Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way people talk about how sterile, generic and boring Toronto is you'd think it's basically a larger and safer version of Indianapolis or Oklahoma City. I find it a very fun and interesting city that actually has a unique character all its own.
I think it just gets hate because it's a fairly new city, not even being especially large until the 1960s-70s and growing extremely rapidly since then. I think people mistake emerging character for no character. No Toronto isn't Paris and it doesn't have many centuries of history, but I actually find it exciting for that very reason. You feel like Toronto's history is still being made when you're there. That its golden age is yet to come.
The neighborhoods in Toronto actually have a slight grit to them. I'd say it's a bit like Philadelphia meets Portland. Also the idea Tdot is a "live to work" city is somewhat overstated, sure there's a lot of banking and corporations there but there's tons of hippies and hipsters there too. It's actually a great city to be lazy in if you are resourceful and home ownership isn't that important to you.
It probably is a lousy city for dating though. When I went there last year I went to a rave and not a single girl talked to me.
Yes I do think Toronto is underrated. It suffers, like a lot of Canada, from the stereotype of being boring.
Which is odd, since when visitors come to Canada, the vast majority love it.
I think it just gets hate because it's a fairly new city, not even being especially large until the 1960s-70s and growing extremely rapidly since then.
I find myself fighting this perception that Toronto is somehow a "new" city in many threads. People don't seem to realize that most of Toronto's recent growth has occurred in its "boroughs", and because of amalgamation. For Old Toronto, the population has only grown by about 60,000 people since 1951. Don't believe me? According to Wikipedia (Old Toronto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), Old Toronto's current population is 736,775, while the City of Toronto Archives puts Old Toronto's population at 675,754 in 1951 (City of Toronto Archives: Toronto history FAQs). What is now the Amalgamated City of Toronto totalled 1,117,470 in 1951, so clearly this is where all the population growth in the city has been over the last 62 years. The vast majority of Toronto's growth has been in its "boroughs" or inner suburbs, and the city's almost four-fold growth in population only happened since amalgamation.
What this means is that Old Toronto has changed little in its population since 1951, and has grown very little. What has grown are the city's inner suburbs, which are now part of the city, and which bring the city's population up to 2.7 million, when it would be only 736,775 million had amalgamation not taken place. Toronto is only "new" because it has suddenly become prominent and many people are just discovering it for the first time, making it seem new, when the Old City that most tourists visit and most people think of as Toronto has grown by a measily 60-odd thousand people in 62 years. What is new about Toronto is amalgamation, and in Old Toronto the main changes have been all the old buildings destroyed and new ones erected since '51, especially in the central downtown which was levelled and then replaced by the downtown we know today (the older downtown was just east of today's downtown, and was torn down to build parking lots for suburban commuters). But all this happened many years ago. None of it is new except for the current building boom.
So Toronto is not new, except to those people who have just discovered it. Otherwise, its built form is much the same today as it was years ago. As I've posted many times, Toronto was incorporated as a city around the same time as Chicago, and grew to become the city we now know during the same years that New York and Chicago were doing the same. By the start of WWI, Toronto as we know it (at least Old Toronto) had pretty much taken on the form we see today, with the exception of the downtown (which I've already explained), and various urban renewal schemes that included the destruction and reconstruction of many buildings and pockets of the city (like the transformation of the infamous St. John's Ward into Nathan Phillips Square and Hospital Row, or the destruction of parts of Cabbagetown to build Regent Park and St. James Town).
So Toronto is only new in the sense that it has gained some municipalities (and quadrupled in population as a result), become much more prominent in the last twenty years, and is now in the middle of a building boom that has done more to change the look and feel of the downtown since the old downtown was levelled in the 60's. Otherwise, Toronto is not a new city. It's older than LA, San Francisco, or Seattle, and many of the major sunbelt cities like Phoenix. I'm tired of hearing that Toronto is a new city when much of its residential architecture is at least 100-years-old.
Toronto is "new" in the way DC is "new" - both are cities whose urban cores actually saw declines in population in the postwar period but have fast growing metropolitan areas. It's not like Phoenix or Houston.
I think Toronto seems 'new' (in a North American sense) because:
1-It didn't develop into a big city until the late 1970s/1980s, before that Montreal was the prime city in Canada. So in this sense, Toronto is new to the scene as being a first city of a country. The migration of business and development of infrastructure followed whereas this build out or status had already occurred in other older cities on this continent like Chicago, Philly, Boston, etc.
2-Toronto doesn't look old in its core. The core is mostly glass and concrete and although there are a few older structures, it doesn't have an 'old city' feel in the downtown area, it's feels more modern.
3-The older architecture in Toronto is confined to certain neighborhoods and unlike Boston, NYC, Montreal, Chicago, etc. it seems like these neighborhoods are more tucked away in quiet residential neighborhoods for the most part. In other cities, sections of older areas seem to more on display in terms of restaurants/bars/shopping, etc. In Toronto, the busy areas like Yonge & Dundas, Financial district, Yorkville, and Queen and King don't seem "old". To TOKIdd's point, apparently much of the "old" sections of Toronto were bulldozed away for glass and concrete developments and what remains is mostly tucked away in quiet residential areas - of which I'm sure most in the GTA haven't never really seen much of except for some who are really interested enough to go out of their way.
4-Toronto seems like it is still developing a personality in many ways. Montreal, Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc. seem more mature in comparison whereas TO seems like it is still growing and defining itself in some ways - be it local cuisine, traditions, structures and contributions to the world. I think this comes with being a first city just 30 years ago or so. Phoenix, although not as old, is a another example of a city that has experienced high growth in the last few decades which is probably still making a name for itself, of course on a smaller regional scale.
5- Toronto doesn't feel old. With immigration patterns resulting in half the city being born outside of the country, the ensuing personality of the populace feels more 'new' than one that is older and established. A more more prominent and established culture doesn't seem to dominate like you will find in places like Chicago, East coast cites or most European cities as they are either more melting pot or just limit immigration. Old school Toronto elite kind of stick to themselves out of the spotlight.
TOkidd - interesting stats on the growth of the city, especially the suburbs vs. the core. I'm sure all the core growth has been condos and the growth of the surrounding burbs is the typical pattern of how cities grow out from the core.
Last edited by johnathanc; 07-31-2013 at 08:51 PM..
Of course Toronto is new. Even Quebec City is pretty new - 400 years is nothing in a city's life.
Actually, Botticelli, there aren't very many large cities that have long histories like London or Paris. Most major cities in the world today don't have much of a history. There are a few here and there, but not that many really. 400 years is pretty historic for most cities outside of Europe. There are a few in Asia. The DF is built on the old Aztec capital. The rest faded from prominence long ago, like Timbuktu, Samarkand, and Xi'an.
Regarding Toronto's old architecture being tucked away; once you leave the downtown core it's not very hard to find at all. We don't have the most Victorian architecture in North America (and possiboy the world) for nothing. Even in the downtown core, there are more than a few famous older buildings.
Actually, Botticelli, there aren't very many large cities that have long histories like London or Paris. Most major cities in the world today don't have much of a history. There are a few here and there, but not that many really. 400 years is pretty historic for most cities outside of Europe. There are a few in Asia. The DF is built on the old Aztec capital. The rest faded from prominence long ago, like Timbuktu, Samarkand, and Xi'an.
You really should travel more and know more about the world. Even outside Europe, there are tons of very ancient cities that are still vibrant today.
What about Nanjing, China, dating back to 495 BC, population 4.5M? It served as a capital city in as early as 221 AD.
Hangzhou, China, 220 BC, population 3.5M, another incredibley beautiful and vibrant city and ancient captal cities.
Both cities are still capitals of China's most wealthy provinces, and they didn't exactly "fade away", with a GDP per capita (PPP) over $20,000.
Kyoto, Japan, established in the 6th century, population 1.5 million. For Christ's sake, even Seoul became the capital city in as early as the 14th century.
400 years is "pretty historic" for most cities? You will make a lot of people laugh today. Typical North America mindset thinking 18th century is very very old.
You really think the world is simply about North America and west Europe, don't you?
You really should travel more and know more about the world. Even outside Europe, there are tons of very ancient cities that are still vibrant today.
What about Nanjing, China, dating back to 495 BC, population 4.5M? It served as a capital city in as early as 221 AD.
Hangzhou, China, 220 BC, population 3.5M, another incredibley beautiful and vibrant city and ancient captal cities.
Both cities are still capitals of China's most wealthy provinces, and they didn't exactly "fade away", with a GDP per capita (PPP) over $20,000.
