|
|
|
- Thread starter kool maudit
- Start date
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Toronto as #1
To add to the personal anecdotes:
I'm originally from Calgary, came to Ontario in the mid-80s for school, spent '89-'91 in Washington, DC, then came back to Toronto to stay, so I've been here for the better part of twenty years.
As part of my job(s) over the years, I've spent a lot of time travelling to Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver, and some time travelling to Quebec City, Moncton, Edmonton, Ottawa, Saskatoon, Regina, and Victoria. Curiously, no Halifax or Winnipeg.
Both the '90s and the '00s started with Canadian downturns (you can throw in '97-'98 for some in the financial services industry like me, but I don't think that was much more than our industry re-tooling some) followed by booms. IMHO, Toronto won hands down in both cases, growing mightily and gaining ground in almost all commercial and cultural areas versus the ROC. Montreal in the early and mid-'90s was BRUTAL. It took forever to recover -- the many, many boarded up windows on rue Ste-Catherine and general disrepair took more than a decade to cure. (Happily, Montreal is doing great these days, particularly downtown, Old Montreal, and the rest of the inner city -- fabulous to see how much it has rebounded.) Calgary has boomed, but it's such a new city, and so focused on business (oil and gas, naturally) and the outdoors that it's more a collection of suburbs than a city (my parents and brother would disagree.) I agree with the posters who talk about Vancouver as 'small' -- somehow, it doesn't feel like a big city. I suspect the Olympics and their aftermath might change that -- it did (on a smaller scale) for Calgary.
IMHO, there's really only five more-than-regional cities in Canada: Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, and Vancouver. If I was to rank them, I'd go with Montreal last -- Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal (people who place more importance on politics would move Ottawa up that list). Toronto is so far ahead of all those cities that it's not even arguable (which is why those who wish to rank things have started comparing Toronto to world cities, so they can feel angst about us losing.)
I live in Riverdale, commute by 504, have a daughter at Moss Park for figure skating and another at Leaside for hockey. My wife is from France, and we can eat as well as in Paris and spend as much of our life as we wish in French. From the languages I hear on my TTC limo, there's many, from many parts of the world, that do the same. That's one of the great things about Toronto.
The other things I think are great about Toronto is the higher culture and the recapturing of our waterfront -- the ROM/AGO/Four Seasons/etc rebuild, as well as the Mirvish/Soulpepper flourishing, and the QQ/WDL/East Bay recapturing of the most beautiful part of our city.
It's been a great twenty years for me, and I think for Toronto. Love this place.
To add to the personal anecdotes:
I'm originally from Calgary, came to Ontario in the mid-80s for school, spent '89-'91 in Washington, DC, then came back to Toronto to stay, so I've been here for the better part of twenty years.
As part of my job(s) over the years, I've spent a lot of time travelling to Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver, and some time travelling to Quebec City, Moncton, Edmonton, Ottawa, Saskatoon, Regina, and Victoria. Curiously, no Halifax or Winnipeg.
Both the '90s and the '00s started with Canadian downturns (you can throw in '97-'98 for some in the financial services industry like me, but I don't think that was much more than our industry re-tooling some) followed by booms. IMHO, Toronto won hands down in both cases, growing mightily and gaining ground in almost all commercial and cultural areas versus the ROC. Montreal in the early and mid-'90s was BRUTAL. It took forever to recover -- the many, many boarded up windows on rue Ste-Catherine and general disrepair took more than a decade to cure. (Happily, Montreal is doing great these days, particularly downtown, Old Montreal, and the rest of the inner city -- fabulous to see how much it has rebounded.) Calgary has boomed, but it's such a new city, and so focused on business (oil and gas, naturally) and the outdoors that it's more a collection of suburbs than a city (my parents and brother would disagree.) I agree with the posters who talk about Vancouver as 'small' -- somehow, it doesn't feel like a big city. I suspect the Olympics and their aftermath might change that -- it did (on a smaller scale) for Calgary.
IMHO, there's really only five more-than-regional cities in Canada: Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, and Vancouver. If I was to rank them, I'd go with Montreal last -- Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal (people who place more importance on politics would move Ottawa up that list). Toronto is so far ahead of all those cities that it's not even arguable (which is why those who wish to rank things have started comparing Toronto to world cities, so they can feel angst about us losing.)
