Home of Sky

My First Kouvalis Attack

2012-02-03T01:48:00.007-05:00

Tonight (technically morning) I got a taste of the infamous (Nick) Kouvalis venom, which has been making its way around Twitter more than usual lately. It’s funny because it’s juvenile machismo in response to my criticism of his juvenile machismo. Together with Doug Ford’s recent bullying comments directed at an assiduous local activist, the Ford team is really resorting to schoolyard tactics.

Victims of Privilege

2012-01-25T23:56:00.008-05:00

I recently realised that progressives aren’t the only ones who think they are striving for the welfare of the oppressed and vulnerable. Upon speaking to a Ford supporter for the first time, I was struck by how the right-wing strain of thought on which his political tastes were based painted himself – a white, middle-class, forty-something years-old, car-driving, Toronto home-owning man – as a victim in need of support from local government.

He complained of the entitlement of “lefty pinkos” that caused the current financial situation in Greece and of the increase in property taxes that he has to pay after having renovated his house recently. At one point, after emphasizing the excessive taxes he has to pay, he told my (young and non-home-owning, like myself) friend and I, “Wait, you guys aren’t even in this,” declaring the illegitimacy of the political opinions of such non-home-owning (and thus [supposedly] non-property tax-paying) Torontonians as myself. People like me, he implied, have no stake in Ford’s absence or presence in mayoral office, since we putatively don’t reap the benefits of tax cuts. I only realized after our brief conversation how spectacularly he had managed to spin a home-owning, materially-more-than-comfortable, always-driver as a victim of tax oppression, and young men like myself who rent tiny (shared) apartments and need to take TTC, cycle, or walk everywhere as invulnerable princes, with no care in the world. Despite his taxes being a product of having way more than us, he thinks of himself – at least in speaking of municipal political concerns – as more vulnerable and deserving of politicians’ support.

I have hitherto seen the progressive narrative as having a sort of monopoly on concern for the less privileged, seeing ourselves as countering powerful societal bullies and using government to make society less unfair for those that are most vulnerable. Recently, however, I’ve begun to realize that the right-wing perspective somehow has cast a similar oppressed-oppressor narrative on its own belief system. Through a sort of extreme meritocratic mindset and work indignation, people like Mayor Ford have come to see tax paying (being indicative of hard work) as the ultimate sacrifice, which magically renders the most economically comfortable as the most socially oppressed. This taxation-as-oppression mentality completely reverses traditional ideas of privilege, casting the poor as individualistic hedonists and the rich as exploited by a gluttonous collective. Amazingly, it seems that Ford genuinely believes mini-van-driving, huge suburban house-owning, comfortably-employed people like himself are the victims since such privileges (theoretically) amount to more of their dollars going to taxes. Essentially, the right have deluded themselves into seeing privilege upside-down.

The Broader Merit of Urbanity

2011-08-17T14:22:00.014-04:00

In the flurry of responses to Philip Preville’s article in Toronto Life, the urban vs. suburban argument has been, as in the article itself, continually posed primarily as a matter of which is preferable for the individual/family whose placement is in question. I think that it’s more a question of what we should do, considering the greater social implications, rather than what’s easiest or most fun. That is, I don’t think it’s merely an arbitrary matter of opinion or taste to say that urban living is better.

I have yet to read a response that questions whether, for instance, people’s houses should be as big as they are in the suburbs, or if we should all be trying to take up as little space as possible. A seldom-acknowledged benefit of high prices for living space in big cities is that they encourage denser communities and smaller housing footprints, in which regard the city is objectively better. The greater car-dependency, too, in my opinion, single-handedly makes suburban (or small town) living something one should avoid if possible (of course, for some people living in a big city is unaffordable or otherwise inaccessible, but I am, like Preville, only talking about what should be opted for by those who can afford either way of life).

Further, I wish people would stop attributing the preference of urban living to “snobbery,” which dismisses deeply considered opinions of the merits of denser living as superciliousness. It’s not about whether urban people are better than suburban people; it’s about whether urban living is more efficient, sustainable, etc. Of course, it’s easy to see how people are offended by criticism of places because they identify with their surroundings, but I’m nearly certain that when most people who are passionate about cities are critical of suburbs, they are not, in fact, criticizing their residents, but the effects of that style of urban planning. It’s like saying that criticizing a certain kind of slipshod or perfunctory architecture is insulting to the people living within, when in reality it concerns the environment’s design, rather than its denizens. Such criticism, then, is not merely an arbitrary eruption of mere taste, but (more often, I think) an earnest assessment of what is helpful for people and what isn’t. Assessing the merit of different approaches to urban planning is not like announcing one’s favourite colour; there are greater implications and fairly objective measures one can consider to determine which has more benefits on a broader scale than the other.

Localness Promotes Accountability

2011-08-02T03:44:00.010-04:00

“[B]ecause of the immediate and tangible nature of the results achieved (or not achieved) at the local level, councillors are the politicians least able to merely coast along on a narrative.”

