The meaning and importance of city size

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I want to be more charitable. Ironically, I went from a Holden Caulfield phase in my late teens where I thought everyone was a phony to being a much more calm twenty-something who gave people who were dull all the benefit of the doubt. But in my thirties I find myself retreating back to my judgemental teen days, although for entirely different reasons. Unlike then, I don't have anything to prove and I don't attempt to define my "uniqueness" from other people. But I find that there are really a lot of people that lack any significant depth, and instead of being smug about it, I'm actually a little horrified.

And by the time you get to your 40s you'll likely see that social stratification as not such a bad thing.

Fewer people elbowing for tables at nice restaurants, shorter queues at the art museum...

Maybe even fewer kids competing with my kids for sports in med school and law school...

[kwoldtimer]

And I thought I was the snob of this forum!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

And I thought I was the snob of this forum!

Some of the good stuff can be multiplied in response to increased demand, but some of it can't.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Anyway, I think that one of the reasons that cities like Orleans or Whitby or Maple Ridge exist - non-ethnoburbs that are really big and really boring - might be because there are a significant chunk of Canadians who just accept that these are the places they should live.

.

Interesting you should mention Whitby. I have lots of personal experience with the GTA and the eastern GTA has always struck me as being a particularly utilitarian stretch of suburbia.

Though I know there are some ethnic differences between the east, north and west suburbs of Toronto, I am not sure that that's the main factor in the varying levels of blandness.

If you look at Ottawa there is a noticeable difference on this metric between Kanata and Orleans, even though except for the obviously greater francophone* element in Orleans, Kanata isn't markedly more diverse than Orleans.

*I guess we can debate whether the francophone element makes Orleans more bland or less bland. IMO it hasn't made much of a difference either way. (Which probably comes as a surprise to some people.)

[wave46]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

So here's an unpopular thought: what about if a larger percentage of Canadians are just really "boring"?

I want to be more charitable. Ironically, I went from a Holden Caulfield phase in my late teens where I thought everyone was a phony to being a much more calm twenty-something who gave people who were dull all the benefit of the doubt. But in my thirties I find myself retreating back to my judgemental teen days, although for entirely different reasons. Unlike then, I don't have anything to prove and I don't attempt to define my "uniqueness" from other people. But I find that there are really a lot of people that lack any significant depth, and instead of being smug about it, I'm actually a little horrified.

Nobody has ever accused Canadians of being overly passionate. I think we fall closer to the Nordic countries on that particular metric. I think it may be the latent British-ness in us. If there's any group that knows passion in this country, it is French Canadians - without them, we'd be a blander version of Australia with better scenery and worse weather.

I, for one, don't concern myself with the lack of passion of other people. Actually, to be blunt, I don't care much about what other people do. Live and let live. I'm not going to my grave with regrets and I can't help those who are. They have to help themselves.

Then again, looking at places that I think of as passionate and seeing how broken things are there (Italy, Greece, a lot of South America), maybe being dispassionate isn't the worst thing.

[Nouvellecosse]

I have to wonder how much of this is "Canadianness" and how much of it is the culture of those particular suburbs. As interesting as the observations are, it isn't something I see reflected in my region either in either the urban or suburban populations. In my circle of co-workers and acquaintances, a majority seem to have their "thing" which includes a diverse list of activities including an amateur photographer who spends all his spare time taking mainly outdoor landscape and nature pictures traveling across the province and now even other provinces and territories, a yoga fanatic who became a certified instructor and teaches classes on the side, an obsessed hiker/camper, a competitive runner who is perpetually training or competing for something-or-other, a member of a rock band who performs every weekend and some weekday evenings, a blues fan who's traveled as far as Montreal and New Orleans to see her favourite acts, an amateur baker/chef who's applied to Master Chef Canada several times, another baker who has a small business on the side and brings in food to work on special occasions, and the list goes on and on. And most of these people live in suburban settings.

In fact, in my experience it seems as if the suburban people have more of these "passions" while the urban people spend more of their spare time hanging out with friends at bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues.