I live in Riverdale, commute by 504, have a daughter at Moss Park for figure skating and another at Leaside for hockey. My wife is from France, and we can eat as well as in Paris and spend as much of our life as we wish in French. From the languages I hear on my TTC limo, there's many, from many parts of the world, that do the same. That's one of the great things about Toronto.
The other things I think are great about Toronto is the higher culture and the recapturing of our waterfront -- the ROM/AGO/Four Seasons/etc rebuild, as well as the Mirvish/Soulpepper flourishing, and the QQ/WDL/East Bay recapturing of the most beautiful part of our city.
It's been a great twenty years for me, and I think for Toronto. Love this place.
Last edited:
LAz
Active Member
I think that Toronto and Montreal are first rate cities in North America... perhaps even better than almost any city in the US... but I'd say that they are second rate cities in the world.
There's not gonna be an easy fix in the near future, I think.
Are there other options? We can't just say "hey we're going to oslo" or something.
There's not gonna be an easy fix in the near future, I think.
Are there other options? We can't just say "hey we're going to oslo" or something.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Even though we all engage in it I'm not really comfortable that some of the metrics by which we measure city against city are telling the bigger story.
Try this on as a thought exercise: What if we think of almost everything we talk about here on this forum, from public spaces, to buildings to transportation as being the outer or surface shell of the act of experiencing the city. Now pretend that despite eveything that we have learned our entire life, almost nothing meaningful happens at this level of experience.
What if we measure a city by something like how living there helps us to take control and responsibility for the creation of our own reality? I like the anecdotal accounts people are giving because they hit closer to the mark than talking about nightlife, or subway systems etc. How do people get control and take responsiblity for the creation of their own reality? I submit that Toronto is an excellent place to accomplish this very thing and that a place that has mastered the "surface shell" aspects may still be a limiting or undesirable place to live.
Try this on as a thought exercise: What if we think of almost everything we talk about here on this forum, from public spaces, to buildings to transportation as being the outer or surface shell of the act of experiencing the city. Now pretend that despite eveything that we have learned our entire life, almost nothing meaningful happens at this level of experience.
What if we measure a city by something like how living there helps us to take control and responsibility for the creation of our own reality? I like the anecdotal accounts people are giving because they hit closer to the mark than talking about nightlife, or subway systems etc. How do people get control and take responsiblity for the creation of their own reality? I submit that Toronto is an excellent place to accomplish this very thing and that a place that has mastered the "surface shell" aspects may still be a limiting or undesirable place to live.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
That's a great point. Here's a Robert Fulford article I dug up that discusses that very thing:
http://www.robertfulford.com/kilbourn.html
Fulford writes:
"We construct cities in two ways: with concrete and with imagination.
The physical Toronto is the work of architects, builders, developers, planners....
And then there is the city we carry in our minds, the city that guides us, teaches us, forms us. Glenn Gould once said, in a TV show, "I think that the only Toronto I really know well is the one I carry about with me in memory." I believe that in a sense that's true of all of us. No one can grasp the city in all its details. Even those of us who make it a kind of specialty will still find ourselves, again and again, coming upon corners of Toronto that are clearly cherished by others but are all but unkown to us; or, more likely, were once known to us and now are transformed by their latest residents."
I actually remember seeing a rebroadcast of that TV show on CBC wherein Gould offers his own affectionate take on his native city. I'm sure I recall him also saying something to the effect that what he liked best about Toronto was that unlike some larger, more glamourous cities, Toronto doesn't force itself on its inhabitants but, rather, offers a kind of liveable, easily navigable terrain on which people can chart their own course. (my words more than his).
Obviously Toronto has changed since then becoming both larger and more glamourous, on the one hand, and less easily navigated and maybe less liveable on the other. But certainly it's much more interesting than it's ever been.
old boy
Senior Member
Think what TO might be if it's sport teams could ever make the playoffs. Seriously. I used to feel that Toronto never got a fair shake in comparisons between the 2 cities. Now, comparing them, ( or Toronto to much of anything else in Canada ), just doesn't seem to matter so much. They are the 2 most interesting cities this side of the States.