-J. Goldsbie, in this article

This is the main reason that I’m more interested in local politics than provincial, federal, or global politics: The more local, the less nebulous politics can be. Not only does localness facilitate accountability in politicians, though, but I also think it concomitantly encourages a more active sort of activism, motivated less by stultifyingly broad issues and more by concrete problems. Though there is usually more at stake in broader issues, and they are more dramatic and viscerally compelling, this allows some activists to drift aimlessly in the romance of evocative generalities from afar instead of doing what they can in their immediate surroundings.*

I think this correlation between small-scaleness and responsibility also applies to ethical considerations in general, which is partly why I’m passionate about minding details that many people dismiss as insignificant. Verbal reform is an example: Eschewing male-normative pronouns – as in writing she/he instead of he in reference to a hypothetical person – is important despite there being wars and starvation in other parts of the world. It’s like if you were to ignore that your brother is drowning right in front of you in the interest of saving a hundred people across the lake, who are nearly impossible to save from your position. It seems absurd to step over an immediate cause while pursuing a much longer-term cause. And if you can’t get the easy things right, how can you fix the big things?

*Not to imply that discourse and philosophy are less important, but that they are not sufficient alone.

Activism as Decadence

2011-07-27T01:59:00.002-04:00

Not content with simply ignoring and avoiding dissent, today Doug Ford went the extra mile and disparaged it outright. After implying his ignorance of one of Toronto’s best known literary figures, he resorted to an ad hominem rejection of the advocacy of Atwood and her fellow activists, demonstrating his low opinion of activism in general.

First, he suggested Atwood is not famous enough to warrant his consideration, declaring that “I don’t even know her. If she walked by me, I wouldn’t have a clue who she is.” In other words, why should he care about what she says? She’s not so famous that he’d recognise her. Secondly, he dismissed her as a mere citizen – not a politician like him – suggesting that citizens should not be interfering with politics. Apparently politicians should be left alone to do as they please, as they know best. Thirdly, he dismissed her for being privileged enough to be politically engaged, as though only people that are too busy to be activists are demonstrably working-class enough to be entitled to activism (therefore precluding activism).

The bizarre contentiousness of these outbursts is just a regular part of the sideshow that is our municipal government these days, perhaps more a distraction than anything else, rather than actually all that significant. However, I still think it’s indicative both of how the Fords are endlessly parochial and regard collectively-minded activism as a contemptible sign of privilege. To them, it seems, an activist is little more than an excessively-pampered brat, simply for the fact that she/he is able to engage in activism.

This is also more broadly indicative of what the Fords perceive the role of government and citizens to be and the extreme individualism that they value: Government is mostly for allowing citizens to pursue their interests however they please, and, concomitantly, citizens should only advocate for their own personal interests, regardless of the effect on the greater good. People should work for themselves and keep to themselves. Anything else is either the insincere meddling of rich kids with nothing else to do but bother right-wing politicians for kicks, or a union conspiracy. After all, how could someone actually care enough about the greater good to use what time they have for activism?

Reasons to Believe Rob Ford is Superhuman

2011-07-23T00:52:00.010-04:00

10. He can turn centrists into extreme right-wing ideologues

9. He has x-ray vision that sees through widespread police abuses

8. He had 483 election signs spontaneously install themselves

7. He can make $346 million disappear (on a conservative mandate)

6. He takes an average of sixty calls every day

5. He can alleviate traffic by compounding traffic
4. He can conjure a thirty year tradition out of thin air
3. He can simultaneously lose and gain $70 million
2. He can turn 107% into 1000%
1. He can turn $70 million into $700 million

Through Thick and Thin

2011-07-22T01:38:00.004-04:00

With the war currently being waged against Toronto by our own mayor and a disturbingly obsequious council, it’s easy to feel so alienated that one would be tempted to leave the city. Several of my friends have casually suggested the prospect of moving elsewhere in response to the increasing hostility to progressives and our principles. It feels like nothing is safe, and that no battle – no matter how much reason is on our side – can be won.

However, remember that the more hopeless we feel, the more work we have to do (and, consequently, the more we want to leave, the more Toronto needs us). Unconditional, long-term devotion to this place – what I call geographic fidelity – is what Toronto needs now more than ever. We (that is, those of us who are so privileged that we can even consider moving elsewhere) should act and think as though there is nowhere else to go, that we’re stuck in this place forever, that we’re in this for the long-haul so we better make it good. Political actions are rendered less meaningful – and political causes less urgent – if one lives as though moving away is always an option.

Furthermore, it’s fair-weather activism. To care about your city is to care not only when it’s convenient, but to keep caring when it’s difficult to care, when caring is disrespected, and even when caring seems futile; activism is the most important when it’s the least fun. To behave otherwise would be exploitative, benefitting from the city when it’s in a good state but abandoning it in bad times.

When Miller was mayor it was easy to love Toronto; it was during his mayoralty, after all, that the then-revolutionary movement to not hate Toronto took flight. Progressive ideas and principles were relatively prominent and somewhat respected by council, if not in the media as well. Where we used to have a mayor who would even regularly attend relatively-esoteric Spacing magazine release parties to show his civic devotion, the current mayor can’t even be bothered not to snub everything related to one of the city’s (if not the country’s) biggest events. Now that our civic heart is being broken daily, we have to work harder than ever for our love.

