It should be considered that Bono was just playing to the crowd. He knows how to get an audience going.
A little anecdote:
After one performance in Montreal in February, 2003, Bon Jovi said, "see you again in July" and the crowd went ever more nuts assuming that they were being rewarded for the special show they gave back to the band. But of course we never saw him in July. Business people (tour operators and producers)stepped him and reminded Mr. Bon Jovi that on shorter victory lap legs, secondary markets must be shaved and Montreal is usually one of the first ones to go. It is not the place to maximize exposure and profits, since it is a cultural island, quite isolated from mainstream north American culture and media.
-Has Montreal the loudest and most raucous crowds? Absolutely.
-Is that what the band's tour producers and management care about? Not likely.
Unless for some artsy, inspirational purpose (or because they want to "live large" as Bono put it), what would be the point of U2 living in Montreal? Especially when Boston, New York and Toronto (all much bigger markets) are in such close proximity and could guarantee them much greater exposure. I can see no financial benefit, except that if somehow the Montreal 'scene' inspires them and they produce Achtung Baby II. Even then, U2's precambrian management will, I suspect, discourage the idea because it houses little short term profit.
This short-term strategy would be directly in line with the current album and tour strategy: INSTANT MAINSTREAM GRATIFICATION. For example, playing 8 Boston/Chicago shows and 10+ New York area shows. It's also in line with the North American DVD production. No offense to those at the Chicago shows (you have a great bunch of fans and a beautiful city) but that DVD is really, really sterile and IMO it captures nothing of the U2 experiences I have had. But the name Chicago on the box instantly sells more DVDs than most other cities. Instant. mainstream. gratification.
This is not always sound business strategy. After all, something gets poor reviews then fewer people will buy it. If it's sterile, it contributes to the notion that U2 in their 40s are...past it. In the long run it might prove more advantageous one day to produce an album or film a DVD in a secondary city which blows the inspiration, performance and the production out of proportion, manking it an experience to listen to/watch and perpetuating U2's image as a cutting edge band with staying power. You decide which one you'd rather see as global consumers.
Unfortunately it would take someone with some real intestinal fortitude and divine-like power to recommend changing business strategies when the band sells out entire tours in less than a day. As far as I can tell, unless someone in U2's management contracts a case of originality and mitopia very quickly, this kind of strategy is not going to be employed. Again, within the current strategy of instant, mainstream gratification, I highly doubt you will see U2 in Montreal.
But there's no point in arguing. Time will tell.