One year anniversary in Toronto
After having lived 25 years of my life in Vancouver, last year, I for the first time in my life moved to another part of the country. As today marks the one year anniversary, I think it is time to reflect on my first year in Toronto and the city relative to Vancouver.
Toronto is over 2,500 miles away from Vancouver meaning it is a good 4 day drive assuming you drive on the interstate highways or Trans-Canada highway and 12 hours each day or a 5 hour flight, so one would expect the differences to be quite vast, but in reality they aren't. Sure it is more cosmopolitan, not as beautiful as Vancouver, has a more extreme climate, has more business headquarters, and is closer to far more other large cities, but in terms of the people, I don't feel like I am in a different country at all. I found the differences between Munich and Berlin; Strasbourg and Nice on my most recent trip in Europe more noticeable than Vancouver and Toronto, despite the fact the cities mentioned above are also in the same country and much closer. Even when I go to Buffalo from Toronto, I find the differences more noticeable than Vancouver despite the fact Buffalo is only 90 minutes away and by the same token the same thing could be said about Vancouver and Seattle, vs. Vancouver and Toronto. This has if anything made me less regionalistic and a bit more nationalistic. This is why more than ever I believe it is important to focus on what unites us as Canadians rather than what divides us. This is why I get so upset at those who try to bash other parts of the country as well as I will argue vigorously with those who believe that further decentralization of our country is the answer. The idea of a country is not one based on ethnicity or language, but rather values and culture and clearly there are enough similarities between the two cities to warrant having a common government in several areas, not just a few select as some decentralists argue. In closing on this topic, I think we would be a far more united country if Canadians were more mobile and every Canadian lived in more than one province during their lifetime as it would allow us to realize how our differences are small and are similiarities are numerous.
Today, the Tories delivered their fall economic update. I fully support the corporate tax cuts, which ironically Dion proposed quite recently, as this will allow us to be more competitive globally. It will also allow firms to invest more in expansion which will make them not only better able to compete globally, but less susceptible to foreign takeovers. I do agree with the income tax cuts, but feel they were too small and condemn the Tories for raising them in the first place as we are simply back to where we were in January 2006. I am glad to see the minimum tax threshold raised, but I would like to see it even higher. Much like BC has done provincially, the government should set the goal of within 5 years ensuring no one living below the poverty line pays income tax. I do however, think the GST cut was an incredibly dumb idea and wish they had not done so. While I am not against a GST cut per se, it ranks as a very low priority as it is the least effective tax cut for stimulating economic growth. Almost every economist believes this is the last tax that should be cut.
Toronto is over 2,500 miles away from Vancouver meaning it is a good 4 day drive assuming you drive on the interstate highways or Trans-Canada highway and 12 hours each day or a 5 hour flight, so one would expect the differences to be quite vast, but in reality they aren't. Sure it is more cosmopolitan, not as beautiful as Vancouver, has a more extreme climate, has more business headquarters, and is closer to far more other large cities, but in terms of the people, I don't feel like I am in a different country at all. I found the differences between Munich and Berlin; Strasbourg and Nice on my most recent trip in Europe more noticeable than Vancouver and Toronto, despite the fact the cities mentioned above are also in the same country and much closer. Even when I go to Buffalo from Toronto, I find the differences more noticeable than Vancouver despite the fact Buffalo is only 90 minutes away and by the same token the same thing could be said about Vancouver and Seattle, vs. Vancouver and Toronto. This has if anything made me less regionalistic and a bit more nationalistic. This is why more than ever I believe it is important to focus on what unites us as Canadians rather than what divides us. This is why I get so upset at those who try to bash other parts of the country as well as I will argue vigorously with those who believe that further decentralization of our country is the answer. The idea of a country is not one based on ethnicity or language, but rather values and culture and clearly there are enough similarities between the two cities to warrant having a common government in several areas, not just a few select as some decentralists argue. In closing on this topic, I think we would be a far more united country if Canadians were more mobile and every Canadian lived in more than one province during their lifetime as it would allow us to realize how our differences are small and are similiarities are numerous.
