Then and now: A look back on signs of Montreal’s past

Sainte-Catherine O. & McGill College Photo: Leon Handler, 1963

Reported by Brennan Neill
Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Reported File

Technology brings along with it a particular threat to commercial signs. Once hand-designed, signs can now be drawn up on a computer with ease and produced with little cost. Bill Kovacevic, a 50-year sign designer veteran who has worked for numerous companies in Montreal’s sign-making industry, remembers a day when tinsmiths were sought and valued for their skills in forging the letters used to make up the names displayed. In today’s computerized world, as he points out, tinsmiths are hard to come by.

Kovacevic can see both the advantages and disadvantages to new technology. He’s never had more fun designing signs but at the same time it detracts from the skill of the trade. “It’s easier to design signs now,” said Kovacevic. “Sometimes it’s much too easy to design signs and everyone thinks they’re a designer breaking conventions.”

Philippe Lamarre, the president of the Society of Graphic Designers in Quebec and the first recipient of the Phyllis-Lambert Design Montreal grant for a project that catalogued signs in numerous countries, echoed Kovacevic’s thoughts. “We all have the same computers, we all have the same fonts, and we all have the same machines,” said Lamarre. “All city signs in the world are becoming the same.”

Montreal has not been spared the onslaught of computer designed signs. Here is a collection of photos from the early 1960s with a comparison to the current location.

Historic photos from the Leon Handler fund at the University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections. Curent photos by Riley Sparks.

POST A COMMENT

Submitted by Rich on Sun, 2011-07-24 22:51.

Thanks for this interesting post.

Are the Leon Handler photographs online somewhere? I'd love to see more of them and in higher-resolution.

Submitted by blork on Thu, 2011-07-21 11:12.

This article contains some mistakes:

(1) In the "Heart of the red-light district" pair, the old photo shows the west side of St-Laurent, looking south from Ste-Catherine. The Crystal theatre is what is now Club Soda. The cigar store was, until a few years ago, a depanneur, with some sleazy sex shop above it. It was torn down a year or two ago.

However, the "New" photo shows the south side of Ste-Catherine, looking west from St-Laurent. The building on the corner -- which at a quick glance looks a bit like the cigar store in the old photo -- was a Burger King until a few years ago.

(2) The Mansfield/Ste-Catherine pair is looking in the right direction, but at the wrong buildings. In the 1961 image, the large building on the left is the Simpsons building. Farther away is a lower structure that I don't know, and farther still -- barely visible -- is the bank building (I call it that because it used to be a bank) on the corner of McGill-College.

In the 2011 photo, you don't see the Simpsons building at all (it's now Simons) and the building shown in that position is Place Montreal Trust (which replaces the one I don't know in the 1961 photo). You can very clearly see the bank building (which is now a Banana Republic store). The photographer seems to have thought that Place Montreal Trust is built on the Simpsons site, which it most definitely is not.

(2) Regarding the St-James Church set, I'm not sure what neon sign the writer is referring to (it would have been helpful to be more specific), but I assume it's the one that said ST JAMES UNITED CHURCH with the letters stacked vertically. That was indeed removed in 2005, but not for the reason the writer states.

Furthermore, the writer says that the church is now barely visible because it "sits in the middle of a large development." This is poorly stated and entirely misleading. In fact, the church sites NEXT TO a large building, which makes it invisible from vantage point of the photos that we see (Ste-Catherine and Phillips Square).

However, as you approach the church on Ste-Catherine, it becomes very visible -- more visible than it was in 1961. The reason: a different "large development" was built around the church (literally around it; it wrapped around on three sides) back in the 1920s. This was done to create revenue for the church, as the church was the landlord for that office and retail space. In 2005, most of that large development was torn down, revealing the church for the first time in 80 or so years. (The parts that remain -- on the sides -- were renovated).

So what happened is actually the opposite of what the writer said; in 1963 the church sat "in the middle of a large development" and you could barely see it. In 2005 that development was removed and you can see it very well now.

Submitted by Caroline Boily on Fri, 2011-07-22 12:21.

Thanks blork for your comment. We have updated the story to address some of the issues you pointed out. Yestreday, we have gone back to retake the 2 photos mentionned.
The Saint-Laurent/Sainte-Catherine current photo now looks in the right direction, ei South-East onto Saint-Laurent. Thank you for noticing that, we got confused by the cut off corner on the Burger King buildingm and the incredible changes happening in that aera.

We also retook the Sainte-Catherine & Mansfeild photo. You are quite right in saying that Simons is in the old Simpson building. At the time of taking that current photo, there was an obsuction preventing from including Simons and we decided to run it anyways. The new photo is more accurate.

The St.James United Church's story is hard to fit in a small caption and we had decided not to included the information about the Church's restoration. But you are correct saying the sign's disapearence is directly linked to that project. So we tweaked the caption.

This File was a big project to undertake and we appreciate your participation in making in better.

Submitted by Brennan Neill on Fri, 2011-07-22 11:41.

Hello,

Thanks for the comment/information.

I wrote that the St. James United Church sign was taken down because of its poor condition after doing some research and coming across this article from when it was taken down http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/050505/news1.html.

Yes, from the street corner the large building blocks out the church and continues to do so until you're right in front of it. Coming from the opposite direction the church becomes partially visible from the corner of Saint Alexander. I still believe that the church is hidden by development. It may be less today, but it's still obscured.

Submitted by blork on Sat, 2011-07-23 22:19.

Thanks for making the changes. Regarding the St. James sign, if you read that Montreal Mirror article carefully you'll see they are NOT saying they took the sign down because of its poor condition. It says they took it down because of the renovations, and they didn't restore or preserve the sign because of its bad condition. Those are two very different meanings.

Submitted by Rich on Fri, 2011-07-29 15:28.

That sign would have made a nice centerpiece for the (otherwise bland) plaza in front of the church. A couple of benches couldn't have hurt either.