including whether that influenced their decision to move there;
• festivals and events that the respondents have attended, and evaluations of their most and least favorite festivals and events in terms of comfort and sound environment;
• evaluation of the 2019 festival season in general, in terms of e.g., perceived safety, sound levels, programming and content of the events. This section also included questions on how the festivals and events had an impact on their everyday life–positive or negative–and how they dealt with it.
• access to and satisfaction with the information on festivals and events and on the length of the festival season, and
• questions about the respondent, including noise sensitivity, demographics, postal code and for how long they had been living in the district (if applicable).

In this paper, we only report on the questions directly related to the perception of QDS and the auditory experience of living or working in QDS. We focus our qualitative data analysis on 8 open-ended questions on life in QDS that pertain to Section 2 and Section 4 in the research instrument. We also briefly report on the answers to the questions covered by Section 3.

2.2. Data Analysis

Given the nature of the questions posed, we conducted an analysis on both the closed-ended responses and on the free format responses, before integrating the findings. We first report on general impressions on QDS and the role of festivals and events in living and working in QDS across respondents (as illustrated by the quantitative data analysis), as well as general impressions on the most and least favorite festivals. We analyzed the closed-ended questions of Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 in the research instrument using basic descriptive statistics only, due to the small sample size compared to the number of questions. Quotations are included in English in text, with the French original in footnote for French quotations.

Informed by the gaps identified in the literature review, we explored differences based on age and status, grouping respondents below and above the calculated median age (40 years). Afterwards, we grouped participants according to status i.e., type of respondent; this information was predefined in one of the first filter questions of the survey (Section 1 in the research instrument), with four possible options: residents, people who work and live in QDS, workers in QDS and ‘others’ (usually referring to visitors). In a later stage of analysis (and considering the small number of respondents in that category), we collapsed the category of those who work and live in QDS with those who live in the district because both groups spend weekends and evenings in the district–when festivals and events are most likely to take place and do not always have the choice to ‘go elsewhere’. Considering that we want to understand everyday life in QDS and living with festivals and events, we considered the responses of visitors as a reference point for comparison with the experiences of workers and residents.

The free format responses were analyzed using thematic coding, where each response was assigned to one or multiple categories that emerged from the data using the constant comparison method. We report on the responses to open-ended questions on the character of QDS and the role of festivals and events in moving to QDS for residents (Section 2 and Section 5 in the research instrument), different appreciated and less appreciated aspects of living in QDS, including sound (also Section 2) as well as particular appreciated and less appreciated sonic situations during the 2019 festival season. (Section 3 and Section 4). The English and the French written corpora were analyzed together by a bilingual researcher. One response could give rise to multiple not-mutually exclusive themes. Not all questions were mandatory, so there is variability on the number of responses per question.

As a final step, based on the subtle differences observed we define four distinct sample soundscape personas, based on age and status.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

We collected 32 completed surveys from respondents with an average age of 45 years old (median = 40), and 19 respondents–men, 12–women and two did not disclose their gender. From the respondents, 17 lived in QDS (for an average of 8.83 years), one worked and lived there, 10 only worked (for an average of 4.35 years) and the other four respondents were regular QDS visitors (three of these four frequented QDS at least once per month). Figure 1 shows a distribution of respondents across age and status. In reporting free responses, we refer to respondents according to their survey ID (for example R20 is respondent #20).

Respondents over 40 tended to be living in QDS for many years rather than working there (n = 12, living in QDS for an average of 13 years), while those under 40 more likely comprised workers (n = 7, working there for an average of 3.9 years). Younger residents were living there for an average of 1.1 years at the time of filling in the survey (n = 5).

3.2. Ratings of QDS and Life in the District during Festival Season

A descriptive statistical analysis across all respondents suggests relatively favorable opinions of the experience of living in QDS during the festival season across multiple evaluations. The district was rated as having a convivial (friendly or enjoyable) ambiance both during the least and most appreciated festivals (3.26/5, standard error–SE = 0.17 and 4.54/5, SE = 0.10, respectively) while not particularly having a noisy (3.61/5, SE = 0.21 and 2.85/5, SE = 0.19, respectively) or crowded (3.23, SE = 0.17, and 3.1/5, SE = 0.20, respectively) character.