Today, the Tories delivered their fall economic update. I fully support the corporate tax cuts, which ironically Dion proposed quite recently, as this will allow us to be more competitive globally. It will also allow firms to invest more in expansion which will make them not only better able to compete globally, but less susceptible to foreign takeovers. I do agree with the income tax cuts, but feel they were too small and condemn the Tories for raising them in the first place as we are simply back to where we were in January 2006. I am glad to see the minimum tax threshold raised, but I would like to see it even higher. Much like BC has done provincially, the government should set the goal of within 5 years ensuring no one living below the poverty line pays income tax. I do however, think the GST cut was an incredibly dumb idea and wish they had not done so. While I am not against a GST cut per se, it ranks as a very low priority as it is the least effective tax cut for stimulating economic growth. Almost every economist believes this is the last tax that should be cut.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:57 PM
11 Comments:
I agree - Toronto and Vancouver aren't all that different when you take into account location and size. Both cities are very socially liberal and unlike a lot of US city cores are very livable and don't become ghost towns at night. Commercial Drive in Vancouver seems to be its equivalent of Kensington, Little Italy, Queen West and the Danforth rolled into one; while Kitsilano seems to be the Annex (although the housing stock isn't as nice) mixed in with the Beaches. Yaletown reminds me of King-Spadina.
I'd say Vancouver has way more in common with Seattle than Toronto does with Buffalo though. Seattle is itself significantly gentrified and has a lot of professional types living in the city core. It is also the most educated big city in the US.
Buffalo is a very sad-looking ghost town. The most similar US city to Toronto is probably Chicago although it has a rougher edge (i.e. the South Side).
I would agree that Vancouver has more in common with Seattle than Toronto does with Buffalo. If anything the closest American city to Toronto in my view would be New York, although Chicago would be the next one. Also Boston is similiar in terms of being very diverse, lively, and liberal too. Buffalo is probably most like Hamilton.
In the case of Chicago, I have actually been on the Soutside and there is no where in Toronto that comes remotely close to being that bad. In fact the Downtown Eastside is really the only place in Canada I know of that somewhat resembles the poorer parts of a typical American city.
Nothing in Canada compares to the Bronx or the South Side of Chicago. Toronto differs from NYC and Chicago in that the (pre-amalgamation) city proper is very small in terms of land area and population (around 650,000). NYC has 8 million in the 5 boroughs and Chicago has 3 million. In both cities most of the really poor ghettos are very far from the central area (i.e. Manhattan and Chicago's North Side lakefront) which are actually very gentrified. Toronto actually lacks the concentrated poverty - the poorest inner-city area is around in Pam McConnell's ward, plus South Parkdale but these areas aren't geographically large. Toronto also has growing suburban poverty in places like Weston and Rexdale as do many suburbs of gentrified city cores like Seattle and San Francisco where average incomes are below the central city.
Nothing in Canada compares to the Bronx or the South Side of Chicago
I fully agree with this. I am just saying that the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver is about the closest we do have to the worse parts of an American city. Here in Toronto, there is no where nearly as bad as the Downtown Eastside, mind you even the Downtown Eastside is a lot safer than parts of Chicago's southside. I should note not every where on the southside of Chicago and Bronx are dangerous as those are big areas, but I would advise anyone who doesn't know the city well to stay away from those areas since one wrong turn from a seemingly safe area can land one in trouble. In San Francisco, the Tenderloin district is only two blocks from the major fashion district and once by accident my Mom walked into the area and it was a terrifying experience for her. In fact at the hotel I stayed at with my Dad several years later, the bell boy warned us where it was and to stay away from it.
Toronto differs from NYC and Chicago in that the (pre-amalgamation) city proper is very small in terms of land area and population (around 650,000). NYC has 8 million in the 5 boroughs and Chicago has 3 million
Although it is true that Toronto was a lot smaller pre-amalgmation, if you look at population density, the newly amalgamated areas have densities more typical of a city proper than suburbs. This was off course not the case in Hamilton and Ottawa, where the amalgamated areas are more suburban and in some cases rural. That might explain why even after amalgmation, Toronto goes solidly Liberal, whereas the areas added to Hamilton and Ottawa go mostly Conservative, only the original part of the city pre-amalgamation shunned the Tories. In fact even Mississauga and Brampton have rather high densities in relation to a typical suburb. A typical suburb in the US is more akin to Burlington, Whitby, Oakville, or Newmarket in terms of demographics and density.
