Skip to main content

well heeled


i've tried to explain the various differences between montreal and toronto to many people over the years, but i've never really found an appropriate metaphor, until today. the exultation of montreal's extraordinary joie de vivre ignores the difficulty many people have in finding decent work at a living wage. the dismissal of toronto as being conservative likewise dismisses the absolutely shocking variety of experiences available.

but, fresh off a weekend in montreal, i suddenly thought of a very appropriate way to judge the differences between cities. and it's one you would have thought would have occurred to me earlier: shoes.


so what do the shoes have to tell us?

well, in very literal terms, that montreal weather is harsher than toronto's, so shoes don't last as long. as aa result, montreal shoes tend to look like they've had better days, whereas toronto shoes often look as if they're just seeing the outside of the box for the first time.

shoes in toronto tend to show very little wear. in fact, worn shoes are a fashion statement (or a statement of dire economic straits) in themselves. they also tend to be pricier and from a handful of brands that enjoy an irritating ubiquity (yes, i can spot them).


this points to an economic disparity, because people in montreal tend to have less money, a lot less, than their counterparts in toronto, meaning the shoes are both cheaper and forced to last longer.

there tend to be fewer running shoes in montreal, including those odoious puma "sport lifestyle" shoes, which are everywhere in toronto. why? because montrealers are a lot more fashion conscious and have worked out that, unless you're in a gym, running shoes are a bad end point to any outfit. montrealers would rather buy a good looking pair and wear them wherever they go than stroll in shoes which are built for activity. (which, in turn, says something about the practicality of torontonians.)

the most interesting thing, for me at least, is that shoes in montreal, being more worn, show that they are lived in. they aren't simply slipped on before hopping in the car and then slipped off at the end of the day, having never touched any outdoor surface. shoes carry people in that city from one part of their life to another- often involving being outdoors, walking around the city, or taking the rather admirable public transit system. torontonians are a more predictable, sedentary lot, who move from indoor space to indoor space and tend to treat mass transit like a biohazard zone. shoes are in better condition because they simply never come out to play.

Comments

If you want a shorter form of that metaphor, you could say that Torontoan use their city, while Montrealers wear it.
pelao said…
great insights! i spent brief time in each city, both of them great, montreal had a more european oldschool feel to it, whereas toronto was definitely "metropolitan", yet not "abusive"....is the metaphor extensive to handwear as well?

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …