[rkarsk]

This is the exact shit my very caucasian, eastern european parents had to deal with when they immigrated to Canada as refugees in the late 80s. People like you will always find a group of 'others' to lord over and blame society's perceived ills on. Some things never change.

 

[Roaring Flames]

"Immigrants will taint our culture" is a common statement by zenophobic individuals that completely misses that Canada was built on immigration and that our country already has large ethnic population centres. You likely don't think of Chinatown and people from different parts of Europe than just England and France already being present as odd.

Canada is trying to become a multicultural nation that freely allows other cultures to intermingle without judgement and prejudice. It's been a hard road to get where we are with some serious bumps in the road along the way. We don't want to go back to doing assimilation like did with the residential schools.

 

[potatopizzafan]

Yikes.

would you tell an indigenous person that "European immigrants' culture and society isnt so different from yours"?


What the fuck is this Canadian "culture" you're trying to "protect" anyways? Playing pond hockey and drinking Budweiser in the back of a pickup truck?

 

[artvandelay]

Japan has also been stagnating (or stagflating) economically for decades. It's a wonderful place to visit and they have a beautiful culture, but the Japanese are also notoriously xenophobic towards outsiders - although it seems as if that would be a positive to you.

Your comments are incredibly tone deaf, not to mention that any person who is not of indigenous decent is essentially an immigrant to this country, as well as the fact that over 20% of the country is within a reach of a first generation immigrant. This forum isn't the place for you to ramble on about how immigrants are "tainting our culture".

Even indigenous Canadians technically "immigrated" here from Asia at a certain point. One of the beautiful things about Canada is that were are all immigrants for somewhere!

 

[YourBoy007]

See guys, we're talking identity politics on a skyscraper page. My point stands.

 

[Mountain Man]

Your "point" is making you look like an asshole.

 

[Disraeli]

Wow, a good, constructive debate about our city's identity sure turned into a hot mess in a hurry.

 

[CBBarnett]

See guys, we're talking identity politics on a skyscraper page. My point stands.

But.... that was entirely you.... you literally were the 2nd reply to my post of the article and dived straight into immigration and race. No one mentioned it before you. It was literally your point to make it about identity politics instead of what I was talking about. Gaslight much?:

Amazingly you both totally missed the context to why I posted the article in the first place - while also proving the entire point of the article you disagree with. The attitude you highlighted in your last several posts is wrong both in this forum and in this city. No tolerance is required for intolerant attitudes.

Wow, a good, constructive debate about our city's identity sure turned into a hot mess in a hurry.

Apologies to the rest of the group for bringing it up! Perhaps I was a bit too clunky in my intro to this topic.

My only intention was to argue there is an amateur quality to how Calgary discusses itself as a city, particular through the typical loudest channels like the Herald. Lazy, majoritive, "everything is fine with the status quo" booster articles do not set us up (in a general public sense) very well to consider and debate the nuances of urban life of a big, growing and diverse city.

Perhaps this digression was proof-in-point - some of us really aren't ready to acknowledge we are a big city, with many good and bad things we need to deal with. Lazy takes aren't going to help.

 

[Disraeli]

Amazingly you both totally missed the context to why I posted the article in the first place - while also proving the entire point of the article you disagree with.


Apologies to the rest of the group for bringing it up! Perhaps I was a bit too clunky in my intro to this topic.

My only intention was to argue there is an amateur quality to how Calgary discusses itself as a city, particular through the typical loudest channels like the Herald. Lazy, majoritive, "everything is fine with the status quo" booster articles do not set us up (in a general public sense) very well to consider and debate the nuances of urban life of a big, growing and diverse city.

Perhaps this digression was proof-in-point - some of us really aren't ready to acknowledge we are a big city, with many good and bad things we need to deal with. Lazy takes aren't going to help.

I’m assuming “both” includes myself so here is the context for why I think that article is garbage. I’ve been involved in the Calgary music scene for decades. There are people I know that could provide an incredibly nuanced view on Calgary’s non- mainstream culture-- where it has come from, where it needs to go, its strengths/weaknesses. They can do so because they have actually invested time, effort, and in alot of cases their own money into contributing to this city outside the mainstream, stereotypical rootin' tootin' oil town view of Calgary that most people who read the G&M hold. It therefor annoys me when a person who never bothered to contribute or experience this side of Calgary gets to have an opinion piece reflecting on the subject published in a national newspaper. Now is that the point of the article? that a person's lazy perceptions are no fault of their own?

I also think that you give RW far too much credit as being an influential voice for this city or its reputation. He is annoying for urban development nerds like ourselves who happen upon his articles but is a pretty obscure columnist to the everyday reader. Apart from the occasional booster article by RW, editorials about Calgary tend to be overwhelmingly pessimistic (like the one you posted).