WillC
New Member
Talk about the old saying, "damning with faint praise."
The best thing Toronto has compared to every city in Canada except Montreal is good public transit. There are many cities in the US that I've never been to, but from what I understand, most of them do not have a vibrant inner core, because of the lack of transit, and their vicious social policies.
Last edited:
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Irishmonk, good find. I also like this statement
"unlike some larger, more glamourous cities, Toronto doesn't force itself on its inhabitants but, rather, offers a kind of liveable, easily navigable terrain on which people can chart their own course."
Bringing it back to the thread topic take my parents for example. They were others. My father immigrated from Asia to Regina, my mother from non-french speaking europe to Halifax in the 60's. These events would seem much less likely today. Having no understanding of the experience of established Canadians, no affinity with either british or french identity, and little interest in the conflict between the two, Montreal just wasn't even a consideration for them as a place to settle, a place to establish and grow their own reality. Montreal just seemed like a place where other people were clashing over other realities.
I think the experience of my parents was shared by many and the primary reason why Toronto established itself at the time as the city of the future in Canada. Perhaps Montreal was boldly positioning itself internally and internationally as the pre-eminent city for a Canada that was becoming increasingly less representative of more and more Canadian people.
"unlike some larger, more glamourous cities, Toronto doesn't force itself on its inhabitants but, rather, offers a kind of liveable, easily navigable terrain on which people can chart their own course."
Bringing it back to the thread topic take my parents for example. They were others. My father immigrated from Asia to Regina, my mother from non-french speaking europe to Halifax in the 60's. These events would seem much less likely today. Having no understanding of the experience of established Canadians, no affinity with either british or french identity, and little interest in the conflict between the two, Montreal just wasn't even a consideration for them as a place to settle, a place to establish and grow their own reality. Montreal just seemed like a place where other people were clashing over other realities.
I think the experience of my parents was shared by many and the primary reason why Toronto established itself at the time as the city of the future in Canada. Perhaps Montreal was boldly positioning itself internally and internationally as the pre-eminent city for a Canada that was becoming increasingly less representative of more and more Canadian people.
Last edited:
urbanboom
Active Member
Are there other options? We can't just say "hey we're going to oslo" or something.
Sure you can! You only live once, so if you wanna live in Oslo, go ahead and life in Oslo!
If you're miserable in Toronto, it's not Toronto's fault, it's your fault for not finding a solution. I'm very happy here but obviously there are many people who aren't, and my question to them is "if the grass is so freaking green on the other side, why don't you go live in the other side?" To Torontonians who say "Toronto is the worst place in the world", I say, "Aren't you pathetic! You choose to live in the world's worst place. What a sad waste of a life."
Laz, this isn't directed at you. I'm just going on a rant.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
The language issue in Montreal really does force itself on non French speakers. In Toronto, new arrivals can be whoever they want. Some of the more conservative locals may criticize immigrant communities for not embracing our culture and language as soon as they step off the plane but that's Toronto's appeal to people seeking a new life. People can come to Toronto and be whoever they want.
old boy
Senior Member
OK, Toronto is one of the more interesting cities- anywhere ! How's that for faint praise ? I agree, heartily, with one of the other posters that we can credit the multicultural face of Toronto with much of the city's current dynamism. And interestingly, there must have been some pretty fertile soil in this old Anglo place for this to have taken root so well.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
The Fulford quote reads as if it was cribbed from Jonathan Raban:
"Living in cities is an art, and we need the vocabulary of art, of style, to describe the peculiar relationship between man and material that exists in the continual creative play of urban living. The city as we imagine it, then, soft city of illusion, myth, aspiration, and nightmare, is as real, maybe more real, than the hard city one can locate on maps in statistics, in monographs on urban sociology and demography and architecture."
Much as Raban's malleable urban world of Soft City sums up the rundown, low-rent parts of London in the early '70s, I think Gould's Toronto, which he described as "a city that doesn’t impose its city-ness on you", describes a neutral place within which we each manoeuvre and construct the life we want.