On average, respondents mentioned appreciating the overall ambiance of the district during the festival more than any other facet (4.06/5, SE = 0.16), enjoying also the music that was played (3.8/5, SE = 0.19) as well as the public attending them (3.58/5, SE = 0.16). In general, despite lasting the whole summer, respondents reflected on the season and overwhelmingly evaluated the duration of the festival season as appropriate in length, with roughly 83% of respondents not finding the season too long, with festivals being evaluated as not too many in number (2.33/5, SE = 0.23) or generally going too late in the night (2.45/5, SE = 0.19).

There was a documented effect of festivals and events on the perception of the district as being attractive and safe, both during the night and the day. While at times raising questions on perceptions of safety (associated with increased perceptions of busyness and crowdedness in the neighborhood, as reported previously in [3]), festivals and events did not seem to raise any concerns about safety among any respondents. This was also showed by, on average, an evaluation of QDS as safe both during the day (3.94/5, SE = 0.16) and at night (3.86/5, SE = 0.20), even during respondents’ least favorite events. Unsurprisingly, the festivals and events have led to the district to be perceived livelier (4.49/5, SE = 0.13), but, contrary to the popular expectations of a negative effect of late-night festivals with loud music, most respondents reported that the festivals had a positive impact on their relaxation and encouraged increased socializing with others (friends, family).

These findings indicate that, perhaps contrary to expectations, QDS is a welcoming neighborhood for respondents of different ages who live, work or visit the district, to which the festivals and events add a lively and positive dimension, without making it less safe.

3.3. QDS Evaluation according to Age and Status

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.

• The Sound Environment

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

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.

4. Discussion

Before reflecting on the findings of this study, we briefly address the limitations and the future directions this study from a methodological perspective. The main methodological limitation of this study was the limited number of respondents, especially when compared to the large number of questions. The survey was developed to cover an entire festival season and the complexity of experiences of diverse QDS users, operationalizing many concepts which led to a lengthy research instrument and streamlining the questionnaire could help increase participation and minimize incomplete responses. Nevertheless, the respondents who did complete the full questionnaire provided a large corpus of rich and diverse data, which supported the primarily qualitative analysis. Furthermore, our low response rate could be increased in future studies through enhanced support from our partners to distribute the survey to a wider range of residents and workers in the district. This highlights the importance of sustained collaborations with the city, local communities and other partners directly involved in the activities of a cultural district to promote such research projects and help involve more residents and workers.

This qualitative analysis showed how the positive evaluations of diversity, the dynamic nature of the district and the role of cultural events in defining the character of the district confirmed the idea put forward by [13] on the operationalization of touristification of QDS through the fact that QDS residents and workers identify themselves with the recreational elements that also bring visitors to the area. These findings are very much in line with previous work that “some middle-class residents in gentrifying neighborhoods are aware, and reflective, of their own privileged position in relation to the context in which they are embedded.” [6,16]. The favorable lasting impressions of the district ambiance show that residents primarily like the experience of living in QDS and use this as a baseline from which other opinions diverge. Interestingly, QDS residents, workers and tourists emphasized similar downsides to the everyday stresses of urban living in just about every major city e.g., construction or traffic–the “collateral atmospheres” that [7] described. For example, just as visitors stated that they would not visit the district outside of festivals because of construction work, so did residents and workers highlight the many challenges brought upon by development. Additionally, specifically related to recreational activities, it was not the noise during the events per se, but rather the logistic aspects related to festivals and events like sound tests, accessibility, moving through the crowds, that require altogether different strategies for residents and workers.