Toronto does have some rough areas that I wouldn't want to go at 2 in the morning, but no area that it is unsafe to walk during the daytime unlike the Downtown Eastside, and no where, where it is even dangerous to drive through, which is the case in some parts of most American cities.
Using the Ottawa and Hamilton examples though, particularly Ottawa, you have a much different city. Ottawa has more in common with some mid-sized US cities like Austin, Columbus, Indianapolis or Nashville (all of which are state capitals).
You're right Toronto probably has the most densely-populated suburbs in North America. Some urban planner once called the GTA "Vienna surrounded by L.A." I've never been to Vienna so I can't judge (I've heard the old city of Toronto compared to Frankfurt however) but the L.A. comparison resonates with me!
While I still think amalgamation was wrong (and totally undemocratic) I can at least live with an amalgamated Toronto (esp. if the 4 community councils are empowered more). Ottawa on the other hand was ridiculous - places that are like King and Caledon are part of the "city" of Ottawa - it makes no sense!
Anonymous - It is true Hamilton and Ottawa are more mid sized cities, however the core parts still go Liberal/NDP. The difference is you only have to drive about 10 minutes from the Downtown before it starts going Conservative, whereas with Toronto, it is good 45 minutes to an hour.
Ottawa is somewhat like Austin which tends to be quite liberal in the city proper, but conservative in the suburbs, however I would say Columbus, Nashville and especially Indianapolis are more conservative. In the case of Indianapolis, Bush got in the upper 40s and while over 70% in the suburbs, whereas in Ottawa Harper only got 30% in the old city, while averaged 48% in the newly amalgamated areas (though he got over 50% in the rural sections, while in the 40s in the suburban sections). Add to the fact that 25% of Indianapolis is Black and around 90% of Blacks voted for Kerry means that Bush likely won the White vote, whereas in the pre-amalgamated part of Ottawa, I don't think Harper won amongst any ethnicities or races.
Actually another city I would add which had a similiar voting pattern to Ottawa is Syracuse, New York or Albany, New York and also I guess Toledo, Ohio, or Lansing, Michigan could be included and these are all cities relatively close to Canada as opposed to the ones mentioned which are well south of the border and areas that are generally far more conservative than anywhere asides from maybe Alberta.
You're right Toronto probably has the most densely-populated suburbs in North America. Some urban planner once called the GTA "Vienna surrounded by L.A." I've never been to Vienna so I can't judge (I've heard the old city of Toronto compared to Frankfurt however) but the L.A. comparison resonates with me!
I have been to Vienna and it is similiar in the sense it is a clean and safe city as well as one that is very strong in the arts and culture. Toronto is probably the most cultured city in Canada while Vienna is one of the most cultured cities in the world. It is less diverse than Toronto, however people are far more likely to speak a second language than in Toronto. Of the cities I visited on my most recent European trip (Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, Florence, Nice, Strasbourg, and Brussels) only in Amsterdam did I find more people spoke English than Vienna, all the others there were more instances I had to pull out my pocket translation book. As for Los Angeles, Toronto is similiar in terms of it seems to go on forever, Although I don't think we have any suburbs that are solidly conservative as Orange County is. Our suburbs are probably more like Los Angeles County suburbs (which are a mix of Democrat strongholds i.e. Hawthorne, swing suburbs i.e. Manhattan Beach and solidly Republican i.e. Santa Clarita). Orange County is probably more comparable to the Fraser Valley in terms of its politics although more densely populated and somewhat more diverse (although the Fraser Valley does have a large East Indian population, but relatively few other visible minorities. It was however, I heard a popular place for Dutch immigrants in the 50s).
While I still think amalgamation was wrong (and totally undemocratic) I can at least live with an amalgamated Toronto (esp. if the 4 community councils are empowered more). Ottawa on the other hand was ridiculous - places that are like King and Caledon are part of the "city" of Ottawa - it makes no sense!
