Toronto article in Fall 2009 Intelligent Life Magazine

[kEiThZ]

Toronto is a tad boring and a lot of those criticisms are true.

...And that's exactly why I like it.

Ask New Yorkers how many of them have been to Times Square to see the ball drop or how many Londoners frequent the Tates or the British Museum. You'd be surprised. For cultural elitists (not the average person), only London or New York or Paris or Tokyo will do. These are global cities in the sense that they dominate the global cultural landscape.

For a second tier city, Toronto ain't half bad. It may not be one of the most favoured places to visit. But it damn sure is a great place to live. All those supposed global places are horrendous to live in if you are a working joe. They have issues with poverty, racism, unemployment, crime, etc. that we can't imagine in our nightmares. London comes with attacks on brown skinned residents, Paris comes with the problems of the banlieu. And despite what rap and music videos say, Scarborough or Jane and Finch or Don Mills and Eglinton will never compare to the rough parts of the Bronx (in its more unrefined heydays).

Toronto will never be London or Paris. They were capitals of empires and are still the capitals and major urban centres of their respective (highly centralized) countries. New York is cultural and financial centre of the world's only superpower. For, Toronto to reach those ranks, it's Canada that would have in that league of countries.

All that being said, there are things we could work on. I despair at how much dirtier the city's gotten and how much less friendly people have become. Civic education campaign's on these issues might be warranted. And some more efforts to make the city look nicer, through a little more control over architecture or a little more effort to create more and better public spaces.

 

[Hipster Duck]

... but I'm not trying to speak for everybody in the aggregate. I'm just giving one person's impression, mine.

Hey, you know what? That's really great. What one person experiences doesn't make Toronto, the city, a more vibrant place though. The only thing that matters is how many people Toronto influences, not the subjective experience of one person. I would say Paris, a bigger city at the centre of a bigger country, has an influence on more people than Toronto.

Admittedly I only breezed through Paris for a few days this time, preferring to stay in the countryside but I've been many times before and went to school in the south of France. Regardless, I of course understand that there is more to Paris than meets the eye, but I also understand this to be so with Toronto, and in fact moreso given how Toronto does fall more under the radar.

What? How could it be more so? There are more people in Paris, ergo there's more stuff going on there. A lot more of it falls "under the radar" because its size dictates that more people will be doing "under the radar" cultural activities. Also see my argument about how having 5 million people living in an urban arrangement (vs. <1 million in Toronto) promotes greater social interaction in the public realm.

But do you have any idea just how prohibitavely expensive and nigh on impossible it is to afford living in Paris, or Manhattan for that matter? Those cool areas that we all fantasize about are essentially tourist sites for people who cannot afford to live there, having to commute in from la banlieu (or Queens) in order to hang out and be so urban and hip. Toronto is more real in some ways. Many people in the city still live in attainable housing (relatively speaking) in real urban environments that still have a human scale and that are still able to accommodate real family life and a diversity of population demographics. It may not be as glamourous on the surface or the centre of the universe the French believe Paris to be but it does offer a realistic urban lifestyle rather than a fantasy version of one.

Affordability wasn't being questioned. Cultural output was. Yes, I do know how expensive it is to live in New York. I lived in Bushwick, Brooklyn and I still thought it was worth commuting 25 minutes on the L train. BTW, Bushwick was an interesting neighbourhood with a vibrancy of its own. If I travel 25 minutes out on Toronto's two subway lines where the hell am I? Warden and St. Clair?

Who's to say? ... and more importantly who cares anymore? The fact is we are more culturally relevant to 'ourselves' than Paris.

Yes, but Paris is more culturally relevant to Parisians. You can quickly see that that argument doesn't go anywhere towards proving the cultural relevance of one city over another.

That Haitian rap band you talk of may pack them in at Bercy but would hardly cause a blip of interest in the Toronto music scene. Does this make French colonial music objectively more compelling than that of a Toronto indie group? Non, and in many ways the international cultural influence of music in Toronto is probably far greater than anything on offer in France, relatively speaking.

Most people in the Parisian music scene would object to being painted with the colonial brush but I digress; nevertheless, you can't honestly tell me that one musical form is more "compelling" than another. I certainly didn't suggest anything like that in my last post.

By the way, I would take issue with Toronto's indie rock scene being more influential than what you call the French "colonial" music scene. We're talking about an audience of maybe 5 million North American hipster youth versus entire slices of the African continent, in another. And, hey, if you really think indie rock is some sublime art form that wipes the ass of "colonial" rap, there's also a pretty dominant, Paris-based French indie rock scene, n'est-ce-pas?

