Pfloyd
New Member
Toronto is only 215 years old. All European Cities you've mentioned including London are over 800 years old!
So?
Toronto is only 215 years old. All European Cities you've mentioned including London are over 800 years old!
On a more general note, I think it's important to keep in mind the British psyche here--which is a fairly complex animal as I have learned living in the UK for some years now. Britain has a deep-seated inferiority complex--different, but no less intense than Canada's, I guess.
Really good point. In the last century Britain lost its international economic standing, its empire (for the most part) and its cultural status becoming fusty and irrelevant compared to an exciting and booming America. In the meantime they have been busting their chops to try and get back a little something something but it usually falls fairly flat. Just watch some X factor and you'll get what I mean. Still, not to fall into the same trap as the comments of those British twits there is undeniably lots of cool stuff going on there right now and Britain is transforming in many ways... but so is Toronto. Shame they are so jazzed about it there but unwilling to appreciate it here. Just another reason perhaps why it may be time that Canada grow up and cut those ties (to monarchy and commonwealth etc) that clearly have as little meaning to them there as to us.
Those comments are absolutely scathing.
But honestly, I think the reality is that Toronto is not so different from Chicago and New York. I was rather surprised how run down parts of Manhattan looked despite the fact it is passed off as a wealthy borough in the media through shows like Sex and the City and Gossip Girl. Obviously, Chicago and New York are much bigger and have more touristy sights like Millenium Park and Central Park, but there's not much difference in quality.
SO? It is apples to oranges.
total non-sense.
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."
Completely agree about cutting those ties. Everyone is still able to enjoy their heritage such as it is but Canada really does not need to have a Queen as its head of state and belong to that joke of a faded empire leftover, the Commonwealth.
edited to add for Hipster Duck:
I was in France this year and have to say that as amazing as it is it all feels a little flat and fusty there too, and there was absolutely nothing different on offer in terms of style, design, food, pop culture, music etc. that we don't have just as much of in Toronto. In fact, there is something of an oppressive weight to all that heritage and French ' cultural superiority' that felt limiting and somewhat 'sad', and very bourgeois quite frankly. The French also seemed just as 'New York' obsessed as the British, far more likely to look across the ocean for liberating new inspiration in music, fashion, and yes even food, all the while fighting it and hating themselves for it. Toronto feels much more relaxed and chill with all this, a city on the rise accepting new possibilites rather than clinging to old rules. Far more exciting in my opinion.
Far more exciting for you, perhaps, but how do we quantify excitement in the aggregate?
No offense, Tewder, but what you experience as a week-long tourist is but the tip of the iceberg in the cultural output of a world metropolis like Paris. I don't imagine you went to a Haitian neighbourhood party or attended a Senegalese rap battle or any number of cultural offerings that fly completely under the radar for the average Parisian, let alone tourist.
Also - and Whoaccio is completely correct on this front - the metropolitanism of a city is highly dependent on the concentration of people in an urban space, not the sum total of its population in the region. Phoenix and Atlanta have 4 million people but are they as exciting as Montreal or Berlin or Rome, all of which have 4 million people? Toronto has 5 million people, of which maybe 1 million live in what might be loosely defined as an urban environment. In Paris, 2 million people live in urban conditions that exceed practically any corner of Toronto and an additional 2-4 million people live in "suburbs" with urban densities and a socio-spatial context that might approximate what we find south of Bloor. Maybe not all of these are "exciting" people, but their living arrangement forces them to interact with their public realm in greater ways than the average Torontonian and that's what adds to Paris' vibrancy.
I seriously cannot believe the amount of Toronto adulation that is going on in this forum these days. I think I've heard it all: Toronto is more exciting than Paris; Toronto has better skyscraper architecture than New York; Toronto has comparable shopping to anywhere in the world. I almost expect to turn my head one day and read that Toronto has better dim sum than Hong Kong and more nightlife than Tokyo.
Toronto is a good city, but let's put it in perspective [...] to say we're more culturally relevant than Paris? That is absolutely preposterous.