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?

the world at war?

in my semi-smug but genuinely curious way, i posted a question on my facebook page earlier: how much of the world has to be at war before it counts as world war iii?



the first response i got raised the very legitimate point that this is the sort of question that gets answered by historians, once the haze of the present has faded. the other important factor is that people don't just declare war on each other the way that they used to. major powers entered both the of the world wars with the blessings of their own parliaments, whereas conflicts since world war ii have happened in coded language, sometimes circumventing the political process in the interests of expediency. president reagan never declared war on the nicaraguan government in the eighties, for example, but the united states was clearly in a state of armed conflict, even if most of the arms were being carried by their proxies, the contras.

whether or not we are living in a world at war is a tricky question. despite what…

jihadvertising?

i keep seeing this ad for tictac candies:



am i the only one who finds the suicide bomber clown at the end a little unnerving? all the nice natural things like the bunny and the [extinct] woolly mammoth and the fruit get devoured by a trying-to-appear-nonthreatening-but-obviously-psychotic clown who then blows himself up. congratulations, tictac, i think this ad has landed you on about a dozen watch lists.

oh and by the way, showing me that your product will somehow cause my stomach to explode in a rainbow of wtf makes me believe that doing consuming tictacs would be a worse dietary decision than the time i ate two raw eggs and a half a bottle of hot sauce on a dare.

diet diary, part 2

so the battle with the bulge continues. i'm actually becoming used to the pace, although for some reason my stomach still seems to think it needs far more food than it actually does.

week days, when eating is more of a functional than a festive activity, are fairly easy to cope with. weekends are a challenge, especially living in a city that has as many good restaurants as toronto. i'm not restricting myself to the home, but i am finding that i have to pay careul attention when i go out. last night, i overindulged on injera atthe ethiopian house. injera (the soft, moist, spongy bread that serves as food and cutlery in ethiopian cuisine) makes food fun by forcing you to eat with your fingers. it's hard to exercise restraint in such conditions.

when i first moved to toronto, i was expecting to find it much as i remembered it from years ago- with a dearth of good eating places. apparently, things have changed. there are great places to eat just about every kind of food you&…