Kyoto, Japan, established in the 6th century, population 1.5 million. For Christ's sake, even Seoul became the capital city in as early as the 14th century.
400 years is "pretty historic" for most cities? You will make a lot of people laugh today. Typical North America mindset thinking 18th century is very very old.
You really think the world is simply about North America and west Europe, don't you?
Also, one thing I find is that North Americans tend to overestimate the age of European cities. Of course you have Rome and a bunch of others but the further north you go in Europe, if you start looking at when many "old" cities were founded many did not exist before 1000 AD or around that time, or even quite a bit later in some cases like Helsinki or some others which are barely 50 years older than Quebec City and some of the older cities in Canada and the U.S.
Actually, Botticelli, there aren't very many large cities that have long histories like London or Paris. Most major cities in the world today don't have much of a history. There are a few here and there, but not that many really. 400 years is pretty historic for most cities outside of Europe. There are a few in Asia. The DF is built on the old Aztec capital. The rest faded from prominence long ago, like Timbuktu, Samarkand, and Xi'an.
Regarding Toronto's old architecture being tucked away; once you leave the downtown core it's not very hard to find at all. We don't have the most Victorian architecture in North America (and possiboy the world) for nothing. Even in the downtown core, there are more than a few famous older buildings.
Guessing here, but I would think London, England has more Victorian Architecture than Toronto....
You really should travel more and know more about the world. Even outside Europe, there are tons of very ancient cities that are still vibrant today.
What about Nanjing, China, dating back to 495 BC, population 4.5M? It served as a capital city in as early as 221 AD.
Hangzhou, China, 220 BC, population 3.5M, another incredibley beautiful and vibrant city and ancient captal cities.
Both cities are still capitals of China's most wealthy provinces, and they didn't exactly "fade away", with a GDP per capita (PPP) over $20,000.
Kyoto, Japan, established in the 6th century, population 1.5 million. For Christ's sake, even Seoul became the capital city in as early as the 14th century.
400 years is "pretty historic" for most cities? You will make a lot of people laugh today. Typical North America mindset thinking 18th century is very very old.
You really think the world is simply about North America and west Europe, don't you?
No, I don't think the world is only about North America and Western Europe. I am a student of History and Literature who has traveled quite extensively. But from your initial post, you seemed to suggest that large cities older than 400 years were the rule, rather than the exception. Yes, there are some old large cities - I've actually been to Kyoto. It is very beautiful. But these large, ancient cities are dwarfed by the number of newer large metropolises around the world. Furthermore, the actual site of certain cities may be very old, but how many of these cities have preserved many of their ancient buildings or have any much continuity between 2000 years ago and now? Because if you want to play that game, Toronto and the surrounding area is an ancient settlement used by First Nations people long before any white man stepped foot on the shores of Lake Ontario. But is Toronto old by virtue of the fact that its site has been in use for many hundreds of years? No. Because there is little continuity, just as there is between Medieval Baghdad and present-day Baghdad; ancient Alleppo and modern-day Alleppo. We're really focusing on the built environment, and even London and Paris (both 2000+ years old) retain relatively few of their Medieval structures, never mind those from the Roman Period.
To say my perspective is North American and Euro-centric is disingenuous. In this thread we are talking about Toronto, so it makes sense to keep it in a North American context. 400 years is quite old in North America. I personally don't give a rat's a55 how long ago Romulus and his brother suckled from a wolves' teat, because different regions of the world are going to have different standards for this kind of thing. Yes, Toronto is new compared to London, Rome, Paris, Athens, Kabul, Istanbul, Baghdad, Alleppo. etc. But when we talk of Toronto's age, I think it's pretty obvious to most people that we're speaking of it in a North American context. Especially considering that in the many pages of this thread there were no real comparisons to cities outside of North America. So to drop in and say "400 years is nothing in the life of a city" doesn't make much sense in this thread. Toronto is a new city just like most North American cities are new. Some are older and with more history, but most of the large NA cities are fairly new. But it also has relatively old roots for a North American city, which is evident in its many Georgian, Victorian, and Edwardian structures.
Finally, Botticelli, you don't know enough about me to make assumptions about where I've traveled and what I know and don't know.
Natnasci: As for London having the most Victorian architecture in the world, yes, I assumed people wouldn't count London as one of Toronto's competitors in this department.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical North America mindset thinking 18th century is very very old. 