Matlow: Rebel Without a Cause

2011-07-19T01:39:00.015-04:00

Councillor Josh Matlow, king of compromise, continues his disavowal of all things partisan. “Some of my colleagues,” he complains on Twitter, “seem to be deliberately targeted by politically-partisan activists.” He speaks of politically-aligned people the way that American politicians speak of al-Qaeda. Over and over again, Matlow’s vendetta against partisanship is made clear. In fact, trumpeting compromise and demonizing partisanship seems to comprise most of what publicly comes out of his mouth, a defender of neutrality above all else. His votes often reflect this, in that he pleases neither the right nor the left, but is likewise inoffensive to all.

There is an extreme individualism to Matlow’s neutrality. “I am loyal to no side” amounts to “I am loyal only to myself.” What matters is only what Matlow surmises independently; no matter how ignorant he is about the given issue, he refuses to be guided by either side. I get the feeling that he not only avoids being guided by political alignment, but he is ultimately guided by eschewing political alignment. It seems that he would sooner dull his position than be associated with a larger group of councillors who share a common political compass. If his opinions are disproportionately to one side of the spectrum, he must be wrong.

History is also irrelevant in Matlow’s political approach, as learning from what happens would eventually develop one’s allegiance to one side more than the other. Matlow’s only consistency is his hatred of consistency. Nonpartisan theory prescribes being engaged in politics while somehow refusing to recognise patterns. No matter how many times, for instance, one finds right-wing politicians to be deplorable and left-wing ones to be favourable, to be nonpartisan is to never remember this. Always approach politics as an infant, with a tabula rasa as to what will occur and what is worth supporting. But what if the principles that Matlow professes to value are consistently upheld by one side more than the other? For instance, he wrote, “[W]inning isn’t always about ‘beating the other side.’ Rather, it’s about finding solutions.” What if this sincere desire for solutions, time after time, guides the left and the not the right? Should one not, then, eventually identify with the left?

As Matt Elliott said, “In some cases councillors must fight, not compromise, for that which they believe.” The easiest thing someone can do is take no side and always coast down the middle. When I hear what he says, I want to like Matlow because he seems to sincerely care about being a good politician, but the way he approaches this – through the middle – really bothers me. I wish he would step out of the safety of the middle for once and do something that requires vulnerability.

Maddow on News Media’s Job

2010-11-19T00:20:00.005-05:00

I find Rachel Maddow’s criticism of news media portrayals of Republicans very much applies to Toronto media’s disastrous reporting of Rob Ford’s election campaign.

“Writing down what [politicians] say is not reporting. If you just write down what they say, that’s called publicizing. Writing down what they actually do – what they are proposing in terms of policy – that is reporting. And it is the distance between what they say and what they are actually doing that is the news.”

-from 16 November 2010 episode of the Rachel Maddow Show

Popularity ≠ Merit

2010-10-28T21:38:00.003-04:00

Although it is obviously true in most other subjective fields that popularity is not equal to merit, most progressives try to deny the fact that what voters think they want is not necessarily what is best for them. Even suggesting that much is instantly dismissed as condescension and garners all manner of ad hominem responses (“Who are you to say what’s best,” etc.), since it casts doubt on the populist, bottom-up democratic fantasy common among progressives. Further, it is counter to the contiguous idea that the best judge of what is best for a given person is that given person her/himself, which is even more a part of progressive thought. However, to obliviously presume – whether for the sake of humility, conceptual respect, or democratic faith – that each eligible voter is equally informed, politically savvy, and capable of voting not only for the candidate that is best for her/himself, but for their greater society, does a greater disservice than considering otherwise. I will call the idea that every citizen of a democracy is equally aware of her/his political circumstance – candidates, issues, etc. – the Democratic Political Omnipotence Fallacy. It is a symptom of our individualistic culture that, in ascribing such independence and agency to individuals, we forget that people are varyingly able (or willing) to keep abreast of the political climate in which they cast a vote in a given election. Despite what people want to admit, it is clearly possible (likely) that many voters are changing the political climate with their vote while not knowing the likely implications of their political action, and this ignorant action can affect everyone negatively. Of course, I am not advocating the dismantling of democracy or the implementation of a more autocratic political scheme; I simply believe we should recognise this fact.

The reason I was prompted to write this is that progressives have lately been legitimising Ford’s mayoral election by saying such clichés as, “The people have spoken!” and concluding that the suburban rage that got him elected was justified. This interpretation ignores the existence of misinformation (e.g. the fallibility of the media), myopic interests, and countless other reasons political popularity isn’t always justified.

The Anti-Torontonian Mayor

2010-10-27T21:29:00.014-04:00

Though I have neglected this blog for three months now, the recent nightmarish end to the insufferable 2010 Toronto mayoral race has summoned in me a greater than usual sense of political duty (at least insofar as writing my thoughts to a diminutive [if existent] audience can be considered political engagement). I hope to henceforth be more active and creative in regard to my city interests, and less a passive observer.

