Toronto article in Fall 2009 Intelligent Life Magazine

[Tewder]

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:

Despite your bastardization of French you make very goods points. J'suis d'accord!

 

[Ladies Mile]

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?

We may be less openly resistant to such exposure.

 

[kool maudit]

the great cities of europe are being dismissed to summarily and too shallowly... this canadian "multicultural" boilerplate is not the only route to greatness. in fact, it's kind of new worldy... you cannot expect spain to jump on the "nation of immigrants!" thing in the same way canada or america would. it's spain. it's not a colonial outpost and never was. it is the ancient home of the spanish people.

 

[Anth]

^ Well said. The nation-state concept as found throughout continental Europe is understandably a foreign one to most North Americans, who are too quick to accuse countries in that mold of intolerance and dismiss them as anachronistic. It's simply a different model with its own dynamics that arose from a different set of historical forces and circumstances.

The importance of local ethnic diversity as a driver of cultural sophistication is overstated here, though again, that's understandable from a Torontonian point of view where "multiculturalism" weighs so heavily in our collective psyche and seems to be the prime contributor to our own developing local culture.

 

[hbl33]

^ Well said. The nation-state concept as found throughout continental Europe is understandably a foreign one to most North Americans, who are too quick to accuse countries in that mold of intolerance and dismiss them as anachronistic. It's simply a different model with its own dynamics that arose from a different set of historical forces and circumstances.

The importance of local ethnic diversity as a driver of cultural sophistication is overstated here, though again, that's understandable from a Torontonian point of view where "multiculturalism" weighs so heavily in our collective psyche and seems to be the prime contributor to our own developing local culture.

Which is still better than Asia (with exception of Hong Kong, India and S'Pore.) Generally, CJK countries are still racist to foreigners, and I don't even know when will they accept the North American type of multiculturalism or understand the European concept.)

 

[Tewder]

... 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.

Many of those Parisian suburbs are either incredibly epensive and bourgeois or typefied by marginalized immigrant ghettos. Even between those extremes Paris is such an enormous magnet that it sucks much of the vitality out of surrounding areas (metro-boulot-dodo being the more common urban experience beyond the périph) such that many are pretty much the kind of bedroom communities for the middle class you would claim Mississauga to be.

That said, yes there are older and more traditional patterns of development and commerce in communities around Paris that do form little nodes of urbanity here and there, even if not exceptionally diverse or engaging. Have you travelled throughout the GTHA lately? I think you'd be surprised to find similar areas either emerging or expanding. Fairly middle class communities like Port Credit, Burlington and Richmond Hill to name just three are fast growing in their central areas to accommodate an influx of young families and professionals looking for urban options to Toronto (two of them building performing arts centres to boot). In this sense, at the end of the day is Oakville centre really that different in spirit from St. Germain-en-Laye, North York from Saint-Denis, and so on? The outer reaches of the 416 or the surrounding areas of the 905 are not the comopletely amorphous wastelands you feel them to be.

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.

I do agree with you about the weight of the past in Paris vs the absence of this in Toronto. It is a blessing and a curse. There is also an incredible weight of conformity in France which people are often surprised by. Beyond the fringes of its collective mythology France is at heart a fairly conservative and traditionalist place, and in my experience the French are more likely to look at you askance or judge you for not doing something the way it is 'expected' to be done than chill out and give you props for charting out and finding your own way. This attitude has not helped them in their cultural standing, over and above that of their heritage reputation, and you do now start to see signs that the French are trying to play a bit of catch up with their image on the world stage, the 'supremacy' of French cuisine has been challenged by chefs in Spain and America, the French wine industry has been humbled by a proliferation of cooler New World wines, and even the urban chic of London has taken over may of the houses of couture. The french way is not the only way anymore and in the global village new ideas and inspirations come from urban hotbeds everywhere, including exciting new places like Toronto!

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).

Yes, I'm not alone then in my impression.

 

[Tewder]

the great cities of europe are being dismissed to summarily and too shallowly... this canadian "multicultural" boilerplate is not the only route to greatness. in fact, it's kind of new worldy... you cannot expect spain to jump on the "nation of immigrants!" thing in the same way canada or america would. it's spain. it's not a colonial outpost and never was. it is the ancient home of the spanish people.