... but this is not a tit for tat issue. My only point is that Toronto is not as 'provincial' or culturally starved as many would like to believe it to be, and in the City of Light you are far more likely to be blown away by the centuries of history and heritage all around you, and by the unparalleled urban beauty, than by any overwhelming perception of unattainable cultural superiority.

Bullshit. I even said that Toronto was more culturally relevant than Chicago. So much for your "hipster duck is transfixed by history and urban beauty over less formal means of cultural expression" theory.

 

[kEiThZ]

But do you have any idea just how prohibitavely expensive and nigh on impossible it is to afford living in Paris, or Manhattan for that matter? Those cool areas that we all fantasize about are essentially tourist sites for people who cannot afford to live there, having to commute in from la banlieu (or Queens) in order to hang out and be so urban and hip. Toronto is more real in some ways. Many people in the city still live in attainable housing (relatively speaking) in real urban environments that still have a human scale and that are still able to accommodate real family life and a diversity of population demographics. It may not be as glamourous on the surface or the centre of the universe the French believe Paris to be but it does offer a realistic urban lifestyle rather than a fantasy version of one.

Thank you!

I wish people would say this more. Forget Paris. Check out how far out of the core, for example, most working/middle class residents live in Sydney.

The average Londoner isn't living in central London. Most are pobably taking a 5 zone or more ride into work actually. Compare that to the average Torontonian. Half our city stays south of Eglinton. And a good quarter stays in the old Toronto/East York.

Whenever I read comments on and the articles themselves on living in a city, I always get the sense that writers are either capturing a romantic version of life or an elite version of life. It's so rare that people talk about the daily grind of life. I'd rather live in Scarborough and commute to Front street daily than live in Queens and ride into Manhattan. And I'll take Albion Rd and Gerrard Street over the chaotic Southall anyday. But that's just me.

 

[Tewder]

I think another issue Keithz is that Toronto has to somehow learn to hold on to more of its talent. Lets not lose sight of the fact that Toronto has still managed to grow and achieve what it has while consistently losing a great deal of its local 'talent' to other cities. I know that people migrate to follow opportunity and it happens elsewhere too but at the end of the day top tier cities tend to draw creative ambitious people rather than lose them.

 

[kEiThZ]

Tewder and Hipster Duck. You are both right and in a sense talking past each other.

I'd agree with Hipster Duck that Paris is more globally culturally relevant. But I'd agree with Tewder that being globally culturally relevant might not necessarily contribute as much to quality of life as some (particularly lifestyle writers) contend.

 

[Tewder]

Hey, you know what? That's really great. What one person experiences doesn't make Toronto, the city, a more vibrant place though. The only thing that matters is how many people Toronto influences, not the subjective experience of one person. I would say Paris, a bigger city at the centre of a bigger country, has an influence on more people than Toronto.

... but didn't you already argue the exact opposite, Montreal being more 'urban' or culturally superior to Atlanta even if more people live in Atlanta? In a way I'm agreeing with you.

What? How could it be more so? There are more people in Paris, ergo there's more stuff going on there. A lot more of it falls "under the radar" because its size dictates that more people will be doing "under the radar" cultural activities. Also see my argument about how having 5 million people living in an urban arrangement (vs. <1 million in Toronto) promotes greater social interaction in the public realm.

Not when the social realm is all but inaccessible but to the very rich. Yes, great things may be happening in the Paris banlieu but is any of this more culturally influential internationally? Even within a French context a lot of it gets marginalized as inferior or unworthy from the standpoint of very powerful but rigid centralized cultural institutions. I'm not trying to be coy, I understand that Paris is larger and older and has enormous cultural impact. I'm only questioning how much of it is resting comfortably on the laurels of past glories while other smaller cities are culturally more free to push further creatively in many things the French were once noted for, like San Fran for cuisine, and yes like Toronto (or Montreal in a francophone context) for music...

Affordability wasn't being questioned. Cultural output was. Yes, I do know how expensive it is to live in New York. I lived in Bushwick, Brooklyn and I still thought it was worth commuting 25 minutes on the L train. BTW, Bushwick was an interesting neighbourhood with a vibrancy of its own. If I travel 25 minutes out on Toronto's two subway lines where the hell am I? Warden and St. Clair?

... but affordability *is* important. When a place becomes so massively gentrified that it pushes out a diversity of urban creative classes how can it continue a diversity of cultural output? I would not dispute for one moment that France's couture scene is second to none, but this is not the be all and end all of urban fashion creativity. Also, if a place is so gentrified that a real urban experience is off limits to all but the most privileged in society how can it be diverse and real? I would argue that a rich and diverse urban life is far more accessible, therefore real, to anybody who wants to live even in the very heart of Toronto.