We now (well, come December) have a mayor who seems to hate Toronto, or at least everything I love about it. Having moved here from Pickering seven years ago for university, the density, plurality, publicness, cultural activity, and sense of community or social cohesion – in short, the urbanism – of Toronto is what made me fall in love with the place. Ford has made more than clear in his scandalous (though bizarrely-inconspicuous-in-the-media) diatribes that he is concerned squarely with the interests of middle-class suburban home- and car-owners and promoting their individualistic way of life. When asked about his chosen home, he told the Star, “I need space, I like my own driveway and my own backyard.” Despite his putative popularity amongst immigrant and low-income suburban voters, he is conspicuously xenophobic, as evidenced by his remarks on immigration and insensitivity to racial and sexual minorities. A millionaire with a company inherited from his father, he is viciously callous in regard to poverty and egregiously indifferent to the welfare of cyclists and transit riders, concerned instead with mitigating their inconvenience to drivers. Essentially, Ford focusses on the privileged individual and freeing her/him from the burden of others, where progressive politicians are more collectivistic in their concern.

I continually wonder why on earth he would even want to be mayor of Toronto or live within its borders. Pre-amalgamation Toronto would presumably be Ford’s worst nightmare, as his preferred world is the geographic fringes of the current city which are, appropriately for him, more like the GTA; his favourite restaurant is even in Mississauga. His political stances are traditionally so discordant with his milieu that his participation in Toronto politics seems fuelled more by misanthropy than a passion for the city. Unlike Adam Vaughan or even David Miller, Ford’s political values and discourse would fit perfectly into any number of smaller suburban towns or cities in Ontario while they are extremely contentious here. In short, not only does he seem inappropriate for Toronto, but it is not hyperbolic to say his political sensibility is anti-Torontonian in its hostility towards what distinguishes this city from its neighbours.

Although progressives – especially of late – love to deny it, Old Toronto is more Torontonian than the outer former municipalities, in that it most embodies Toronto’s difference from its surroundings. That is, downtown epitomises the way the city as a whole is unique in its greater municipal context. Because Toronto’s urbanism – density, public transit capacity, diversity, etc. – is what saliently distinguishes it from its suburban neighbours like Mississauga and Vaughan, the most dramatically urban part of Toronto – Old Toronto – can be said to be most Torontonian. In his role as anti-urban crusader, Ford represents an effort to un-Toronto Toronto.

What Happened to Toronto?

2010-07-23T18:41:00.006-04:00

Today I overheard people talking about municipal politics, which is depressingly rare (if not unprecedented) in my experience. However, what I overheard makes me wish that it was even rarer. This excerpt arose as they were on the topic of garbage disposal work.

Person 1: Garbage disposal is a [lucrative] profession these days...

Person 2: Miller should be shot for what he did [in regard to the garbage strike last summer].

Person 1: Yeah, I agree... Don't worry, he'll be gone soon.

Person 3: I don't know if the next guy will be much better.

Person 2: Rob Ford will clean things up.

Person 1: [Agrees, and not one of the five people present contradicts this]

What the fuck? Is the world insane? Where are these people getting their information? What twisted news media can be blamed for this catastrophe? How is it that otherwise ostensibly sane people have been beguiled by one of the worst politicians Toronto has ever seen? It's so fucking depressing that average people seem so ignorant about said travesty of a man, and that municipal political discourse has actually fallen to the level of (or, more likely, below) American conservative discourse. All that Rob Ford appeals to are the most knee-jerk, inconsiderate, selfish, base, and individualistic sentiments voters can muster. And it seems to be working. Everyone's inner asshole is emerging from the woodwork, it seems. What happened to the progressive, considerate, reasonable Toronto I’ve always loved? I thought Torontonians were so much better than this.

Soldier Denounces G20 Police Actions

2010-07-07T19:59:00.000-04:00

“I don't care if Osama Bin Laden himself is hiding on Queen Street like Waldo... you don't just drop an airstrike on the village.”

Even Steve[n] Paikin is Disappointing

2010-07-07T18:57:00.003-04:00

The controversy as to whether the police brutality of the G20 weekend deserves an inquiry really brings out the worst in people. Miller shattered my respect, Pantalone proved to be disgracefully ignorant, Rob Ford was his usual self, and now even the hitherto-dependable Steve Paikin is disappointing me in his G20-related discourse. While strongly intimating that an inquiry into the police’s conduct would be prudent, he seems to revert to his perennially “neutral” television persona, noting that, “The decision to call a public inquiry is a political one. I am not a politician. Nor am I an op-ed columnist. Therefore, I will not be offering an opinion on this question.”

What the hell is he suggesting? That only politicians or “op-ed columnists” should form and express political opinions? That, despite having himself attested to the assault of a journalist by police during a peaceful G20 protest, he should maintain his pro-status-quo (“neutral”) stance (as seen on TVO) in regard to whether there should be an inquiry of police behaviour? That maintaining his “apolitical” facade is more important than preventing people from being terrorised by police again in the future?

After having seen numerous videos (as linked above) that clearly capture police terrorising hundreds of people, and having heard countless testimonies as to their brutality, it’s insane that there’s any question whatsoever as to whether the entire police force should be severely impugned and hundreds of police fired and jailed for what transpired that weekend. There shouldn't simply be an inquiry; there should be instant punishment of all police clearly involved in these crimes, and a blistering impugnment of everyone involved with the police on duty during G20.

Look at this amazing place (York, England)

2010-05-12T14:30:00.001-04:00

View Larger Map

2010-05-01T12:57:00.003-04:00

Ha, why is Christopher Hume so amazing? Here is yet another great line from today’s Star article, one of (if not) the funniest (best) Hume articles I've ever read.

