Toronto as #2

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by Taller Better

Well, if it isn't my good friend Habsfanman!
Angry as ever, I see...

by the way, I know you'd like to forget your background, but I reckon you are just about the biggest "angryphone" of all.

So the Doyenne of SSC makes his first appearance in almost 5 years yet does he post on topic or add to the conversation in any way? No, he makes a personal attack.

Bravo! Is there any wonder why people have abandoned Fanboicity.com (Canada section) in droves over the last few years?

Stick to such cutting edge topics as "What's for dinner?", "What's the last thing you bought?" or "The Incredible Hulk II" Taller, Better... despite the fact that there are less than 20 regular respondents. You're out of your (minor) league here.

[The Gibbroni]

Originally Posted by mr.John

Thank you for the warning I'll be on the look out,oh and if I see you on the streets I'll make sure to bow my head or cross the street, I wouldn't want to offend anyone from the master race. Getting back to the topic of Toronto and Montreal ( their rise and decline and reasons why),all one has to do is look at photographs of both city's skyline in 1976 and 2011, I think the photo evidence speaks for itself. How can any rational person explain the mind boggling differences without coming to the conclusion something catastrophic happened to Montreal

Honestly mr.John, there are so many places in this world in which to live, why would you remain in a city in which you are so unhappy?

Montreal is not going to change around to your way of thinking so why not make a break?

Since you value skylines, find one that you can live with where everybody speaks English and I'm sure you'll be happy!

[PhilippeMtl]

Originally Posted by The Gibbroni

So the Doyenne of SSC makes his first appearance in almost 5 years yet does he post on topic or add to the conversation in any way? No, he makes a personal attack.

Bravo! Is there any wonder why people have abandoned Fanboicity.com (Canada section) in droves over the last few years?

Stick to such cutting edge topics as "What's for dinner?", "What's the last thing you bought?" or "The Incredible Hulk II" Taller, Better... despite the fact that there are less than 20 regular respondents. You're out of your (minor) league here.

I must agree with you, it is now more a gay forum than a skyscraper forum. There is more pictures of men than skyscraper. It starts to be very annoying.

[Taller Better]

Originally Posted by The Gibbroni

So the Doyenne of SSC makes his first appearance in almost 5 years yet does he post on topic or add to the conversation in any way? No, he makes a personal attack.

Bravo! Is there any wonder why people have abandoned Fanboicity.com (Canada section) in droves over the last few years?

Stick to such cutting edge topics as "What's for dinner?", "What's the last thing you bought?" or "The Incredible Hulk II" Taller, Better... despite the fact that there are less than 20 regular respondents. You're out of your (minor) league here.

Well, if it is so terrible, Fibberoni, why do you make fake profiles to try and get back on? Great to see that you are the same spittle-flying anger-filled misfit as always, though.. especially after the bars close. Some things just never change!


As for it being "off topic", I'm not interested in nasty, pointless regional fighting. Sorry if that disappoints you, as I know your life revolves around just that...

[sonysnob]

Alright. That's enough. I think maybe some of the above posters need to take the high road a little bit and let the past go.

There was some interesting conversation about how language services are handled and legislated differently between different regions of Canada, but I really don't care what any member thinks of any other member.

[Taller Better]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

Alright. That's enough. I think maybe some of the above posters need to take the high road a little bit and let the past go.

There was some interesting conversation about how language services are handled and legislated differently between different regions of Canada, but I really don't care what any member thinks of any other member.

Not here to create waves, sony.... just cleared up a bit of unfinished business!

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by niwell

That's just terrific. I wish we had a boom like our current boom back in the 1920s as we'd have 150 buildings like this. I love many architectural styles, but the architecture of this era just can't be touched. A few modern skyscrapers come close though.

[Rumors]

That's a classy building.

[ssiguy]

..............................meanwhile back at the "Toronto as #2" thread.
Let's not make this interesting topic into a language debate. Suffice to say that the FLQ and Bill #101 hurt Montreal and helped Toronto.
There was another thing at play however.......Toronto had something to prove. Always considered the unattractive, boring little sister down the 401, Toronto decided to dream big.
Toronto and Torontonians had a very different outlook back then as compared to today. Toronto was determined to become a great and liveable city. When nearly all NA cities were in decline due to auto induced sprawl and the race riots of the US cities in the 1960s which led to the great "white flight" Toronto was moving in the opposite direction.
She kept her streetcars, built a subway system, reinvigorated her old urban communities, and embrased a multicultural society. Toronto was thinking big and wanted big thinkers.
Remember the old adage "clean, green, and safe"? That was truly novel in a time of urban decay. What about "New York run by the Swiss"? Neither of these attributes denote a very exciting city but certainly a very agrreable and liveable one.
Toronto back then was in many ways similar to the Calgary of today where everything is possible witha "can do" attitude. Toronto wanted to take the world by storm and despite it's rather dimunutive size it refused to be anything but centre stage. It wanted to prove that it was more than just a small New York or an also-ran to her big sister down the street who was the one who always seemed to have the fun.
Toronto looked to the future with eyes wide open and a mentality that embraced change, innovation, and creative thought. It wanted to enter the 21st century with a dynamic urban form.
Unfortunately today Toronto's mentality is far less optimistic. Give Toronto a reasons why something must be done today and it will give you thousand reasons why it can't be done.
When Toronto was #2 it had something to prove and the mentality to make sure it acheived it's goals. Now that it is #1 it seems it's lost it drive and vigour that got it there in the first place.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

..............................meanwhile back at the "Toronto as #2" thread.
Let's not make this interesting topic into a language debate. Suffice to say that the FLQ and Bill #101 hurt Montreal and helped Toronto.
There was another thing at play however.......Toronto had something to prove. Always considered the unattractive, boring little sister down the 401, Toronto decided to dream big.