[Laceoflight]

If I answer directly to the OP, and as others have already written... It's qualitative. Not quantitative.

Shawinigan (48,8 k)... or Châteauguay (48,9 k) ?


La Prairie (25,0 k)... or Sept-Îles (24,9 k) ?

[Acajack]

It is really hard to tell. Are those streets the best or the worst of those cities? How common is this type of street? Is much of the city like that?

The best street in Gatineau looks better than the worst street in Quebec City.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is really hard to tell. Are those streets the best or the worst of those cities? How common is this type of street? Is much of the city like that?

The best street in Gatineau looks better than the worst street in Quebec City.

That's exactly the point. And since the thread seemed to be about "central neighbourhoods", I simply pointed the general feel of the central parts of those towns. The population metric is not relevant. We're talking mostly about urban qualities (relationship of the buildings with the sidewalk, space dedicated to pedestrians, general aesthetics of the neighbourhood, attention paid to the urban realm... etc.) Central La Prairie could obviously offer a better pedestrian experience than any peripheral neighbourhood in the Montreal area, or than any comparable town centre in the province because of its qualities. Not its size.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Interesting you should mention Whitby. I have lots of personal experience with the GTA and the eastern GTA has always struck me as being a particularly utilitarian stretch of suburbia.

I'm very familiar with Durham region and it is certainly Toronto's most utilitarian suburb. Not coincidentally it's also the most traditionally working class outside of the city proper. Pickering and Ajax in particular are the epitome of a suburb with no "there", there.

Whitby actually has a fairly nice and functional downtown though. I have a former coworker who lives there with his family as a lower price compromise to central Toronto and he is able to do most of their day to day stuff by walking.

https://goo.gl/maps/ixUJ5eDP9vM2

[someone123]

Supposedly one variation in human character is along the "values new experiences" axis. Does the idea of trying out new food or going to a new place seem fun and exciting or does mostly conjure up ideas of risk and provoke anxiety? If you don't seek out new things, then it makes sense that you can end up living in a comfortable but bland suburb and having a simple day-to-day life.

Another related aspect to this is the privilege of having enough social support to take risks. Sure, there are self-made people out there, but by and large if you are poorer and have nobody to help you when things go wrong it is harder to try things out. A lot of kids who fly around the world, start up or join risky business ventures, etc. are often just more privileged than the ones who act more conservatively. They don't necessarily have a more adventurous character; there is another confounding factor.

[rousseau]

Heh heh, fun post. And catnip for a lot of people on this forum!

Originally Posted by hipster duck

So here's an unpopular thought: what about if a larger percentage of Canadians are just really "boring"?

I think this is probably broadly true, but not for the reasons you give about being uninvested in things beyond Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Rather...

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I've lived in the US and I've lived in Canada, and while I'll stereotype that Americans who lived in the suburbs lived in urban environments that were not my cup of tea, most of them had passions or interests - many of them admittedly not my interests - and they were very eager to talk about them, their faces lighting up.

• Video Link

"Eager to talk" practically defines the national character of the U.S. The difference in stereotypical national temperament better explains it, it seems to me. Most of the people I know living either in the older parts of towns or cities, or in suburban areas, have all of the passions and interests that you cite Americans as having. But you wouldn't know that without knowing them well or digging it out of them.

Americans, by contrast, give you their life stories right after "hello."

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by someone123

Supposedly one variation in human character is along the "values new experiences" axis. Does the idea of trying out new food or going to a new place seem fun and exciting or does mostly conjure up ideas of risk and provoke anxiety? If you don't seek out new things, then it makes sense that you can end up living in a comfortable but bland suburb and having a simple day-to-day life.

Another related aspect to this is the privilege of having enough social support to take risks. Sure, there are self-made people out there, but by and large if you are poorer and have nobody to help you when things go wrong it is harder to try things out. A lot of kids who fly around the world, start up or join risky business ventures, etc. are often just more privileged than the ones who act more conservatively. They don't necessarily have a more adventurous character; there is another confounding factor.

I totally agree. The kids in university who considered spending the summer in Europe a right of passage were extremely wealthy. My first true awakening of class consciousness was in September of my second year when a coterie of smug assholes held court about their X-rated adventures traipsing around France and Italy. Meanwhile, I'd spent the previous four months busting my balls on a construction site to pay for my schooling.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Montreal and Toronto still have one each.

Actually if we're talking about major movie theaters, downtown Montreal has 3: the Cineplex Forum, the Cineplex Banque Scotia and the Cineplex Quartier Latin.

[softee]

Originally Posted by begratto

Actually if we're talking about major movie theaters, downtown Montreal has 3: the Cineplex Forum, the Cineplex Banque Scotia and the Cineplex Quartier Latin.

I believe he was talking about porn theatres. haha

Toronto has 5 first run movie theatre complexes downtown: Cineplex Yonge-Dundas, Scotiabank Theatres, The Imagine Carlton Cinemas, Imagine Market Square Cinemas, and The Cineplex Varsity Cinemas. The TIFF Bell Lightbox shows some first run movies, too.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by begratto

Actually if we're talking about major movie theaters, downtown Montreal has 3: the Cineplex Forum, the Cineplex Banque Scotia and the Cineplex Quartier Latin.

Yeah, he was talking about porn cinema. But for first run plex downtown, Mtl has four, Cinema du Parc counts. There's also the cinematheque.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Heh heh, fun post. And catnip for a lot of people on this forum!



I think this is probably broadly true, but not for the reasons you give about being uninvested in things beyond Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Rather...



• Video Link

"Eager to talk" practically defines the national character of the U.S. The difference in stereotypical national temperament better explains it, it seems to me. Most of the people I know living either in the older parts of towns or cities, or in suburban areas, have all of the passions and interests that you cite Americans as having. But you wouldn't know that without knowing them well or digging it out of them.

Americans, by contrast, give you their life stories right after "hello."

Indeed, it can be quite distressing until you realize that none of it means anything beyond sound to fill the space.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another related aspect to this is the privilege of having enough social support to take risks. Sure, there are self-made people out there, but by and large if you are poorer and have nobody to help you when things go wrong it is harder to try things out. A lot of kids who fly around the world, start up or join risky business ventures, etc. are often just more privileged than the ones who act more conservatively. They don't necessarily have a more adventurous character; there is another confounding factor.

I think you're talking about a different sense of adventurism than me. I'm not talking about people who travel around the world. I'm talking about people who show a minimum of interest in things such that they may be willing to eat at a non-chain restaurant or listen to music that isn't Top 40. None of that requires much wealth or risk. Recall in my US example that my coworkers shot guns, went hunting, were psyched to go to heavy metal concerts...none of that is elitist, but all of it suggests some sort of passion.

Don't get me wrong: I don't care about what these people do or don't do in their spare time. Nor do I need to get intellectual and emotional stimulation from my coworkers or people like this that I encounter. My wife and my friends satisfy that need for me, and, I'm not going to lie, this forum fills that role too.

I just find it very sad that a big chunk of our population - and, seemingly, a bigger chunk of the Canadian population than the American population - goes through life without much interest in anything. I feel sad about this the same way I feel sad about child poverty statistics; it doesn't affect me personally, but it is a sad indictment of our society, and I should care about the society I belong to.

[Acajack]

Sometimes it is completely misguided or even has unfortunate consequences but Americans do seem to be a lot more likely to go all out in anything they do. A friend of mine lives in Texas and has teenaged daughters. They are both in the high school marching band with costumes and everything that supports the football team. Judging from the Facebook photos there are 50 kids or more in the band plus there is also a large cheerleading squad. And this is not one of those Texas high schools that draw 20k to football games. Again judging from posts on FB there seem to be a few hundred people at the most at their games.

In Canada if you suggested doing this people would say "why? It's just a high school game. No one cares. It's not worth it."

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Indeed, it can be quite distressing until you realize that none of it means anything beyond sound to fill the space.

It is what it is. As kool maudit once said you buy the same kind of razors as a guy at CVS and five minutes later you know all about his divorce. Or his hernia surgery.