Yes, but Paris is more culturally relevant to Parisians. You can quickly see that that argument doesn't go anywhere towards proving the cultural relevance of one city over another.

No, I'm not arguing one is more relevant than the other, only that one isn't. A sticky point I grant you.

Most people in the Parisian music scene would object to being painted with the colonial brush but I digress; nevertheless, you can't honestly tell me that one musical form is more "compelling" than another. I certainly didn't suggest anything like that in my last post.

By the way, I would take issue with Toronto's indie rock scene being more influential than what you call the French "colonial" music scene. We're talking about an audience of maybe 5 million North American hipster youth versus entire slices of the African continent, in another. And, hey, if you really think indie rock is some sublime art form that wipes the ass of "colonial" rap, there's also a pretty dominant, Paris-based French indie rock scene, n'est-ce-pas?

I do think we're kind of arguing two sides of the same coin here. Again, I'm not implying Toronto is superior, only that Toronto is not inferior... and that it's not objectively ridiculous or inconceivable that somebody (me) might find Toronto subjectively more compelling or exciting based on this.

Bullshit. I even said that Toronto was more culturally relevant than Chicago. So much for your "hipster duck is transfixed by history and urban beauty over less formal means of cultural expression" theory.

I sincerely wasn't trying to imply that. I tend to be transfixed by these things, if truth be told, which is why I love going to France.

 

[newuser2k9]

Here's what continues to confuse me: Just as one example, what do the the two major Australian cities have on us for world importance? Toronto is about the same size as (actually larger than) the two, Canada and Australia are comparable in population, and our geograpy means our population is confined to a few major centres (like Australia) as well. Why is it then that in the world stage you hear much more about Sydney and how is a beacon for culture? Is it our climate? What makes Toronto (more importantly the Torontonian scene) so low on the international radar relative to our population?

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Because we lie in the shadow of the US. We look, talk and think like Americans to outsiders. Ergo, that means culturally we must be a branch of the US. Which means the real cultural centre of Canada is New York to them.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Again, I want to qualify that Montreal is more culturally vibrant than Atlanta because a greater proportion of the same population lives in an urban setting. Montreal has about 1 million people living in a distinctly urban part of town while Atlanta may have 100,000. This ties into my Paris argument: yes, living in the central city is much more expensive, but the range of urban living options in Paris is far greater than it is in Toronto. "Urban" Paris is not confined to the Peripherique; indeed, it spills over it for miles on either side encompassing an additional 2 or 3 million people, and these areas are not only diverse and culturally rich, but also much more affordable than living in the old city. "Urban" Toronto is a much smaller place. There's only a handful of places north of Bloor street (almost all confined to the area buffering Yonge street) that would qualify as urban in even the Parisian banlieue sense.

Finally, I'd also stress that Paris' current cultural output almost always gets measured against its glorious past while Toronto is free of that sort of obligation. Toronto was a hick town until the 1970s, so nobody's going to make comparisons to our past. While Toronto's relative influence has grown compared to Paris during the same time frame, it still hasn't exceeded that of Paris in absolute terms.

 

[allabootmatt]

Wait. What? Are you honestly telling me that Toronto is more culturally significant right now than any continental European city? Do you really think that there is more going on south of Bloor street tonight than in all the 30 square miles of Paris? One day are they going to write books about the Communist's Daughter like it was Les Deux Magots?

Matt, you're one of the more educated forumers and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Still, you have to convince me that Toronto really is this cultural dynamo that basically leaves the likes of Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Milan in the dust because I can't, even with my most generous hometown pride, begin to see how you came to that conclusion.

I dunno. I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago for work and couldn't believe how dead the Quartier Latin was at 9pm on a Wednesday.

In terms of cultural significance, of course Paris has TO beat. But is it more dynamic, open-minded, diverse? I would argue not by a long shot. Funny you should mention Les Deux Magots--like much of the city, more a monument to good times gone by than anything of the current era. Paris has in many ways been fossilized--not without some grumbling, for example from Sarko, who has made his dismay at this phenomenon clear. The (astonishing) extent of the French brain drain to London is a testament of sorts. I would argue that, yes, grassroots culture in Toronto today is considerably more exciting than that of Paris--and this is from someone who may be moving there soon (and is salivating at the possibility, incidentally, but mostly for the food).

Can't speak for Milan, never been. As for Madrid and Berlin, both are lots of fun, but missing Toronto's spark of effortless cultural diversity--Madrid is really Spanish, while Berlin is tolerant only in a hipsters-of-Europe-unite sort of way. Its one significant minority group is systematically excluded from public life, even in Germany's most accepting city. I find that puts a damper on things.

Anyway, my €0.02. When it comes to being an interesting, fun, exciting place to live, I think Toronto has very little to worry about.