But I wonder if the widespread gentrification of the working class, low-rent downtown Toronto that I remember in the early '70s - replaced by a higher end, higher-rent, more luxe city - is making it less soft and malleable? Artists are migrating further out because cheap housing and converted warehouse space no longer exist downtown, new immigrants aren't settling downtown first as they once did, and the gay village doesn't offer cheap apartments for kids moving here any more, for instance ... so communities shift further out from the core. There's a homogeneity where once there was diversity, and maybe suburban areas will become what downtown once was.
"Living in cities is an art, and we need the vocabulary of art, of style, to describe the peculiar relationship between man and material that exists in the continual creative play of urban living. The city as we imagine it, then, soft city of illusion, myth, aspiration, and nightmare, is as real, maybe more real, than the hard city one can locate on maps in statistics, in monographs on urban sociology and demography and architecture."
Much as Raban's malleable urban world of Soft City sums up the rundown, low-rent parts of London in the early '70s, I think Gould's Toronto, which he described as "a city that doesn’t impose its city-ness on you", describes a neutral place within which we each manoeuvre and construct the life we want.
But I wonder if the widespread gentrification of the working class, low-rent downtown Toronto that I remember in the early '70s - replaced by a higher end, higher-rent, more luxe city - is making it less soft and malleable? Artists are migrating further out because cheap housing and converted warehouse space no longer exist downtown, new immigrants aren't settling downtown first as they once did, and the gay village doesn't offer cheap apartments for kids moving here any more, for instance ... so communities shift further out from the core. There's a homogeneity where once there was diversity, and maybe suburban areas will become what downtown once was.
pman
Senior Member
montreal compared to toronto
I live in toronto but work in Montreal Monday through Thursday, so I've had some opportunity to compare the two cities. A few things stand out:
1. Without federal equalization payments and industrial subsidies (think Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney and the drug companies), Montreal would be dead. Conversely, without the burden of supporting Quebec and the other welfare provinces, Toronto would be quite well funded.
2. Montreal beats Toronto hands down for transit (not saying much, I know), restaurants, and design of the public realm. Every week I return to Toronto I'm blown away by how ugly and dysfunctional most of our public space is in comparison. Did anybody consciously decide our sidewalks, streets and hydro poles had to look this way? Did we ever have a debate on putting little lifeless trees in those raised 70's style concrete planters?
3. The French thing is completely overblown - I work for a Quebec national institution and my French is total crap. My colleagues all speak pretty much perfect English to me and nobody makes a fuss about language. in fact my secretary only speaks English to me so she can practice. Maybe they're more zenophobic in rural Quebec, but the reality is that Montreal is as tolerant and multicultural as Toronto.
I live in toronto but work in Montreal Monday through Thursday, so I've had some opportunity to compare the two cities. A few things stand out:
1. Without federal equalization payments and industrial subsidies (think Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney and the drug companies), Montreal would be dead. Conversely, without the burden of supporting Quebec and the other welfare provinces, Toronto would be quite well funded.
2. Montreal beats Toronto hands down for transit (not saying much, I know), restaurants, and design of the public realm. Every week I return to Toronto I'm blown away by how ugly and dysfunctional most of our public space is in comparison. Did anybody consciously decide our sidewalks, streets and hydro poles had to look this way? Did we ever have a debate on putting little lifeless trees in those raised 70's style concrete planters?
3. The French thing is completely overblown - I work for a Quebec national institution and my French is total crap. My colleagues all speak pretty much perfect English to me and nobody makes a fuss about language. in fact my secretary only speaks English to me so she can practice. Maybe they're more zenophobic in rural Quebec, but the reality is that Montreal is as tolerant and multicultural as Toronto.
ganjavih
Senior Member
The only thing I strongly disagree with is the issue of transit. Transit in Toronto is superior in my opinion. Surface routes and subways run much more frequently in Toronto and condition of the vehicles is better. Transferring is much smoother in Toronto. The only thing I would give Montreal is how its Metro covers the city more effectively. But in general, taking the TTC is like luxury transportation compared to the third world feel of the STM.
Dilla
Senior Member
For the answers to your questions in part 2, see part 1.
Also, I lived in Montreal for 2 years, and I found it's transit far inferior to Toronto's. Outside of the Metro, it's atrocious (or was 5-7 years ago).