“Just ask the Rob Fords, the Rocco Rossis, those nattering nincompoops of nonsense: Government bad, business good, they bray. Me Tarzan, you Jane. It makes as much sense.”

2010-03-29T22:31:00.004-04:00

“Not only do the poor get poorer, the dumb get dumber.”

-Christopher Hume, on the inexorable stupidity of Toronto's transit (un-)funding from the province, in this article from the Star.

2010-03-28T16:40:00.000-04:00

Transit City Funding Catastrophe

2010-03-25T23:03:00.002-04:00

“In five years, you kill projects,” [Adam Giambrone] said, adding that the province has lost the credibility it gained when it touted an unprecedented North American transit expansion for all the right social, environmental and economic reasons. The city’s most economically vulnerable neighbourhoods will likely be most affected if the Finch LRT and Scarborough Rapid Transit lines are cut or delayed, the TTC chair said. “People in Scarborough spend three hours commuting each day.”

-from this Toronto Star article

Torontonian Fast Food

2010-03-19T01:04:00.002-04:00

Until relatively recently I assumed that all the ubiquitous fast food chains were multi-national beasts that began in the U.S. However, I've slowly realised that a surprising number of these typically-suburban eateries in Toronto and the G.T.A. actually began in Toronto. For instance, Swiss Chalet, Harvey's, Pizza Pizza, Pizza Nova, and Lick's. We thus have a fairly significant native fast food presence. Is this good or bad? I don't know, but it's interesting.

Is Toronto Weirdly (Relatively) Egalitarian?

2010-03-16T13:31:00.005-04:00

Toronto is repeatedly compared to Chicago; people speak of the latter's superior architecture and public art, but also note its greater stratification of income and race. In the comments section of a recent Spacing Toronto post, Shawn Micallef opined that “the Loop and a few other places are stunning urbanism, but there are miles and miles of Chicago that are in huge decline with massive poverty levels, etc. In Toronto we ‘spread around the good’ so our downtown is not as killer, but our slums are, well, not nearly as slum-like. Urban socialism, of a kind.”

The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces

2010-03-15T14:45:00.005-04:00

I watched this short film on how to encourage usage of public spaces in my urban sociology class last year. It was really interesting and informative; I highly recommend it. Plus, it's replete with footage of c. 1980 New York. At least watch this first part.

Adam Vaughan is My Hero

2010-03-07T22:34:00.004-05:00

Interviewer: What about the Greater Toronto Area, what's your favourite spot?

Adam Vaughan: Never been there. With no apology and without the slightest bit of shame, I am a Torontonian and the GTA is the rest of Canada. The reality is that there's Toronto and there's the rest of Canada and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I won't apologize for this city, I like it too much.

-from this interview

Post-Olympics Public Nationalism

2010-02-28T20:48:00.009-05:00

I denounce Olympics but I value the social cohesion and public space enjoyment effected by tonight's Canadian success. I went to Yonge & Dundas to bask in the crowds. It was really fun to see everyone getting together like that. I just wish it was about something less selfish.

Post-Olympics Public Nationalism from A. R. Arvelo McQuaig on Vimeo.

2010-02-27T13:33:00.004-05:00

“Rossi's constituency is made up of people whose lifestyles are threatened by changes ahead, whether that means cutting greenhouse gases or closing a lane of Jarvis. It's okay, Rossi wants them to know, you can carry on as you always have, just bury your head a little deeper in that sand and don't forget to vote for me.”

-Christopher Hume from his recent article on Rocco Rossi, the worst Toronto mayoral candidate

2010-02-21T23:13:00.002-05:00

I went for a walk in the “central business district” today. I loved looking up at all the sharp buildings. I tried to make their shapes reference the rectangular frame of my photographs. It makes them look weirdly two-dimensional against a flat blue sky, like paper cut-outs or backdrops.

Annex Winter Dusk

2010-02-16T00:32:00.004-05:00

architectsAlliance City

2010-02-08T22:24:00.007-05:00

A huge number of the buildings comprising Toronto's recent condominium boom and structural growth spurt are designed by a Torontonian architectural firm called architectsAlliance. It feels like every time I encounter a notable construction project or building, they are responsible. Recently it's approaching a point of near-absurdity, so I decided to start a map in which I'd mark every aA building I learn of. If this map is ever finished, I wonder if Toronto will even be visible behind the countless markers? Fortunately, their architecture is not too “hard on the eyes.” Pictured: Tip Top Lofts.

View architectsAlliance in a larger map

Toronto's PATH vs. Montreal's Underground City

2010-01-03T01:16:00.002-05:00

Here are links to the wikipedia articles for the two:
Toronto
Montreal

Apparently Montreal's is longer, although part of that length may be above ground (but connected to the system). Toronto's is the world's largest underground shopping complex, whereas Montreal's includes a lot of non-shopping areas, like blank tunnels, train stations, etc. . Toronto's was started earlier, although didn't really get going until the 1970s. Montreal's started being made in the 1960s.
I seriously still think Montreal's is better known, though!
And apparently there are some other, though smaller, underground networks in Canada.

