[URBAN NOTE] Two links on urban-suburban ethnic divides in Toronto

[rfmcdonald]

First, from the Toronto Standard, is Navneet Alang's "Why White Scenesters Hate the 'Burbs'".

The suburbs, we are now relatively sure, are not only environmentally unsustainable mistakes of the last century, they’re just generally bad for us. Yet at the same time, there’s a large gap in discussions about Toronto’s suburbs. Surprisingly to some, many of the people living in places like Peel or Scarborough do so voluntarily—almost as if they like it or something.

Moreover, a very significant chunk of those suburbanites aren’t white and weren’t born in Canada, a fact that raises some rather sticky questions. To wit, as downtown scenesters badmouth the suburbs over bowls of Pho, are they ignoring the complexities of multiculturalism—or worse, dismissing them? I’d argue the answer to that question is “yes”, for two key reasons: first is the construction of the suburbs as ‘inauthentic’; and second is a whitewashed understanding of what that means for many immigrants. When you look at it, so much of the disdain for the suburbs is actually less about sound planning and is an evaluation of a particular lifestyle: the car-centric, big-box mentality that has become associated with mainstream culture. It’s not simply that the suburbs represent a less sound way to organize living space; they are a symptom of dumbed-down, consumerist 21st century society. The valourization of the city, then, is actually a flight from the inauthentic to the real, a rejection of the artificiality of Loblaws and Milestones in favour of a magical land of farmer’s markets, caf culture and bars that consider vodka a sin.

Sure, there are downsides to the city like noise, congestion or leaky Victorian apartments, but they are all worthy sacrifices for authentic living. But here’s the thing: longing for a return to the authentic can only occur in its absence. It’s a profoundly privileged, Western idea to want to forsake sterility for the 'real and gritty.’ But the funny thing about being a immigrant is that it’s quite possible you have had more ‘authentic’ experiences than you know what to do with. Affluent white westerners might find the thrall of Mumbai or the crowds of Hong Kong or the heat and dust or Iraq thrilling and somehow true; they might also like the more moderate downtown Toronto version of that bustle for the same reasons. But once you leave those places, the appeal of the North American suburb is precisely what we are supposed to hate: you have your own space in a clean, uniform neighbourhood and you drive your own car to an air conditioned office. What white hipsters call ‘sterility’ and ‘emptiness’ is the appeal of the suburbs for many immigrants, in large part because they are not clamouring for a return to the authentic; it’s that they realized that the authentic, organic experience so sought after by ‘the downtown elite’ is a kind of social myth that presents certain ideals as ‘universal.’ People get really uptight when you say something like this because they take it to mean “immigrants are satisfied with the not-as-good; they just don’t know any better.” But it’s something quite different: it’s that many immigrants choose to do something as wild and crazy as define what’s 'good’ by their own desires and interests.

Second, at The Ethnic Aisle, is Denise Balkisoon's "Downtown vs. Suburbs: Yes, It’s An Ethnic Thing".

The only “visible minority” (ugh, hate that term) group counted by the Canadian census which has more members in downtown Toronto than in the ‘burbs are the Japanese. Toronto Centre is their most populous GTA riding—it’s 19 on the list, after 18 areas in British Columbia and Alberta.

The Suburbs vs. Downtown conversation is also about income, since it’s long been known that the outer 416 has a higher concentration of poverty than downtown. In this city at this time, class always has an ethnic angle.

After last fall’s municipal election, when downtowners stung by Rob Ford’s ascendance were circling their wagons, they seemed to take comfort by trashing the stereotypical suburbanite: a gas-guzzling art-hater laughing it up in a big backyard. Ford notwithstanding, that’s not necessarily who an outer 416 suburbanite is. But it’s definitely confusing that the people with the most to lose from service-cutting governments like that led by Rob Ford—poor people of colour—seem to have voted for him.

“The Fords misled people to thinking there was gravy,” says Avvy Go, a member of Colour of Poverty, a four-year-old campaign to educated Ontarians about the racialization of poverty in the province. Last fall, Colour of Poverty gave each mayoral candidate a grade on their “race report card,” noting the candidates’ history and their stances on transit, housing and employment equity. Rob Ford got an F.

“Yes, people in the suburbs voted for a government that would cut services that they need,” says Go, who recommends that we all read The Trouble With Billionaires. “Some politicians are very skilled in dumbing down, picking an overly simplistic portrayal of the problem.” When $60 equals a week of groceries for your family, cutting the vehicle registration tax seems like a good idea. Ford is to blame, and voters are to blame, but also to blame are the mayor’s losing opponents, who obviously did not do a very good job explaining their own platforms, or picking his apart. And really, there are downtowners that drive and suburbanites that always loathed Ford. More than anything, the Harris Tories divide-and-conquer amalgamation plan is still succeeding, over a decade later.