I was reading an article in the Globe about Don Mills, an area of Toronto that was developed in the 1960s for the newly upwardly mobile. It talked about how sterile and contrived the place seems; it talked about the high-achievers who had lived there and then moved away without realizing how their lives had been shaped by the sterility of Don Mills. The article talked about a woman who, having just moved to Don Mills, invited 22 women to her house; only 8 showed up; it also talked about how privacy was a paramount consideration at Don Mills.
That got me thinking about the idea of privacy; about little groups of people hiding in their little houses, longing for the company of others though terrified of the unknown; passing their lives -- bearing their lives -- with the help of various narcotics and opiates -- physical or psychological. I thought of our blindness to the complete artificiality -- in the bad sense -- of the environment we have created; and we don't even realize that life need not be lived this way.
5 comments:
Love your post !
Actually, parts of Don Mills have aged quite nicely. Many of the streets are a perfect snap in time to the bungalows of the late 50's and early 60's which is a lot less sterile than the condos going up downtown.
As for the suburban sensibility of Don Mills, I can certainly say that since 1982, it's become quite diverse with Persians and Tamil communities quite strong.
As Toronto grows, the suburban sensibility goes further and further out...In fact, I don't think that we can consider anything suburban until we hit steeles to the north, Islington to the West and Warden to the East.
Also, there are plenty of people who don't care to be a part of the bustling, competitiveness of urban life. Plenty live right in the middle of it and don't participate.
Some people find maintaining relationships far too fatiguing...which is why the internet is such a success. People can maintain relationships with others without the effort of real life maintenance.
I think, nowadays, the phenomenon of isolation of people inside their dwellings is somewhat self perpetuating. I have friends that are veritable shut-ins because they have not had the opportunity to cultivate the social skills necessary to interact with people face to face. So what happens? They bravely venture out of their safe confines only to be disappointed or embarrassed when an ideal social situation presents itself. Another interesting byproduct I have experienced is that people’s personas online are so vastly different from their face to face persona that oftentimes when you meet them it is almost as if you are not meeting the same person. I can think of one recent relationship that I cultivated on the ‘net that just couldn’t work in the real world for this very reason.
I spent grade school, junior high, high school and then college from the center of Don Mills. It was sterile. I was right next to Scarberia, My whole life happened down town. Theater, museums, librarys, culture was not to be had on Underhill Dr. It was a safe place to retreat but nobody who left home bought into it. We all moved.
I am sure that it is better now. The patina of age and the maturing of trees make a great deal of difference.
A lot of research on the experience and process of suburbanization points to residents desire to flee what were seen as overly large, terrifying, and ultimately unknowable industrial cities and recreate a series of idyllic or pastoral community in the outlying regions surrounding these towns. You've pinpointed the sad fact that these communities breed isolation and personal and social sterility instead of the security and social cohesion that was desired. Here in California the suburbs are stacked on the hills like jumbled building blocks. As you drive from one strip mall centered community to another it becomes very difficult to find any kind of human element to these areas, all attempts at genuine community having been left behind long ago.
Post a Comment