nfitz
Superstar
I wonder what the 1966 and 1976 censuses were?
|
|
|
- Thread starter M II A II R II K
- Start date
adma
Superstar
Not sure about 1966, but 1971 marked Toronto's apartment-tower/commie-block highwater mark--and it plummeted to under 600k by 1981 thanks to gentrification, the baby bust and the scaleback in apartment construction...
Memph
Active Member
I think most (a very large majority) of Tokyo's land mass is <5 storeys. A majority is 2-3 storey, either homes or small apartments, it's hard to tell. Near transit stations, the core areas and along major boulevards, you might be seeing a mix of midrises and smaller highrises like in the picture, but even in those areas you have 2-4 storey buildings.Yea, but much of Tokyo looks like this.
Which, despite the absence of many high-rises, is still much denser than would be considered acceptable in most of Toronto.
Toronto talks a good game on density but as long as intensification is limited to brownfield sites, which ultimately occupy a pretty small part of the city, there's not all that much room to grow.
diminutive
Active Member
Yea, pretty much. Though even their 2-3 storey houses are much denser then ours due to narrow road widths and building to the property line. Take this random street in suburban Tokyo. It's about a 10min walk from a Japan Rail station. It's still denser than almost any part of Toronto baring maybe some parts of downtown. Definitely denser than downtown's 'shoulders.'
Memph
Active Member
Keep in mind that between 1966 and 1971 censuses, Toronto annexed Forest Hill and Swansea.
Old Toronto
1941: 667,457
1951: 674,138
1956: 664,002
1961: 672,407
1966: 664,584
1971: 680,096 (this excludes Forest Hill and Swansea)
1976 would take longer to tally up since the census documents I have didn't provide the total population for Old Toronto (only individual census tracts and the metro total).
Here's how various neighbourhoods changed (%) in population from 1956 to 2011 in the core (Old Toronto, East York and York).
Comparison to other Ontario cities:
http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/04/ontario-urban-cores-1956-2011.html
I was a bit surprised at how much population Palmerston-Little Italy-Harbord Village lost. I guess it experienced more significant gentrification than adjacent neighbourhoods?
Last edited:
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Impressive work.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I love the +3905.2 percent. So I take it that neighbourhood went from 5 people to 19,526 or something like that?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
In the 1950's, my parents rented out a room to help pay for their mortgage. The old city of Toronto used to have houses that had second floor kitchens. This meant maybe a room and kitchen were rented out to a single or double occupant. There was only one shared bathroom, on the second floor. That was the common setup in those days.
Over time, most houses were converted to single-family houses. Hence, the population decrease.
Over time, most houses were converted to single-family houses. Hence, the population decrease.
Memph
Active Member
480 to 19,225... although I just realized the 1956/1961 boundaries for the Thorncliffe census tract were different and included a bit of Leaside around Leacrest Rd. Excluding that, the 1956 population would probably have been around 5 as you said... which would actually translate to a 100,000%+ increase.
@W.K. Lis: The 2nd floor bathroom was for the 2nd floor unit(s) or was it also for the main floor unit? So there are relatively few of those now? How about basement apartments? I would have thought with the relatively small household sizes today, that many of these houses would have remained multi-family, just with smaller households. Anyways, Little Italy still gained about 2-3% in population from 1951 to 1956.
I'm guessing the losses started in the 60s, then got steeper in the 70s.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Yes, and also the Jewish population really dropped off there during the 1950s and 1960s.
Last edited:
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Thorncliffe Park also has many immigrants with many children and are from countries with high birth rates.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
480 to 19,225... although I just realized the 1956/1961 boundaries for the Thorncliffe census tract were different and included a bit of Leaside around Leacrest Rd. Excluding that, the 1956 population would probably have been around 5 as you said... which would actually translate to a 100,000%+ increase.
@W.K. Lis: The 2nd floor bathroom was for the 2nd floor unit(s) or was it also for the main floor unit? So there are relatively few of those now? How about basement apartments? I would have thought with the relatively small household sizes today, that many of these houses would have remained multi-family, just with smaller households. Anyways, Little Italy still gained about 2-3% in population from 1951 to 1956.
I'm guessing the losses started in the 60s, then got steeper in the 70s.
The houses originally had only one bathroom for the entire house, on the second floor. There was no such thing as a powder room. However, there was a kitchen on the main floor and on the second second floor. The basement was unfinished, usually with a coal room or later converted to an oil tank. No such thing as instant hot water, there was a water heater tank (usually electricity). My father did build a toilet room in our basement, but we used the laundry tub as a wash basin. BTW. Most laundries were in the basement with a double laundry tubs, with wringer washers (automatics came later).
Edward
Senior Member
Great map showing the changes.
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Interesting stats.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Interesting work on the map. It really highlights how high-rise and mid-rise development is the only force counteracting the natural depopulation of the core due to the rising concentration of wealth. The C1 / C2 districts with -43.2 and -25.2 probably represent the areas with the least new high and mid development.