Our Improving Waterfront

2009-11-12T23:00:00.009-05:00

I was on Google Maps recently looking at Toronto, as I am wont to do, and happened upon this view of the waterfront just east of Spadina. Clearly this aerial view was captured a few years ago as it reveals a conspicuously barren plot of land where HTO Park now sits. Seeing this and the similarly unused land to the west (which likewise now houses a park), as well as the perfunctory, pre-WaveDeck deck, really accentuates the improvements to our waterfront made in the last two years or so by Waterfront Toronto. Next up is Sugar Beach, the construction of which is now underway. UPDATE: Google updated their map, so now the barren parking lot image is gone.

View Larger Map

Hume on Miller

2009-10-02T14:27:00.004-04:00

"If [Miller] is to be criticized, it surely must be for his reluctance to move faster and push harder. The problem is that Toronto doesn't have enough bike lanes, that plastic bags don't cost more than 5 cents, that transit isn't better and yes – heresy of heresy – that taxes aren't higher."

-Christopher Hume, in his column in today's Toronto Star

This makes me proud

2009-09-30T03:21:00.007-04:00

“... Richard Florida ... mentioned that part of what caused him to move to the city was his attraction to the ‘Toronto school of urbanism.’ He said that in the way Nashville or Austin are hotbeds for music, we’re a hotbed for those who love to think about and celebrate cities.”

-Edward Keenan, in this article in Eye Weekly

So Many Taller Buildings Building

2009-09-24T17:43:00.006-04:00

Lately everywhere I go there is a huge condominium being built or some other kind of interesting new construction project. It makes me really happy whenever I see this as it is a visible reminder of the city's growth and intensification. I get very excited to think about a denser, more vertical Toronto, and each time I see the scaffolding of a tall building-in-progress I cheer it on to myself, "higher! higher!" Most of the time I note the name of the development so I can look it up on the internet and read about it. I can't wait to see how the city's skyline develops and (vertical) spaces are filled in by the countless new buildings growing up as we speak. It almost makes me feel like getting old won't be so bad if I get to see the results of all this development.

I read some good news that satisfies my hunger for tall buildings in the Star recently. "Toronto has about 105 buildings over 12 storeys going up in the city, gushed Mayor David Miller, beaming as he presides over what he appropriately calls a 'renaissance,'" Royson James reports; "We are building more tall buildings in this city than all other cities in Canada combined." Especially after visiting Manhattan recently for the first time, this is music to my ears.

New York from Toronto: Architecture

2009-09-05T15:44:00.044-04:00

I had never seen such a densely built environment in my life. Manhattan's architecture is the beautiful density I always dreamed of but never really knew existed. It's what I've wished Toronto would someday become after centuries of vertical intensification. The sort of tall old buildings that would make me stop in my tracks to admire (and remember the name of so I could research later) and that are so rare in Toronto seem to comprise the vast majority of Manhattan buildings. I found a world of buildings, an uber-urbanity that felt like a universe unto itself.

I had read about how there's no laneways in New York, but I was surprised to find there was no space at all between most buildings. Most seemed "glued" together, as though, somehow, each building on each block was built as an addition to the one beside it. It made me curious as to how such temporally and stylistically disparate structures had been constructed immediately adjacent to each other in such narrow spaces. It seemed like an architectural marvel that so many tall buildings could be erected thus, along with their respective sanitation systems, electricity wiring, etc.

Manhattan is so heavily built up that it felt more like a product of nature than something built by mere humans. As rows of tall buildings run along either side of most streets, producing seemingly impenetrable walls due to the lack of alleys, walking in Manhattan feels like traversing a network of canyons. Experiencing it is like viewing some sort of sublime natural wonder, like Niagara Falls or Mount Everest. It's hard to imagine the block-length clumps of buildings ever having been constructed; buildings stand together in such ostensive symbiosis that the architectural brushstrokes, if you will, are unapparent.

While in Toronto areas of closely built vertical structures mostly contain either commercial skyscrapers like in the financial district or low-income residences like in St. James Town, everything in Manhattan is housed thus. In fact, upon returning to Toronto I realised that I don't think I saw a single house in New York City. It seems that everyone, no matter their income or ethnicity or whatever, lives (and works) vertically. In other words, it's my dream world.

Now that I'm back home I've been thinking about how Toronto's big buildings differ from New York's. Firstly, the vast majority of skyscrapers in Toronto seem to have been built between the '60s and the '80s, and thus are made of concrete slabs, glass, and steel as per the International Style. Conversely, Manhattan clearly began vertical intensification early in the 20th century as its skyscrapers more often have heavy ornamentation, are made of bricks, have copper roofs, etc. Toronto's examples of these sorts of older architecture are usually only a few storeys tall (like U of T buildings, for instance), so it was weird to see skyscraper versions of styles that I'm used to finding only in small buildings. It seems like, as cities grow up, they eventually reach a point when buildings start getting really tall so that desirable areas can fit as many people as possible. While Manhattan clearly reached this "verticalisation" point early in the century, Toronto reached it closer to the end.

