Banishment through Branding: From Montréal’s Red Light District to Quartier des Spectacles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Urban planning is meant to improve the quality of life for all, which is certainly not always the case, at least in the case of sex workers. The authors have effectively painted the intersection between sex work and urban planning. The manuscript certainly adds value to existing literature. It is even more valuable to the context of Montreal, and Canada more broadly. The manuscript is very well written.

However, I have issues with the manuscript not capturing the perspectives of urban planners.  The key informants certainly share important information, but the urban planning challenges of dealing with red light districts are not well painted. As a result, the arguments appear quite descriptive and not much helpful in guiding future endeavors.

Regardless, the article contains enough information which helps to better understand the relationships between sex work and urban planning, and the associated challenges. Therefore, I believe, the article is worth publishing.

However, I would like to see two main changes in the manuscript. First, the significance of sex workers in an urban fabric needs to be better established. It will be helpful to find out the size of the profession. Meaning, what is the magnitude of the business in Montreal. How many are employed? What economic contribution it makes to the urban economy. I think the information is essential to justify the significance of the business.

 Secondly, a key theme that emerges throughout the results and discussion is the lack of inclusion of the marginalized voices. The authors are encouraged to discuss in Section 1.4 the role of public participation in the urban planning.

I also suggest a thorough editorial review of the article. For example, Page 2, line 57 to 65 is a repeat of Page 1, line 27 to 36.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Social Sciences 1791-585

“Banishment through Branding: From Montreal’s Red Light 2 District to Quartier des Spectacles”

Overall, the paper nicely describes changes in Montreal’s red-light district and attempts to explain why they occurred.

The paper is more descriptive than analytical, however, and the analytical part would be enhanced if the author used a number of related (uncited) studies for comparative purposes. This will help to enhance the explanatory dimension of the paper, by linking or contrasting what happened in Montreal to what has occurred in red-light districts in other studies and showing alternative kinds of reforms and outcomes to those in Montreal.  In its current form, the analytical and explanatory dimension is submerged in the detailed description of changes. See the end of my review for a list of sources that should be incorporated, and especially the studies focused on Antwerp.

Research Methods

Two of the four key informants were university professors. It is a bit unusual to interview faculty as a substitute for informants who actually work in the red-light district. I understand that the two professors have some expertise, but including them as research subjects is unconventional.

Managers and owners of commercial sex businesses were interviewed as well, but no mention of how many or the KINDS of businesses they are affiliated with.  Same with representatives of sex worker organizations. It is important to describe the number of your respondents, not just the 4 “key informants.”

Other Issues

Page 2-3 mentions Bill C-36.  Surprisingly, the author makes no mention of the central feature of this law: it criminalizes customers but not sex workers.

It remains unclear what kinds of sexual commerce operated in this red-light area. The author mentions cabarets and strip clubs. Is this all? Massage parlors? Brothels? At the outset of the paper, please define the kinds of commercial sex that existed in the district. How many such businesses were there prior to the urban renewal? How many today?

The author also mentions arrests for public solicitation. This suggests that street prostitution was a major problem, with arrests increasing from 38 to 825 annually over just three years. This makes me wonder if the redevelopment of the area was largely motivated by concerns about public nuisances, altercations, etc. due to street prostitution….. whereas the indoor erotic businesses were not defined as problematic?

Page 8: “Notably absent in all these plans is any explicit acknowledgment of the site as a working Red Light district or consideration of the impacts of redevelopment on sex work.” Did the author expect to see this in the plans?

Page 14: sex work is still occurring in the district.  What kind of sex work? Street prostitution?

The photos are great, nicely illustrating your description of changes in the district.

Your argument (p.14) is convincing, that: “The district still uses and commodifies its Red Light history as a spectacle, but this does not contribute to the economy of sex workers.”  The term “exploited and cheapened” refers to how the past is being redefined in the present, but the wording of that sentence almost suggests the opposite.

Please Consult These Studies:

Loopmans, M., and P. van den Broeck (2011). “Global pressures, local measures: the re-regulation of sex work in the Antwerp Schipperskwartier.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102: 548–561.

Weitzer, R. “The Social Ecology of Red-Light Districts: A Comparison of Antwerp and Brussels,” Urban Affairs Review, 50 (2014): 702-730

Weitzer, R. and D. Boels, “Ghent’s Red-Light District in Comparative Perspective,” Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12 (2015): 248-260

Larsen, E. (1992) "The politics of prostitution control: Interest group politics in four Canadian cities," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16, 169–189.

Aalbers, M., and Deinema, M. (2012). “Placing prostitution: the spatial sexual order of Amsterdam and its growth coalition.” City, 16, 129–145.

Oselin, S., et al. (2022). “Different Strolls, Different Worlds? Gentrification and its Impact on Outdoor Sex Work,” Social Problems 69: 282-298.

Author Response

please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf