Canada’s largest city has convinced itself
that it is facing a crisis of gigantic proportions. Local papers (and indeed national
papers, too, as they are headquartered in Toronto) have assaulted their readers with
articles concerning the city’s ‘image’; its ‘identity’. This
might seem vain, but it is not. It is merely a skin-deep answer to a pivotal problem.
Many of these articles make the assertion that Toronto’s future rests on the
success of waterfront development. Others insist that it is a new opera house that is
necessary. Still others take the melancholy approach, and point out all the city’s
major projects that have amounted to failure. They point out all the architects that have
left in frustration, all the funding problems, all the transit woes, and so on.
Toronto’s identity crisis is not easy to define, however. I can say for certain
that it is not about an opera house, or a square named after Trudeau1. It is
not about a new park on the Toronto Islands, or a snazzily redeveloped waterfront. This
issue, in actuality, is far more complex.
Some suggest that the city should turn to its history for answers. A logical idea,
since the world’s greatest cities – London, Rome, Paris – and even the most
celebrated North American cities – Chicago, New York, Montreal, Boston – define
themselves through their long and storied pasts. However, Toronto’s development into
Canada’s largest and most prosperous city occurred due to economic happenstance and
no natural, local economic evolution. The FLQ crisis and the election of a PQ government2
drove the country’s banks and largest companies out of Montreal. Those companies
chose Toronto for their new headquarters, for obvious (though rather unexciting) reasons:
Toronto was a short trek down the St Lawrence, had close proximity to the US and had no
French-speaking majority.
Toronto was then an economically declining city and thus made an excellent real estate
investment. It was the country’s second largest city, a blue-collar lakeport and thus
an ideal place to recruit a workforce. So the companies set up shop in downtown Toronto,
almost instantly making it the country’s most powerful city. It was the political
occurrences in Montreal that made Toronto the huge city that it is today, not some tenuous
history or graceful evolutions the city can look back on to explain its success. There is
no history here to be overly proud of. And hence, Toronto cannot turn to its history to
discover its identity. The Toronto of the early 1900s bares no (social, at the very least)
resemblance to the Toronto of today.
So while the city has undeniable links to such Midwestern American cities as Cleveland
and Pittsburgh, it no longer makes sense to compare them with Toronto.
This concept of distancing itself from its the past is evident in Toronto’s
attitude toward its older buildings and districts. ‘Out with the old, in with the
new’ has been city council’s mantra for decades. The city has all but abandoned
its past completely. To resurface it now would be nothing more than superficial. Herein
lines the problem: if Toronto cannot turn to its history like most other cities, then
where does it turn? Montreal is a French city, Halifax is a port city, Vancouver is a
green city, and Toronto is. . . what? A multicultural city? A big city? An important city?
Well yes, it is all of those things, but it lacks that simple punch, that defining
characteristic, that basic sense of place. And this is what Torontonians are searching
for.
This begs the question: why can't Torontonians accept the city for what it will become
rather than what they would like it to be? It is because what the city will naturally
'become' seems, at the moment, rather bleak. Toronto is being cut off by both Queen’s
Park (the provincial government) and Ottawa, and left to fend for itself financially. The
people of the city have decided that this exile from influence and money is a fate worse
than death, that it will lead ultimately to the collapse of Toronto and even (as some
melodramatic columnists have suggested) the country. But the problem, as I see it, is more
psychological than anything else. Yes, the budgets are tight. Yes, Toronto’s
financial situation looks dismal when compared to large American cities, which are
generously subsidised by their federal government. But that won’t lead to the death
of the city. Not unless Torontonians allow it to die, which is what they’re doing.
They are waving the white flag, begging for help. Meanwhile, an inferiority complex has
developed.
As a result, Torontonians have started to doubt their city in every way. The tiniest
stories are blown out of proportion. For instance, world-renowned architect Santiago
Calatrava left the city a while back, ending his involvement in the design of a new
Ryerson University building. Hardly a rare occurrence (in fact, it is probably common in
every city around the world), but it was fussed over by the media. Articles covering the
event declared that ‘if the city doesn’t start appreciating high art and
world-class architecture, it is doomed for eternity.’ It has gotten to the point
where not a day goes by where another anti-Toronto article (or alternatively, a
‘Toronto is being screwed over’ article) is printed. Reading the local newspaper
has become an utterly depressing experience. An outsider might think that the city is
turning into something like the next Detroit – that is to say that it is falling
apart. But to put it simply, that is not the case. Streets are still full of people,
buildings are still being constructed, the arts are still flourishing and restaurants are
still packed. A little perspective is needed, perhaps.
The problem is not that Toronto has no character or that it lacks cultural identity.
No, the problem is that that in all their efforts to change the city, to improve it, to
give it that ‘thing it needs’, Torontonians have ignored what the city has and
what it stands for. Its assets, are, I believe, primarily: multiculturalism, a strong
economy, and a general air of peacefulness. Those are the elements that form
Toronto’s identity.
What this city needs, before it can recognize its own strengths, is a good hard dose of
confidence. And that won’t be achieved by building an opera house.
1 There is talk of building a large
city square (or monument) to Canada’s flamboyant former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot
Trudeau somewhere in downtown Toronto.
2 The Front de Libération du
Québec (FLQ) began in the late 1960’s and continued into the 70’s. During that
time, extremist factions began a war against (what was thought be) an English government
that oppressed working class francophones. While they bombed Montreal and kidnapped two
politicians (murdering one), the moderate and nonviolent Parti Québécois (PQ) gained
steam. Elected to provincial parliament in 1976, they called for the separation of Quebec
from confederation and actively drove out signs of anglophone establishment. As a result,
hundreds of companies which operated nationally moved their headquarters out of Quebec and
into Toronto.