This conclusion that the diverse activities do not “invade” the everyday life of QDS residents, but rather contribute to their perception of the district is likely also the result of the efforts of the PQDS. As the managing organization of QDS, PQDS brings together various partners active in QDS, as part of a stakeholder-driven approach aiming to ensure collaboration between different parties in the programming and management of the district. However, within the stakeholder approach taken by the PQDS, the reliance has been mostly on an understanding of residents as a homogenous (albeit festival and tourist-friendly) group. We show that the district has many diverse residents, with many reasons to use it, not the least of which is profiting from having the festivals at their doorstep (see [3] for an analysis of adapted home and neighborhood use by residents during the festival season). This includes people who live and crucially, also work in the district, as well as those who have retired and want to be close to services, indicating the importance of considering the diversity of district users in decision-making processes. For example, older residents who have been living in QDS for a longer time and are very appreciative of festivals and events have different needs, expectations and communication needs compared to younger residents who move there primarily for QDS’s central location. This also provides an interesting contradiction to the popular belief that “older residents may come to feel out of place in their neighborhood when their own daily rhythms slow down and become out sync with the everyday temporalities of younger residents” ([6] p. 460, [17]).

Furthermore, due to the speed at which QDS is undergoing residential development [13], available housing for younger residents (who will more likely rent) will be positioned closer to the actual festival areas–such as Place des festivals–that will face more direct noise challenges than older residents who reside in older, but further buildings still within QDS.

Considering the age aspect from another angle, the overwhelmingly positive evaluations of the district by older respondents, and their appreciation of festivals and events confirming previous findings that QDS is not a district for young people only, but rather on the contrary! A substantial part of our dataset was comprised of older residents (with quite a few retired) who have been living in QDS for years and enjoying the district. The activities of QDS challenge the connection between noise sensitivity, likeliness to complain, and aging, often documented in research [15] or associated with the overall livability of touristified areas [14] or the specific conflicts with visitors for residents otherwise appreciative of their neighborhood both aesthetically and sensorially [6]. Our findings encourage revisiting of the assumption that all younger residents (or workers) enjoy festivals and events while older ones are disrupted and avoid attending the events [15]. Existing notions of aging in the city must be challenged and we posit that festivals can act as cultural resources to support efforts to develop age-friendly cities [18,19].

Soundscape Personas

To operationalize the diversity of sonic experiences in QDS and to further support a more sound-centered form of community participation in the future of QDS, we expand the proposal we made elsewhere [3] to articulate typologies of users defined in relation to their sonic experiences i.e., soundscape personas. Personas are envisaged to be used as a tool in stakeholder meetings to focus on empathy for other types of stakeholders. Personas, especially in this use case, not only discourage ‘lumping’ of all similar users under the assumption that they have the same motivations, but it also protects the privacy of people who may be hesitant to self-advocate for fear of reprisal (e.g., if they are currently experiencing challenges with an ongoing noise complaint).

Inspired by the work of Vallet and her associates [20] on developing personas that can be used in scenarios pertinent for urban mobility topics, we formulated four profiles of QDS users, grouped along status and age (Figure 2).

Building on the four different profiles and basing ourselves on the detailed knowledge on sonic experiences, needs and expectations collected through surveys and the diaries and interviews described elsewhere, we developed four sample soundscape personas representing different profiles of QDS residents and workers (

Table 1. Sample QDS soundscape personas derived from the survey analysis.

	Older Employee	Older Resident	Younger Employee	Younger Resident
Name	Chantal	Diego	Norma	Eugenia
Born	1960	1956	1989	1997
Profile	Has worked at a hobby store in the district since 2012. Comes to the district by subway. Enjoys attending festivals and people-watching.	Has lived in QDS since 1999 (owns his property, lives alone, owns a car). Retired since 2020. Babysits his grandchild during the week (working hours) so wants quiet in the district. Enjoys attending some festivals in the weekend.	Has worked at a software company since 2018. Bikes to work from Montreal East. Does not like festivals and events that take place during the day and disrupt her work but enjoys festivals on weekends and at night.	Has lived in QDS since 2019 (renting with 1 flatmate). Is completing an MSc downtown and works in another neighborhood. Dislikes that she cannot sleep when festivals go too late.