 

[CBBarnett]

I’m assuming “both” includes myself so here is the context for why I think that article is garbage.

Not you just the other poster. "Both" as in they both missed my point (1) and proved the article right (2).

I didn't say the article in the globe is a masterpiece without flaw or bias, it's an opinion article. I said it represents the other side of the coin to the lazy booster article. I am lamenting that our mainstream can't advance beyond this boring binary about Calgary, city building and it's culture.

Calgary offers a lot culturally and there are loads of scenes to find with some effort and an interest community building. I also think we structurally have some disadvantages as a city that are also not easily overcome with just a better, more positive marketing campaign or more individual effort to just try harder.

Some of those disadvantages resolve with growing Calgary larger (more people = more people to support subcultures of any particular interest), but lots of the disadvantages only resolve with better city building choices (better transit, higher and better density, better support for arts and culture, better student culture, more bicycle infrastructure etc.)

Articles that say things Calgary is as good as Copenhagen in cycling and we have nothing to learn from other cities infer that there's nothing to improve in our choices. That isn't true and isn't very useful.

 

[darwink]

It therefor annoys me when a person who never bothered to contribute or experience this side of Calgary gets to have an opinion piece reflecting on the subject published in a national newspaper.

I think all cities have at least two levels. One that is accessible without effort--lets call this the level that your hotel concierge might recommend if one was visiting a city. The other is not.

Thinking of how to bridge to a city where the second level is more accessible, I come back to a large urban post-secondary presence with students signing up for a full experience, not commuting in. Add in even 5,000 core/beltline denizens where there entire life is focused in the area, they stay for 4 years, every year they are initiating another group through a planned process and the feeling will change.

A secondary effect is that that injects an at least somewhat representative group of today's demographics into the 'core culture', so we don't have to wait 40 years for demographic shifts to begin cultural shifts. Because frankly, even in 2006 there were barely (as a percentage) any people of Black/African descent in Calgary. There were more Jewish people, and Calgary isn't exactly known for a large Jewish community. This is deep in the memory banks, but I believe each were less than half a percent of the population at the time. Compared to the GTA, which, again, from memory, was around 16% black/African descent at the time, I'm sure the experience was and is highly alienating, even if racism was limited only to white gaze/black gaze.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I am on the fence about the article overall, no matter how many times I think about it it’s a 50-50 situation for me. On one hand I don’t mind constructive criticism about the city, on the other hand some of it comes across as plain old whining.
After rereading the article, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s really an article more about race or racism.
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t believe Calgarian‘s are necessarily inherently more racist than people in other cities, but I do believe it is somewhat more overt here compared to a city like Toronto, and of course this would factor into her perceptions.

Also, to @darwink’s point, there is a much smaller proportion of African population here, and that can lead to feelings of alienation, which can turn into feelings of racism. I am just making an educated guess here, as I have no idea what her actual experiences were.

As for the part about being stuck on a Deerfoot etc. I feel like those comments are misguided rants. If you live in the suburbs, but want an urban lifestyle, you need to live closer to the core of the city. I get the feeling she never really got out and fully explored Calgary. I have a coworker who is also Nigerian and who transferred from The GTA (Milton). One of his biggest complaints was the traffic - a side effect of living in Milton - but in Calgary he lives in the Beltline and his life is much different. He hasn’t been here very long but so far he really likes it.

 

[ByeByeBaby]

I’m assuming “both” includes myself so here is the context for why I think that article is garbage. I’ve been involved in the Calgary music scene for decades. There are people I know that could provide an incredibly nuanced view on Calgary’s non- mainstream culture-- where it has come from, where it needs to go, its strengths/weaknesses. They can do so because they have actually invested time, effort, and in alot of cases their own money into contributing to this city outside the mainstream, stereotypical rootin' tootin' oil town view of Calgary that most people who read the G&M hold. It therefor annoys me when a person who never bothered to contribute or experience this side of Calgary gets to have an opinion piece reflecting on the subject published in a national newspaper. Now is that the point of the article? that a person's lazy perceptions are no fault of their own?

There's a lot of people who couldn't possibly run a full marathon, but you're not going to find out about them if you only interview people as they cross the finishing line. It seems weird that you'd only accept an opinion on whether the cultural scene in Calgary is welcoming to newcomers by only asking people who have invested in that scene for decades and been successful in engaging in it. Not to mention that there are many cultural scenes; they interact, but Calgary has stronger and weaker scenes -- even within one dimension, it's not uniform; I think Calgary has a pretty great culinary scene overall, but while we're top notch in (say) coffee, we're still pretty poor on Latin American food; not too many years removed from being the largest city in North America where you couldn't get a decent taco. The writer of the piece is into writing and fashion; I don't know how good those scenes (or the subscenes she's interested in) are in Calgary, but having a good music scene isn't necessarily all that relevant.