I totally agree. Much of the amalgmated parts of Ottawa are mostly farmland and still pretty rural, which probably explains why some communities such as Rideau or Osgoode are amongst some of the most conservative communities in Ontario. Even Kanata which is largely suburban is probably more akin to Burlington or Whitby than say North York. In fact the amalgamation of Ottawa in Toronto would be like amalgamating Durham, York, Peel, and Halton regional municipalities all into one city, which would be incredibly stupid.
In European politics, are there large urban-rural splits like in North America (with divided/swinging suburbs)? Could that be a worldwide trend?
Anonymous - the Urban/Rural split does exist although its extent varies from country to country. In Britain it is quite strong while in Spain and Italy the divide is more based on the geographical location of country as opposed to rural/urban. It is strong in the Netherlands, while Germany is a mixed bag as the CDU/CSU tend to be stronger in rural areas, although Northern Germany is predominately SPD while Bavaria is strongly CDU/CSU even in the cities (Munich being the one exception). In France, this is true with the National Front, but less so with the party Sarkosky comes from. Ironically it is the suburbs, not the city proper where the socialist tend to be strongest in France. But that is mainly because unlike North America the suburbs tend to be poorer than the city proper. Also the ethnic minorities are more in the suburbs as opposed to the city proper, which is the total opposite of the United States. I am not too familiar with Scandinavia or any of the Eastern European countries to really comment. Although one interesting country is Austria where the right tends to be socially conservative, but on economic issues is generally left of centre, while it is the Liberals who are pro free market, but socially liberal.
What's called "conservatism" in Germany and Austria - as reflected in Christian Democrat parties - is quite a different creature than Anglo-American conservatism (although once upon a time Canadian conservatism was quite a different creature from McCarthyism or Goldwaterism).
Frankfurt is the most diverse city in Germany (35% foreigners), has a very modern skyline and is a major financial center with an unfortunate reputation of being kind of bland even though they actually have a lively cultural/bohemian edge too. Toronto gets that wrap too, quite unfairly (compared to Montreal's more lively reputation). The population of both city cores (i.e. Old City of Toronto) is about 650,000 and have metro areas of about 5 million. Toronto is sometimes called "Manhattan North" and Frankfurt is nicknamed "Mainhattan." They are incidentally sister cities (Chicago is part of this as well).
The LA/GTA comparison is not only to the neverending sprawl but also due to the density and diversity of the suburbs. The outer-416 can be compared with the urban suburbia of the San Fernando Valley - largely post-war development that has moved away from classic suburbia.
Despite its association with John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, Orange County is a huge diverse area of about 2.5 million people. The wealthy conservative lilywhite coastal towns may be kind of like the North Shore of Vancouver but a place like Anaheim is an extremely diverse suburb somewhat akin to Mississauga.
In terms of the German and Austrian Christian Democrats, I agree they are more like the Old PCs, mind you even the British Conservatives pre-Thatcher had very little in common with today's Conservatives in Canada or the Republicans.
I cannot really say a lot about Frankfurt since I have never been there asides from passing through the airport. Although all the Germans I have talked to have said it is not a city worth visiting.
In terms of the Toronto/LA comparison, it is true Orange County is quite diverse like Missisauga, but despite that Santa Ana (which is very diverse), Laguna Beach and Laguna Hills (which lack diversity) were the only communities to go for Kerry in 2004 and even in each of those Bush still got over 40%. In fact Bush not only won the White vote in Orange County, but also won the Hispanic and Asian vote as well, while the Black community is relatively small unlike Los Angeles County. The North Shore has historically gone Conservative and they still are competitive there, however last election it did vote Liberal in both ridings.
In the case of Los Angeles, a fair bit has been commented on the different voting patterns between Los Angeles County and Orange County despite the fact the population density is not much lower in Orange County and it is rather diverse for a Republican suburb, there still is a strong political divide.
At least in the case of Staten Island voting different than the rest of New York city or in Chicago, Cook County going Democrat while DuPage County voting Republican have some logic to them as the Republican areas are less diverse and less densely populated.
Post a Comment
<< Home