 

[MisterF]

EDIT: I also agree that Toronto is a "small city." If you look at our metro area then, yea, we are the 5th largest in North America or whatever (which really isn't so impressive either, I might add). In terms of what most Torontonians consider "Toronto" though, we are really only talking about old Toronto. Nobody for the most part suggests tourists should go to Mississauga or Scarborough, even if tons of people live there. There isn't any there, there. When Torontonians talk about Toronto, things get pretty quickly distilled into what is south of Bloor. Even large parts of that are totally residential. If you compare SOB to, say, Manhattan or Inner London there is really no comparison. Most major cities have multiple employment hubs, multiple shopping areas in multiple demographics ranges, multiple entertainment areas and so forth. Even our downtown built form, along Queen for instance, is distinctly "small town."

True, but a city with an urban population of a million with 4 million suburbanites is much much different from a city with an urban population of a million with no suburbanites. All those suburban people coming to the city every day adds to the vibrancy of that small central area - so as long as the GTA keeps growing and transit links to downtown keep improving then downtown will keep getting more and more vibrant as it has been.

But I do agree with you that Toronto's built form, once you get out of the immediate downtown (and even in some cases inside it), the built form is distinctly "small town". The subway system is far too small and the messy public realm is often embarassing. But with the booming downtown population it's only a matter of time before all the parking lots are filled and that small town built form starts to get replaced with something more deserving of Toronto's stature. And the public realm is improving even if progress is frustratingly slow.

 

[pman]

Newuser2k9 asks why Sydney and Melbourne have so much more international presence than Toronto. Since my wife is Australian and I have spent a lot of time there (and in London where Australia is so front and centre while Canada is off the radar screen), I have a few thoughts:

1. Australia doesn't use Sydney and Melbourne as tax farms the way Canada uses Toronto, so their large cities have a lot more public money to spend. There's a reason Montreal has a larger metro than the Toronto subway - it's Ontario tax dollars transferred to Quebec by the federal government for the past 40 years.

2. Australia is way ahead of us in funding infrastructure by the private sector. Whatever your ideological position on the subject might be, they do actually manage to put a lot of shovels in the ground. We produce a lot of studies and environmental assessments.

3. Melbourne and Sydney have been rich for a long time. Both cities benefitted from gold rushes and it shows in their magnificent 19th century architecture (which they didn't tear down).

4. Australia is a state that is contiguous with a nation, unlike Canada. Saying this in Canada involves sleepwalking through an ideological minefield but here goes: the fact we are a state with one coherent sub-nation in Quebec, and a multicultural nothing in the rest of Canada, means we have little shared identity. It should be no surprise that our culture doesn't exactly resonate with foreigners the way Australia's does. In fact let's be honest - there is no Canadian culture so for the rest of the world there really is no there here. Si tu n'est pas en accord avec moi, SVP laisse moi savoir tes trois teleromans quebecois favoris. I know the Aussies are horrible to abos and refugees ("reffos" in their vernacular), but they have a powerful sense of shared identity and this seems to have helped them produce a culture the world finds interesting. Send those outraged replies to "pman" courtesy of urbantoronto...no cheating with google translator on the French sentence s'il te plait.

5. Their climate is spectacular, and Sydney has all that white sand and blue water. What's not to love?

God I'm depressed...

 

[Anth]

Well if it's any consolation, at least 1 and 2 are fixable... in theory

 

[urbanboom]

Newuser2k9 asks why Sydney and Melbourne have so much more international presence than Toronto.

What I know about Sydney is from Finding Nemo and it's Opera House.
I went to Melbourne awhile ago and many people that I've spoke to here had never heard of it.

I think you over estimate its presence. The reason that it seems bigger is because it's the biggest thing on the continent. It's all relative.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Can't speak for Milan, never been. As for Madrid and Berlin, both are lots of fun, but missing Toronto's spark of effortless cultural diversity--Madrid is really Spanish, while Berlin is tolerant only in a hipsters-of-Europe-unite sort of way. Its one significant minority group is systematically excluded from public life, even in Germany's most accepting city. I find that puts a damper on things.

While they may not play a role in the public (read: German) life, I'm pretty sure the 150,000 Turks of Berlin have a sizable hybrid culture of their own. Minority groups tend to be these giant invisible cultural forces. In places like LA, Mexicans more or less form a second city of 6 million with their own huge, layered cultural institutions that the average Anglo would be hard to identify with. Toronto's like that too. I mean, really, apart from eating ethnic food or buying pirated DVDs from Pacific Mall, how much exposure does the average Torontonian get to Desi culture or the Cantonese Diaspora of Markham?