Wasn't it more that it had the dominant stock exchange (with the bulk of the natural resource corporate finance work) and the auto industry?

Toronto and Torontonians had a very different outlook back then as compared to today. Toronto was determined to become a great and liveable city. When nearly all NA cities were in decline due to auto induced sprawl and the race riots of the US cities in the 1960s which led to the great "white flight" Toronto was moving in the opposite direction.

Toronto was unlikely to have race riots in the 1960s as there would have been no one to riot. So I think you're right. That's the huge and obvious difference between Toronto and most U.S. cities. It pretty much explains everything.

She kept her streetcars, built a subway system, reinvigorated her old urban communities, and embrased a multicultural society. Toronto was thinking big and wanted big thinkers.

Maybe, but "thinking big" at the time meant freeways and slum clearance, not the other way around. It's probably truer to say that conservative Toronto was "thinking small" -- that was the imagery of the 1970s -- David Crombie "the tiny perfect mayor", diminuitive Jane Jacobs, the 45 foot height limit, the anti-freeway campaign and all that. I don't think that Torontonians of 1971 had the first clue what a "multicultural society" was going to turn out to be, but they were not inclined to make a fuss when the policy was first developed. It sounded nice and honourable in the traditional Canadian way.

Remember the old adage "clean, green, and safe"? That was truly novel in a time of urban decay. What about "New York run by the Swiss"? Neither of these attributes denote a very exciting city but certainly a very agrreable and liveable one.

True ... the days of the self-congratulatory ads in the subway cars about how for the umpteenth year in a row the TTC has been voted North America's cleanest transit system are now sadly long gone.

Toronto back then was in many ways similar to the Calgary of today where everything is possible witha "can do" attitude.

Sort of, but in the postwar boom there weren't many places that weren't pretty optimistic about the future.

Toronto wanted to take the world by storm and despite it's rather dimunutive size it refused to be anything but centre stage.

This is possibly a bit overstated, I think. People just didn't think in global terms as much then. Toronto was a Canadian city and it was judging itself in terms of the nationalism of the 60s and with respect to its place in Canada. Montreal was Canada's international city -- that's why it had Expo, the Expos and the Olympics. If something new was coming to Canada, it was coming to Montreal ... not Toronto.

It wanted to prove that it was more than just a small New York or an also-ran to her big sister down the street who was the one who always seemed to have the fun.
Toronto looked to the future with eyes wide open and a mentality that embraced change, innovation, and creative thought. It wanted to enter the 21st century with a dynamic urban form.

Somewhat true. This seems a bit more dynamic than the image that I conjure up of 70s Toronto, but there were certainly people of some influence who were thinking on these lines. I don't necessarily think that New York was really on anyone's mind all that much, though. The context was more Canadian than that, but not entirely so.

Unfortunately today Toronto's mentality is far less optimistic. Give Toronto a reasons why something must be done today and it will give you thousand reasons why it can't be done.
When Toronto was #2 it had something to prove and the mentality to make sure it acheived it's goals. Now that it is #1 it seems it's lost it drive and vigour that got it there in the first place.

Things have become very expensive and time-consuming to do. Perhaps Toronto is also too big, and too undefined culturally, for most people to really think of it in its entirety as "theirs" or to define their hopes and expectations in terms of its progress as a whole.

Anyway, this is an interesting post, so thanks.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Toronto was unlikely to have race riots in the 1960s as there would have been no one to riot.

No and no.

Toronto was not quite a perfect bastion of upstanding white anglo-saxon protestants until the 70s, as is commonly portrayed in the Canadian media. And ethnic/religious-based conflict was not a foreign concept either. Riots between Catholics and Protestants were common enough in the mid to late-1800s, and then of course there was the Christie Pits riot in 1933 between Nazi-sympathizing right-wing nationalists and Jews and other immigrants.

Thankfully, nothing at all like say, the 1967 Detroit riots, but then thats because Canada never had the whole slavery thing, not because it was homogenous.

Maybe, but "thinking big" at the time meant freeways and slum clearance, not the other way around.

The amount of subway that was built in post-war Toronto (and not scrapping the streetcar system) vs. the amount of freeways & road widening constructed certainly was "progressive" at the time. And the construction of the CN Tower, FCP, City Hall, even crap like Jamestown wasn't anything other than "big thinking".

Not sure where ssiguy is getting the "reinvigorated her old urban communities" from though, that didn't start happening until the 80s with the redevelopment of the St. Lawrence area. Before that the city (the actual city at the time, not Metro) was experiencing population and manufacturing decline like every other Western city.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

No and no.