Yet look at the new 'cool-Britannia' version of London. The only way it could achieve greatness in the shadow of America was to shed its very Englishness, perceived as drab and stuffy, to modernize and throw open its doors to the EU and immigration, transforming itself by distancing itself from an empire past and embracing a more liberal tolerant cosmopolitanism.

I agree with you that we rely on Multiculturalism way too much. At the end of the day all our diversity has to mean something in a collective way or else we are simply a balkanization of disparate entities rather than the rich social group that we form together. Our multicultural reality makes us rich and diverse which are good things but we have to translate this to something bigger.

 

[adma]

We may be less openly resistant to such exposure.

Well, to approximate the Berlin/Euro situation in Toronto terms, imagine if "new Canadians" started buying up and tearing down old Victorians and Edwardians off Roncesvalles, you might find a crypto-racist outcry (closest thing in Canadian terms is the long struggle over "monster homes" in Vancouver, with its Anglos vs Asians tinge).

Or, for that matter, if the multiculti inner-905 or even outer-416 a la Scarberia swings to Harper, leaving those Roncesvallean yuppies looking like Stuff White People Like White Rhodesians...

 

[Northern Magus]

We cannot deny decades of neglect and we cannot expect others visiting here to just be able to overlook everything and take the time to get to know us so that they will discover how great we are.
<snip>
The city I knew 20 or 30 years ago was ambitious and proud (litter would never have lasted 24 hours) and there was an energy here because people knew they were living in one of the new great cities. This seems to have gradually disappeared into the mire of inferiority, political lassitude and public apathy..... Toronto is a great place with so much wasted opportunity but it needs to get over its pettiness and it needs to believe in itself and show it...

You've hit a lot of nails on the head here.

I think we need to understand that the downward spiral happened in part because the province stopped building urban infrastructure in the 80s during exponential migration to the suburbs, and was followed by the recession of the early 90s and the subsequent election of a Republican provincial government that was anti-urban in the extreme. It all helped cultivate a self-defeating, second-tier, penny-pinching, apathetic culture in this city. Combined with the vestiges of its conservative Presbyterian ethic and the fact that Toronto had historically always played second fiddle to Montreal, it fostered a negative self-fulfilling prophecy and a petty, indifferent, small-minded sense of self.

I think, however, that this was the product of several unfortunate circumstances, and ultimately limited to a specific time period. And that since the early 2000s this has been steadily changing, in tandem with its intensification.

If this board is a testament to anything, it's that Toronto is in a stunning period of re-formation and rebirth. The exponential increase in the quality of architecture over the past 10 years is remarkable. As more and more of these projects get built, there seems to be a demand that the next ones be even better, and a new civic sense of self is gradually emerging.

This dynamic makes Toronto one of the most interesting and ascendant cities in the world.

 

[Northern Magus]

And I venture to guess a referendum to end the Monarchy would get the 50 plus one votes needed to pass. And whether you care or not I'm sure 6 million French Canadians would be happy to see the rest of the nation finally serious about nation building versus playing grown up colonials.

Also time to ditch the Multiculturalism which basically functions in the same way. We need to stop clinging to these supposedly better or more authentic homelands that increasingly have less relevance to life here and get on with building our own identity which will somehow organically grow to embrace a little bit of all that we are.

Australia is a state that is contiguous with a nation, unlike Canada.... In fact let's be honest - there is no Canadian culture so for the rest of the world there really is no there here.....

We're starting to strike upon nations and nationalism, and its role in fostering a sense of cultural "greatness" that has historically tended to be translated into architecture.

Nationalism tends to define a sense of identity among its members, predicated on a sense of superiority as well as a certain degree of exclusion to outsiders. Multiculturalism largely prevents this through its normative emphasis of inclusion. It signals to others that they are welcome, valued and belong. It's very Canadian in that sense.

Canada has its own sense of identity and its own culture because it has a unique set of cultural values that are routinely expressed socially, culturally, politically, and legally. It's true that many overlap with those of other countries, but its mix is unique and distinct. But perhaps that kind of perspective only comes with living elsewhere. What's undeniable is that Canada is the most successful experiment in multiculturalism that the world has ever known, and it should be prouder of it because it's the type of social harmony and inclusion that other countries can only envy.