Although I never thought I'd say so, I think Manhattan might be too beautiful. The amount of architectural beauty assaulting my vision from every angle in Manhattan almost made me sick. It was a feast of urbanity and a real, seemingly endless "urban jungle." I felt dizzy looking around so much. It was both overwhelming and exhilarating; it made me feel insignificant, like a speck in the universe, but also dignified, as though I were roaming a civilisation built by gods. I must admit that I miss this aspect of New York. I want to see more of it.

New York from Toronto: Subway

2009-08-23T15:06:00.020-04:00

Having returned recently from my first trip to New York, I have countless thoughts on it to share from a Torontonian perspective. First, I will talk about my impression of the subway system. I assumed New York transit would be far ahead of TTC and that I would return home depressed about Toronto's transit inferiority. In fact, I sort of found the opposite to be true: MTA made me appreciate TTC more.

When I first stepped into a New York subway station, it was seriously like stepping into a sauna. I don't think I've ever been so warm indoors before. It was astonishing to discover that, not only do New York subway stations have no air conditioning, but they seem to be effectively heated, as weird vents blast suffocating heat in your face in parts of the subway platform. On an already hot summer day, this is really terrible, to the point that the idea of taking the subway became unappealing and I often would have preferred to walk or cycle to my destination. Ostensibly the lack of air conditioning and the vents that exacerbate the situation are due to the subway system's old age (compared to Toronto's). If I go back it will be in the winter.

It generally felt like a rougher environment than TTC, like you had to be somewhat tough to utilise the system. I found this to be the case throughout New York; I couldn't imagine an elderly person surviving the city's perpetual crowds or navigating the labyrinthian subway lines. To make matters worse, there were an amazing dearth of escalators and seemingly endless stairs to climb, making for a sometimes exhausting experience, impossible for less agile and physically-able individuals. It also seemed dirtier than TTC, though this might be expected since there were so many more people at all hours. However, despite their greater usage, the subways seemed to arrive much less quickly/frequently than those in Toronto. Waiting for ten to fifteen minutes was common at most times of day and it seemed insanely long compared to TTC.

The subway trains themselves were rather similar to TTC ones, though there were subtle differences. They are austere, shiny, metallic trains, sort of ugly looking, with U.S. flags on the exterior (which made me think about how weird it would be to see a Canadian flag on TTC trains). As for the interior, there was no panel rising from the arm rests of the seats next to the doors. Whenever I need to stand up for a trip on TTC subways, I lean against the pseudo-glass panels if I can. I feel like it provides a little shelter of my own or something and I feel more comfortable there. On the MTA subway this is impossible, so I was comparatively adrift without my little spot to lean. I wonder if the lack of this panel is due to its potential to become another graffiti surface.

There was also no chime that signaled doors closing; instead, an operator's voice would pop up on the intercom declaring that the doors are now closing, which seems less effective and reliable than the TTC chime. Similarly, approaching stops were announced really weirdly: Sometimes they were marked in a little map on the wall adjacent to advertisements (which seemed like an ambiguous place to put it), but mostly they were announced live on the intercom (complete with bizarre feedback sounds). Conversely, TTC subway stops are announced through pre-recorded announcements before each stop, and I find the consistency and clarity this provides to be much more effective.

Aesthetically, MTA stations seemed as utilitarian and undecorated as TTC's, if not more (this made me wonder about the criticism of TTC's "bathroom tile" aesthetic*). However, I liked the MTA's Helvetica signage that I had heard so much about before visiting. It looked nice and urban and was easily legible, though more modern-seeming than TTC's signature typeface. Also, I liked how all the stations were integrated; the subway felt like a natural extension to the city, as though it arose on its own. I encountered no surface stations, only entrances on sidewalks (like St. Patrick Station in Toronto), so subway stations seem to exist almost completely underground. Lastly, I (obviously) liked 24-hour service and the far greater geographic coverage of the subway system, though it was concomitantly much harder to navigate than Toronto's. Ultimately it was comforting to return to TTC, for which I had a newfound respect.

*Hamburg's similarly tiled stations are some of the most beautiful designs I can imagine.

My Need for Outdoor Anchorage

2009-08-23T02:00:00.000-04:00

I find it hard to leave my house on my own without any concrete destination or pressing objective. Although I love exploring Toronto aimlessly and I think that everyone should do it more often, for some reason doing so alone is very difficult for me. Somehow when I'm with someone or I have to go do something the idea of going out is perfectly appealing, but otherwise it (irrationally) seems futile, scary, and chaotic. I want to overcome this because it is a psychogeographic impairment.

For instance, if I have to go do groceries one night, I'll go out and do them alone just fine, and I'll really enjoy the walk or bicycle ride to and fro. The grocery trip allows me to comfortably leave the house because it affords me a concrete, pressing reason to get out of the house. The objective of getting groceries makes me feel justified in being outside. However bored or restless I might feel sitting at home doing nothing, I can very seldom muster the energy to leave my apartment alone if I haven't a need to do so. It's weird: Even when I have a huge desire to wander about the city, I usually can't do it by myself.

Accompaniment functions as does having an objective; if I have someone else to join me for a psychogeographic walk, then I am perfectly comfortable doing so. The person accompanying me thus serves as a sort of anchor, keeping me (or giving me an "excuse" to be) out of the house to enjoy their company. I feel like anchorage is a good metaphor for this phenomenon: It's as though I need an anchor to keep me out of the house comfortably, so that it doesn't feel like I'm just meandering parlously like a boat floating in the middle of the ocean.