).

Soundscape personas as described above can be used in decision-making processes to ensure representation for a diverse typology of district users and their sonic needs and expectations, to reconcile different perspectives, potentially conflicting expectations and find a middle ground to best accommodate different uses.

5. Conclusions

The cohesive character of QDS seems to be perceived differently by different age groups: young people reported more diverse complaints and were less enamored with QDS than older respondents, who were more enthusiastic about the festivals and events and the access to the many cultural activities; older residents also tended to live in the district for longer and saw it change and develop throughout the decades. Conversely, younger people talked about access to types of services, whether touristification (i.e., orienting the district mostly towards crowds and tourists) is adequate, what diversity means in the context of QDS, etc. The research detailed in this paper is aimed to set a baseline for comparisons with future festival seasons that will happen in the new COVID-19 reality. The conclusions and conversations brought up by residents and workers (especially on crowdedness) will likely need to be adapted due to potential changes in sonic and entertainment expectations and needs of residents, workers and visitors considering the lockdowns, work from home policies and the reduction and cancellation of festival and event reset that took place during 2020 and 2021.

The documented uniqueness of QDS makes it stand out in the context of the aforementioned conflicts in touristified areas in cities around the world, likely also related to clear communication on the schedule of festivals and events, the clear ground rules for space use, and the diversity of co-existing activities to perform that specifically afford the crowds, as well as the issue of respect comes up (respecting time, levels, scheduling, QDS being responsive) that mostly older residents refer to. Furthermore, while it is a district for visitors and tourists alike, both workers and residents highlighted that the programming is diverse, child-friendly, etc., in such a way that the festival season is meant for everyone, which may likely lessen the feelings of being burdened by the festivals, compared to other contexts nationally and internationally.

The proposed survey, streamlined to reflect the new experiences in a festival district is a crucial tool to grasp both what works and does not work, encourage more participation and to capture potentially new emerging soundscape personas in the novel, post-COVID-19 understanding of what it means to balance livability and vitality in QDS.

Building upon the experiences of residents, users and visitors, and key topics they mention that could become potential action points, we put forward several recommendations for PQDS and other governing bodies active in festival districts in general:

• Technology–continue incorporating technology that reduces the impacts of sound on neighbors, such as permanent speakers that reduce the need for and frequency of sound checks, distributed speaker systems that keep propagated levels lower as well as various architectural requirements for buildings to minimize the potential negative effects of festival and events on both indoor and outdoor life not only of residents and workers, but of visitors as well.
• Mobility–the aspect of accessibility and interconnectedness, which is supported by the walkable nature of the district and the (appreciated) changing nature of spaces when they become pedestrian and cyclable is worth exploring further in encouraging livability among QDS users, especially from a communication perspective (i.e., do they feel well informed?)
• Participation and attachment–encourage more attachment to the district among younger residents and acknowledge their different reasons for living in QDS. Aspects of identity, diversity and the perception of the ‘other’ in the district emerge from conversations with residents and workers of all ages and they show the need for a more sustained focus ‘inwards’, towards those already in QDS rather than just focusing on its attractiveness to outsiders, for which integrating the concept of soundscape personas could prove useful.

The findings of our study, along with the proposed soundscape personas could inform strategies to increase involvement in the organization of large events in downtown, populated areas, and even accommodating such vibrant districts in the heart of cities, considering not only the needs of tourists and festivalgoers but also those of residents and workers in the area, where the privileged spectator-residents simultaneously have safety and things to do. The unique context of QDS could serve as a model for aging in-place and help bring a sense of community and counteract a pervasive sense of alienation and displacement pervasive among other touristified areas globally. This is particularly relevant in the COVID-19 context that has challenged the vitality of so many districts worldwide and imposed especially burdensome setbacks on the arts and tourism sector.