I should also point out that alpha global cities may be better to visit, but definitely not better to live -- in unless you're quite rich. And when you look at quality of life indexes, the only cities ranking higher than Toronto (ie the GTA) are all half its size or smaller.

Nation building presupposes nationalism, which is inherently exclusionary and intolerant. Rejecting this, and building an inclusive culture based on cosmopolitanism and shared values, is what has been occurring and continues to this day. It has been a magnet for immigration and growth, and a recipe for success.

It may be more difficult to recognize, but it's definitely an identity all its own.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I want to challenge the notion of Toronto's golden era past. This theme is common everywhere and let us not forget, was the prevailing attitude towards western civilization for much of it's history.

Toronto is a different, not worse or better, place than it was decades ago. We want to attribute an exceptualism to our history but really the maturing of a city is really more a function of it's size and the establishment of entrenched social order. We can look at individual issues like say litter, and compare the past and the present. However, really you cannot poach individual aspects of society in the past and view them in isolation from contemporary reality.

On the issue of collective sense of destiny, I believe this to be a real phenomenon. However, it is also representative of an immature period in a cities development. Toronto was to put it bluntly a simpler, less competitive, smaller place at the time. The malaise we are experiencing today is a function of rising competitiveness, sophistication and complexity. Let me emphasis again that we should not take this as meaning good or bad. There are positive and negative aspects. Toronto is growing and transforming now just as fast or faster than in the past. I'm not talking about population or buildings or infrastructure, but in terms of the far more important social order. A complex sophisticated city has more specialization, diversity and opportunity for the highly competitive. However it tends to fail at delivering the "tide lifts all boats" kind of general opportunity that characterized the development of the city in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

I think as the kind of architectural and design standards that people on this forum desire start to come to fruition it starts to mark the transition of the city towards an entrenchment of the social order. The beauty of Toronto I think has always been the promise of a place were diversity, complexity and sophistication could exist while providing the chance for opportunity and prosperity for all. Our greatest challenge in the future will be to enhance the former without sacrificing the latter.

 

[urbanboom]

I want to challenge the notion of Toronto's golden era past. This theme is common everywhere and let us not forget, was the prevailing attitude towards western civilization for much of it's history.

Toronto is a different, not worse or better, place than it was decades ago. We want to attribute an exceptualism to our history but really the maturing of a city is really more a function of it's size and the establishment of entrenched social order. We can look at individual issues like say litter, and compare the past and the present. However, really you cannot poach individual aspects of society in the past and view them in isolation from contemporary reality.

On the issue of collective sense of destiny, I believe this to be a real phenomenon. However, it is also representative of an immature period in a cities development. Toronto was to put it bluntly a simpler, less competitive, smaller place at the time. The malaise we are experiencing today is a function of rising competitiveness, sophistication and complexity. Let me emphasis again that we should not take this as meaning good or bad. There are positive and negative aspects. Toronto is growing and transforming now just as fast or faster than in the past. I'm not talking about population or buildings or infrastructure, but in terms of the far more important social order. A complex sophisticated city has more specialization, diversity and opportunity for the highly competitive. However it tends to fail at delivering the "tide lifts all boats" kind of general opportunity that characterized the development of the city in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

I think as the kind of architectural and design standards that people on this forum desire start to come to fruition it starts to mark the transition of the city towards an entrenchment of the social order. The beauty of Toronto I think has always been the promise of a place were diversity, complexity and sophistication could exist while providing the chance for opportunity and prosperity for all. Our greatest challenge in the future will be to enhance the former without sacrificing the latter.

+1

I wasn't in Toronto during this time, but from all the pictures I've seen, it looked pretty god awful and strangely similar to Buffalo, NY. Nothing but grey and parking lots as far as the eye can see, not to mention the horrible looking towers-in-a-park that were popping up like mushrooms. Just a browze through these threads really show the progess and improvement this city has taken:
the 60s: http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=9247
the 80s: http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=7314

 

[Oliver Tweed]

+1

I wasn't in Toronto during this time, but from all the pictures I've seen, it looked pretty god awful and strangely similar to Buffalo, NY. Nothing but grey and parking lots as far as the eye can see, not to mention the horrible looking towers-in-a-park that were popping up like mushrooms. Just a browze through these threads really show the progess and improvement this city has taken:
the 60s: http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=9247
the 80s: http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=7314

Agreed. There has been a huge transformation. The problem is, we are so hungry for more that I think we lose sight of just how far the city has come in the past few decades.

