I’m so bored that I thought I’d knock out a piece on why Vancouver is “mind-numbingly boring.”
At least that’s the description a correspondent from The Economist, writing under the pseudonym Gulliver, used in a May 21 post about our fair city.
You probably heard about this.
It was all over the news.
Not much of a scientific study, mind you.
These headline grabbers, click bait traps, whatever you want to call them, never are.
The post was simply a rant, or musings, of a writer who began with this premise: That the more a city strives to become a nicer place in which to live — and succeeds — the less interesting it becomes.
And, the writer added, where is the fun in nice?
Apparently, the fun is in grime, crime and danger — like Manhattan 20 years ago, “where even riding the subway felt like an exhilarating experience, in which one knew better than to catch the wrong eye.”
To which Mayor Gregor Robertson quipped when a few of us scrummed him earlier this week: “If you’re into guns and muggings and freeways, then this city might not be your cup of tea. This is an exciting city. We’re one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world, we’ve got breathtaking nature surrounding us. Outdoor, spirited lifestyle is what we’re about, here.”
Apparently, Vancouver wasn't the only city in the author's crosshairs, as you will read in this offending paragraph:
“In a previous life, Gulliver was tasked with devising a way to measure the ‘livability’ of various cities. The ensuing report was aimed at firms who sent expatriate managers to far-flung places, to determine whether they needed to pay a hardship allowance. The trouble was, measuring things such as crime levels, transport efficiency and housing stock, meant that the most anodyne cities inevitably rose to the top. Vienna, Vancouver and Geneva always seemed to do well. Pleasant cities, yes, but mind-numbingly boring. What right-minded person would rank Vienna a better city than Rio, or Vancouver preferable to Paris?”
Kind of harsh, right.
And, yes, the author did use one of those five dollar words.
Anodyne?
I Googled it.
Definition: Not likely to provoke dissent or offence; inoffensive, often deliberately so.
So we’ve got that going for us.
We’ve also got good memories.
Here’s what Globe and Mail colleague Sunny Dhillon wrote Aug. 30, 2011: “It must be an example of that dry British wit. How else to explain The Economist dropping Vancouver from top spot in its livability rankings because of an accident that shut down a highway for 22 hours in April, especially when that stretch of road is 90-odd kilometres away and across the water on Vancouver Island?”
That was the Malahat highway.
Egad!
Interesting that the author of the latest smear against Vancouver states his or her hometown is London, where my ma happened to be born. And like my ma, many Brits did make their way across the pond to Vancouver.
So is the author saying Vancouver, a town full of ex-pats, is mind-numbingly boring?
My ma certainly isn’t.
So maybe the author simply needs some face time in the mirror.
As former Courier colleague and sociological poet David Carrigg used to say, “You are what you hate, mate.”
@Howellings
