![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Je suis originaire de la banlieue
Jun. 11th, 2010 05:30 pm
Currently at Toronto Pearson: 23.
When I was in Montreal, there were two things that I told different people about Toronto: that Toronto is technically bigger than the city of Toronto really is, because the city was forcibly amalgamated with its immediately surrounding suburbs fifteen-odd years ago, and that Toronto seems to have become an angry place over the last decade or so. I didn't put these two things together until a couple of days after I got back; I don't know how I managed never to have put them together before. This city as a political entity is now structurally set up with two basically opposed factions. The first mayor of the amalgamated city, Mel Lastman, represented the suburban faction; the current mayor, David Miller, represents the urban faction. The urban faction regarded Lastman with contempt; the suburban faction--which is inherently angrier--regards Miller with loathing. Both have been under constant bombardment from the media, and the newspapers have been battlegrounds over them. I don't recall the previous mayors of Toronto inspiring anything like those reactions: Barbara Hall and Art Eggleton were basically just blanks; John Sewell and David Crombie were, I think, roundly admired--Crombie (a left-wing Tory) definitely, Sewell (a more ordinary lefty) I'm not so sure about. (The likely next mayor, George Smitherman, seems a little hard to peg; he comes across as a right-wing Liberal, but he lives in the city, he's gay, and he has left a legacy (or at least an aura) of Big Projects behind him in provincial politics.)
I'm not at all convinced that that's the whole story, or even the bulk of it, as to how Toronto has become angry, but it must be some significant part of it. I feel like another big part of it must be the increased crowding downtown--lots more people live downtown these days, but there hasn't been any increase in capacity to move them around--which is a more immediate cause of at least all the angry honking you hear. (There's also the fact that everyone everywhere feels more and more pressed for time, so I don't know to what extent Toronto in particular is getting angrier.) On the other hand, I don't know whether cramming people together necessarily creates conflict, or whether conflict is necessarily angry. If people like and accept each other, if they're predisposed to see others as friends rather than enemies or obstacles, then they can be happier with more people around--after all, some people are city people. I was struck in Montreal by how when I would hear drivers honk and argue with each other, there seemed to be something playful about it that there isn't in Toronto. (I could well be deluded! Not to mention that everything seems funnier in French. But in general, after a few days in Montreal, I started to get the sense that Montrealers carry themselves with a nudge and a wink. Torontonians, not at all!) It may be that this still-relatively-new political context in Toronto--one of irreconcilable differences, irreconcilable visions, no possibility of generally shared projects--makes it more difficult for there to be an undercurrent of camaraderie beneath the mundane surface conflicts. When the papers reflect back to you every day that you are at war with each other, maybe you can't help but feel that you really are.
(Une autre chose: I'd thought I might mention that that must've been the stupidest-looking Stanley-Cup-winning overtime goal in history, but, looking back a few posts, what I really need to mention, in light of what I said after the Olumpics about it not being clear to what extent these guys care, is that Patrick Kane, in the post-game interview, spontaneously compared that game to the gold-medal game. So he really did care!)
When I was in Montreal, there were two things that I told different people about Toronto: that Toronto is technically bigger than the city of Toronto really is, because the city was forcibly amalgamated with its immediately surrounding suburbs fifteen-odd years ago, and that Toronto seems to have become an angry place over the last decade or so. I didn't put these two things together until a couple of days after I got back; I don't know how I managed never to have put them together before. This city as a political entity is now structurally set up with two basically opposed factions. The first mayor of the amalgamated city, Mel Lastman, represented the suburban faction; the current mayor, David Miller, represents the urban faction. The urban faction regarded Lastman with contempt; the suburban faction--which is inherently angrier--regards Miller with loathing. Both have been under constant bombardment from the media, and the newspapers have been battlegrounds over them. I don't recall the previous mayors of Toronto inspiring anything like those reactions: Barbara Hall and Art Eggleton were basically just blanks; John Sewell and David Crombie were, I think, roundly admired--Crombie (a left-wing Tory) definitely, Sewell (a more ordinary lefty) I'm not so sure about. (The likely next mayor, George Smitherman, seems a little hard to peg; he comes across as a right-wing Liberal, but he lives in the city, he's gay, and he has left a legacy (or at least an aura) of Big Projects behind him in provincial politics.)
I'm not at all convinced that that's the whole story, or even the bulk of it, as to how Toronto has become angry, but it must be some significant part of it. I feel like another big part of it must be the increased crowding downtown--lots more people live downtown these days, but there hasn't been any increase in capacity to move them around--which is a more immediate cause of at least all the angry honking you hear. (There's also the fact that everyone everywhere feels more and more pressed for time, so I don't know to what extent Toronto in particular is getting angrier.) On the other hand, I don't know whether cramming people together necessarily creates conflict, or whether conflict is necessarily angry. If people like and accept each other, if they're predisposed to see others as friends rather than enemies or obstacles, then they can be happier with more people around--after all, some people are city people. I was struck in Montreal by how when I would hear drivers honk and argue with each other, there seemed to be something playful about it that there isn't in Toronto. (I could well be deluded! Not to mention that everything seems funnier in French. But in general, after a few days in Montreal, I started to get the sense that Montrealers carry themselves with a nudge and a wink. Torontonians, not at all!) It may be that this still-relatively-new political context in Toronto--one of irreconcilable differences, irreconcilable visions, no possibility of generally shared projects--makes it more difficult for there to be an undercurrent of camaraderie beneath the mundane surface conflicts. When the papers reflect back to you every day that you are at war with each other, maybe you can't help but feel that you really are.
(Une autre chose: I'd thought I might mention that that must've been the stupidest-looking Stanley-Cup-winning overtime goal in history, but, looking back a few posts, what I really need to mention, in light of what I said after the Olumpics about it not being clear to what extent these guys care, is that Patrick Kane, in the post-game interview, spontaneously compared that game to the gold-medal game. So he really did care!)