Toronto was not quite a perfect bastion of upstanding white anglo-saxon protestants until the 70s, as is commonly portrayed in the Canadian media. And ethnic/religious-based conflict was not a foreign concept either. Riots between Catholics and Protestants were common enough in the mid to late-1800s, and then of course there was the Christie Pits riot in 1933 between Nazi-sympathizing right-wing nationalists and Jews and other immigrants.

That is true, but that was hardly going to happen again in the 1960s. And the riots in the U.S. were totally different. They weren't just a bunch of drunks getting into fistfights. They involved the wholesale burning and looting of the very communities that the rioters lived in.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The amount of subway that was built in post-war Toronto (and not scrapping the streetcar system) vs. the amount of freeways & road widening constructed certainly was "progressive" at the time. And the construction of the CN Tower, FCP, City Hall, even crap like Jamestown wasn't anything other than "big thinking".

True. There was some of that but I don't think so much as would make Toronto particularly notable for "thinking big". It was a prosperous city with planners who wanted to do exactly the same things as were being done elsewhere. On the whole that "thinking big" philosophy didn't get as far in Toronto as it did in a lot of other cities. That was the whole point of Crombie. To my mind, smallness was the remarkable aspect of Toronto at that time and even now -- the focus on neighbourhood identities over any pan-Toronto ethos, for example. It was a city of small-town people of rather limited aspirations. Even the immigrants often came over as relatively intact communities, intent on continuing their lives as such, and were not especially enterprising on the whole. But in the midst of all that, Toronto attracted, by default mostly, some of the most visionary people in the country, under whom the culture of the city flourished in spite of itself before losing steam (in my opinion) just around the time I got here. Perhaps now it's picking up again. I can't quite make up my mind about that. What great city could have a leading newspaper as vapid as the Globe and Mail or such a mediocre symphony orchestra (not to mention the pro sports teams)?

[koops65]

Pro sports teams can help bring pride to a city, but thats only temporary, because no team can keep winning forever. Look at the Habs, more Stanley Cups than any other NHL team, but of course, they have NOT won the cup far more often than they HAVE won it...

[ue]

Kool, I must say, your Canada subforum threads always bring about very interesting discussions. We definitely need more of them, as the discussions are generally informative and well thought out.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Why weren't English-only businesses crushed by French-speaking businesses then? Isn't a more plausible answer that it was only when French-Canadian life began to break free of the influence of the Church, and a career in business became respectable and an alternative to teaching, politics or the priesthood for a bright young French-Canadian man, that French-Canadians began to increase in numbers in the business world? And that this would have happened no matter what the language laws were -- and in fact was happening in the decade before Bill 22 and Bill 101?

.

This is partly true, but I'd say the fact that you are talking about it as being inevitable totally ignores the economic aspects of colonization (especially when there is a pre-established group already living in the place to be colonized), and the long-term effects of that.

If being given a "head start" wasn't a factor, then I suppose African-Americans or aboriginal Americans should have built something like the fourth-biggest automaker for themselves by now, right?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Most of the places that you cite as likely to have become English speaking were English-speaking originally. The French speakers were the latecomers to the Ottawa valley and most of the Eastern Townships, and also to numerous other rural areas of Quebec outside the traditional areas of seigneurial tenure.

I know that, that's why I said they *would be* English, not that they would *become* English.

At one time, places on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River like Hull, Aylmer, Gatineau, Buckingham were all much more English-speaking, and the city of Ottawa was actually proportionately much more French than the towns on the Quebec side were.

A lot of the early tumult in the Ottawa region consisted of French Canadians from Ottawa meeting Anglos from Hull on the river bridges to fight each other.

Many of today's mainly francophone towns in eastern Ontario were originally founded by English-speaking settlers, which explains why so many of them have English names today like Rockland, Clarence, Hammond and Hawkesbury. Interestingly enough, for some reason the anglo settlers didn't stick around for very long, and were replaced with francophones fairly quickly after they were founded.

That said, not all of the towns with English names in French-speaking Canada were originally settled by anglos. In many places the town has pretty much always been francophone and the English name was given by some British colonial authority or corporate bigwig. Places like Drummondville, QC, Edmundston, NB and Hearst, ON come to mind.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In many places the town has pretty much always been francophone and the English name was given by some British colonial authority or corporate bigwig. Places like Drummondville, QC, Edmundston, NB and Hearst, ON come to mind.

Hearst? Never heard of it. You must mean 'erst.

Those examples actually kinda remind me of the founding of Agincourt, Ontario. Some anglo went to Ottawa to get approval for a post office, and a Francophone bureaucrat would only allow him to open it if it was given a "French name". He complied with the demand, but cleverly picked the site of the famous French defeat in the hundred years' war.

[eternallyme]

Is there any chance in the long term Montreal could drop to #3 behind Vancouver or Calgary in importance?

[ue]

Excluding anything catastrophic happening, I think the ranks for the biggest 6 cities are pretty much set in stone for the many decades in the future (except Edmonton will probably overtake Ottawa eventually).