I think it's just going to take more time, frustrating as that may be. I firmly believe that Toronto's best days are ahead of us. I still think the smart money is still on Toronto real estate, particularly in the east end. The amount of vacant or underused land east of downtown is staggering, especially in the portlands and along the waterfront. The distillery district will soon be surrounded by city, whereas now it's still somewhat isolated.

Aside from the built environment, transit is also a huge issue. The city is tragically underserved by proper transit and the infrastructure situation is bad in general. I think this is one of the main reasons behind Toronto's lack of confidence. Good infrastructure breeds civic pride because the city works better and looks better. Right now we don't have a lot to inspire us in this regard. It's not to say there is nothing to be proud of in this city; there is plenty. But because we are sorely lacking on the infrastructure side of things, it drags everything else down.

The most frustrating part of it is that when we voice our displeasure about transit, for example, we are met with a chorus of cheerleaders telling us that what we have is actually great compared to a range of other, very poorly served North American cities. But we are not -- and should not be -- comparing ourselves to those cities. We are comparing ourselves to the best, and by comparison we fall well short.

 

[Tewder]

Nationalism tends to define a sense of identity among its members, predicated on a sense of superiority as well as a certain degree of exclusion to outsiders. Multiculturalism largely prevents this through its normative emphasis of inclusion. It signals to others that they are welcome, valued and belong. It's very Canadian in that sense.

Exactly. As such, xenophobia wouldn't be valued as part of the Canadian national identity.

At the same time, however, we do very much have values that differentiate us from other societies, i.e. we do not condone mysogyny. This idea that Canada is tolerant of *everything* is patently wrong. We have a value-set that joins us together and this part of our identity.

What's undeniable is that Canada is the most successful experiment in multiculturalism that the world has ever known, and it should be prouder of it because it's the type of social harmony and inclusion that other countries can only envy..

I think we have to be careful about patting ourselves on the back too soon about this. Our 'experiment' is only about 30 years in the making, really. In this same time period many other nations in the west have opened their doors to immigrants for various reasons, some doing better in some ways than others. Canadian Multiculturalism isn't perfect and to portray it as such is irresponsible. We do far too little to assimilate newcomers and many end up feeling disenfranchized and marginalized. At the same time we do them a disservice in not clearly articulating just what the Canadian identity and values are they are supposedly expected to conform to. The result is often resentment on the part of many Canadians and the ghettoization (often self-imposed) of most ethnic groups which is not a thing to boast about and was definitely not the goal of Canadian Multiculturalism.

Nation building presupposes nationalism, which is inherently exclusionary and intolerant. Rejecting this, and building an inclusive culture based on cosmopolitanism and shared values, is what has been occurring and continues to this day. It has been a magnet for immigration and growth, and a recipe for success.

It may be more difficult to recognize, but it's definitely an identity all its own.

There is more to our identity than inclusivity. We don't inherently include *everything* as 'Canadian', and nor should we. We are more than an 'Epcot Centre'-type theme park posing as a benign deconstructed and non-nationalistic nation. Canadian values offend many around the world. Canadian practices and perspectives do also. Being Canadian means standing for something and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time we do happen to be just about the most tolerant and inclusive societies you will find and this is definitely one of our values.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

Canadian Multiculturalism isn't perfect and to portray it as such is irresponsible. We do far too little to assimilate newcomers and many end up feeling disenfranchized and marginalized. At the same time we do them a disservice in not clearly articulating just what the Canadian identity and values are they are supposedly expected to conform to. The result is often resentment on the part of many Canadians and the ghettoization (often self-imposed) of most ethnic groups which is not a thing to boast about and was definitely not the goal of Canadian Multiculturalism.

Given the number of immigrants that come here every year (roughly a quarter million) ethnic clustering is bound to happen. It would be impossible to effectively assimilate that many people, especially given the relatively small size of Canada's population.