This writing appeared in the Toronto Star as an opinion contribution
1/2020
Time for Toronto to decide whether it wants to keep its artists
In speaking about the modern ways of urban development and gentrification, the esteemed writer Fran Lebowitz once said “we do not like cities because they are noisy, crowded and dirty. We like them because they are interesting.”
I would wager a small sum that anyone of a certain age who’s lived in the city of Toronto for a good amount of time would agree with Lebowitz’s sentiment. And if we take her statement to be true, then this year’s Art Stats report from the Toronto Arts Foundation should provide a warning that the City of Toronto could be sliding towards a less interesting existence.
According to the report, 80 per cent of Toronto’s artists believe they cannot make a living wage and 73 per cent have thought about leaving the city. In other words, if artists in Toronto were creatures from the animal kingdom, they might be in danger of trending towards the endangered species list.
The economic insecurity that Toronto’s artists feel is not a unique phenomenon, of course. Their worries are similar to the concerns of many lower, working, and middle-class Torontonians. The economic separation that has emerged in Toronto (and many western cities) has resulted in a city that increasingly caters to only the wealthiest segment of the population.
It is this reality that has led to the familiar rhythm of city development: rents get raised, long-residing businesses and residents are forced out, luxury condos get built, and new residents move in. Toronto’s artists are highly attuned to this pattern as they are the ones who frequently migrate to flee the next round of development.
If current trends continue, it seems hard to argue that most of the viable options for artists in Toronto will eventually shrink until few, if any, remain. There is a finite number of buildings and neighborhoods, and the practice of developing the city to maximize profit will not cease until it has touched all of them.
This is the crux of the issue. Mayor John Tory and other leaders need to ask themselves what kind of city they would like to leave for their children and grandchildren. They need to ask themselves whether their city should be developed under values that guide the financial and real estate industries, or the values that underlie the social capital we share as human beings.
One set of values seeks to maximize the most amount of capital and profit out of every possible thing. The other set of values seeks to create a city that nurtures and sustains the social bonds among its people.
The first set of values is now winning by a landslide. The second set of values is given elegant lip service by city leaders, but never used for decisive action.
Artists should not be given a special place in the city simply because they are artists. But they should be included as part of an overall plan that looks to keep portions of the city as “city-like” as possible. “City-like” means neighborhoods that have economically diverse dwellings, limitations on building heights, well-designed public spaces, and rent-controlled commercial spaces for businesses and artists.