Bronte Visit

2009-08-11T16:39:00.001-04:00

On Sunday, Pamela and I went to Oakville to visit my grandmother. Upon looking up the area on a map, I discovered that the part of Oakville where my grandmother lives is called Bronte. I like that I can thus be more geographically particular about it so from now on I'll refer to the area likewise. Bronte is a charming place I want to visit more often. Along a great distance of the lakeshore there's a lovely path (pictured) with a generous allotment of benches for weary pedestrians or the ubiquitous dog walkers.* While it would behoove one to mind the copious goose droppings, the path affords a very pleasant and beautiful walk either eastward to Coronation Park** or westward to the marina. Downtown Bronte is very nearby and equally worthy of a visit, as it contains sundry non-chain shops. One can take the GO Train to Oakville Station and probably take a bus to this area. Should we go for a picnic?

*It often seems that the majority of pedestrians in such places are out simply to walk their dogs. I wonder how much emptier public spaces (especially parks) would be if dogs didn't exist?

**My grandmother used to take me to Coronation Park when I was a small boy and we would always sit at this weird tree and I loved it.

Brunswick House Idiocy

2009-08-08T11:56:00.000-04:00

Because I live in the Annex I am well acquainted with the Brunswick House and its clientele without ever having entered the Bloor St. building. It is the scourge of the neighbourhood, an obnoxious den of debaucherous, frat boy-style hedonism that reeks of excess and sexual rivalry. It is usually swarmed by young women in unprecedentedly short skirts and men in hideous brand name clothing, dropped off there by limousines and Hummers presumably from distant suburbs. It is a bizarre sight in such a peaceful, residential neighbourhood as the Annex, made even more conspicuous by its seemingly constant police presence and reports of the violence that surrounds it.

Last night my friend Emile and I witnessed some of this machismo firsthand. We were sitting on the curb (due to Toronto's dearth of benches) on the north side of Bloor slightly east of Brunswick Ave., the aforementioned madhouse being directly across the street from us. At one point our conversation was interrupted by the sight of an enormous bouncer lifting a smaller man who he had just pulled/kicked out of the club and slamming his back into the sidewalk. He then picked him up and smashed him to the ground again, committing this abuse several times (it was almost [but not at all] comical how stereotypically bully-like this bouncer was; he was like a cartoon of a bully, a huge muscular type picking a smaller guy up by the collar to demonstrate his strength). Apparently tiring of this routine, he then pinned the man to the floor until another bouncer came and started punching the man in the face.

Emile and I have stood up at this point and we're frantic about what to do. Emile decides to call the police on his cellular telephone while I feel like I'm going to collapse because of how anxious and upset these situations make me. I look around at other witnesses but it's the typical bystander situation of most people just either ignoring it or passively observing. However, there were two women who were very passionate about how this situation must be stopped, who were telling people to call the police. Two younger (not-so-)gentlemen leaning against the building behind us were (seriously) just watching the events and laughing, and got into an argument with the women about whether the police ought to be called, insisting that the smaller man deserved what the bouncer was doing to him because he provoked him or hit him or something. When they discovered that Emile was calling the police, they started yelling at him to get off the telephone, but fortunately Emile completed the call. The police didn't arrive until we left the area and the fight had apparently subsided.

2009-08-07T21:41:00.002-04:00

Hello. My name is Alexander Arvelo McQuaig (although if you are reading this you probably already know my name because you're probably my best friend). I have been enjoying "spaces" a lot lately. I love to walk around in Toronto and explore public spaces. There is so much to find and talk about. Every time I walk or ride my bicycle I can't help but stop several times to get a better look at some sort of architecture or marvel at how terrible cars are or wonder why there's not a bicycle lane in this street or revel in the weird tranquility of a hidden urban alcove or watch weird people passing or think about the beauty of accumulated humanity found in big cities.

I often find places that make me feel like living there momentarily, like they could function as a remote extension of my home. I like how public (and semi-public) spaces provide this kind of open, free place where people can spend time. It's strange and exciting to think of how much space there is in a city where you could seemingly just sit there forever and read a book or whatever and no one would tell you to leave. It is like temporarily claiming a small bit of this space for oneself; it becomes yours and you can "live" there briefly.

In big cities like Toronto there are so many such places that are fun to spend time in. There are also so many different kinds of areas suited for different things. Here we will write about our city spaces. We will write about walks that you should go on, buildings you should see, our thoughts on visiting particular neighbourhoods, etc.

The name of this web log is inspired by a line from an Adrian Orange song called "Flags of the World Made in the Sky." I called this blog as such because it is about finding places to stay comfortably in open and public (or mostly public) spaces. My meaning for the title is like "everything can be your home" or "get out of your house to go home" (the sky as openness/external/public and stuff like that). Get it?

This will probably be a Toronto-centric operation because I'm obsessed with Toronto - I think about my city all the time and I want to devote my life to it - and all my friends (contributors) and I live in or around Toronto, but we will also talk about other cities (perhaps from a Toronto perspective).

Thank you

A. R. Arvelo McQuaig