That said, the experience of someone who goes to university in a city while living in their parents' suburban home is a limited one (especially with the last couple of years involving a lot of distance learning). I don't think it's the definitive statement on Calgary's cultural scene, just one data point amongst thousands.

The Canada West Foundation did a couple of studies recently that talked to a lot more young people and drew similar conclusions, though -- that Calgary is losing out in competing for young people because of a lack of diversity and vibrancy.

 

[Surrealplaces]

The Canada West Foundation did a couple of studies recently that talked to a lot more young people and drew similar conclusions, though -- that Calgary is losing out in competing for young people because of a lack of diversity and vibrancy.

Keep in mind though the common theme of that report is career paths and career diversity, though general quality of life is mentioned as a factor. I think economic factors play into this much more than people realize.

For the 30 years before 2017 there wasn't a problem with young people leaving when the city actually had less arts, culture and vibrancy than it does today. The key to keeping young people is more than just jobs, or culture it's both. Young people have been leaving cities like Winnipeg, Halifax, and Montreal, and even Ottawa for years due to job related reasons.

I'm not trying to say that we don't need to improve things arts, culture, and transit, etc.. because we definitely do. With the oil industry in decline long term, the city definitely needs to increase efforts on the cultural side while other industries take up the slack on the economic side.

I agree 100% with this section of the article.
“A turn-around in the oil and gas sector is not the answer this time,” reads the “Work to Live” report.
“Alberta will need to increase efforts to ensure that young people are aware of and engaged in building the diversified economy and communities of the future.”

 

[CBBarnett]

There's a lot of people who couldn't possibly run a full marathon, but you're not going to find out about them if you only interview people as they cross the finishing line. It seems weird that you'd only accept an opinion on whether the cultural scene in Calgary is welcoming to newcomers by only asking people who have invested in that scene for decades and been successful in engaging in it. Not to mention that there are many cultural scenes; they interact, but Calgary has stronger and weaker scenes -- even within one dimension, it's not uniform; I think Calgary has a pretty great culinary scene overall, but while we're top notch in (say) coffee, we're still pretty poor on Latin American food; not too many years removed from being the largest city in North America where you couldn't get a decent taco. The writer of the piece is into writing and fashion; I don't know how good those scenes (or the subscenes she's interested in) are in Calgary, but having a good music scene isn't necessarily all that relevant.

I agree with this.

That said, the experience of someone who goes to university in a city while living in their parents' suburban home is a limited one (especially with the last couple of years involving a lot of distance learning). I don't think it's the definitive statement on Calgary's cultural scene, just one data point amongst thousands.

Where you live and how you interact with cultures and communities around you is a personal choice. People who make choices that don't make them fulfilled or connected to the communities they seek are unhappy. Sometimes they write articles.

But critically important - a person's personal choice is always limited by the conditions they find themselves in. These limiting conditions are both individual (e.g. wealth, family stability and background, education, social context, language etc.) and collective (e.g. how we build our city). Individuals have much less control over these limiting conditions and their personal choice can only go so far to overcome limiting conditions. Sometimes it's not possible.

I see this article reflects a bunch of personal choices that could have been made better, but those choices were also limited by individual and collective conditions.

This whole discussion is about this interaction between personal choice and limiting factors:

• I can't take transit if we don't build any.
• I can't live next to the university if I can't afford it. Even if I can afford it, if everyone else doesn't live next to the university at a high enough density, I can only get so much of a student culture easily accessible in my community.
• I might want to live in a 24/7 nightlife district, but if there's not enough other people nearby who want the same thing and the city isn't big enough, it might not be economic for any nightlife at all.

The good news is that most of these collective issues are being actively or passively (i.e. just become a bigger, denser city) being resolved but it takes time - like generations. That will be too long for some people to wait, especially new comers that have more limiting conditions by not knowing the city and the nuances of our cultures to give a head start.

Then there's the counter-point comments, which is my pet peeve - "the problem isn't the collective at all, it's just the individual! We are all good as a city and there's nothing to worry about! Stop trying to change us. You (newcomer) are the problem for just not trying to fit in enough." It's frustrating because obviously reality is something in the middle of individual choice and collective limitations.

An individual can't choose what doesn't exist, is unlikely to choose something they would have to get lucky to stumble upon to even know about, and is unlikely to choose something that is super difficult and costly to access. It's their choices, but the table was stacked against what they might have chose if we provided more options/access.