[Eug]

I live and work in downtown Toronto (live in Riverdale, as per my nom de plume; work in the core). For the past twelve years, I've seen my community get nicer and nicer, due to a combination of renovations done on older houses, infill houses being built, better shops and restaurants opening on our major drags, and a number of derelict or near derelict industrial buildings being repurposed for housing. A large portion of that revitalization has been the destruction of Don Mount Court, with both new subsidized housing AND private housing stock AND a new park (still being finished) being built. The much, much bigger project of West Don Lands will revitalize a derelict stretch of land (not gentrification per se, as there was very little housing stock). These are absolute, no-holds-barred positives.

Exactly. One needs only to ask those who live in a Toronto neighbourhood undergoing such gentrification.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Addendum: Where did our sellers go?

About the 'flushing': The people who sold us our house,which was in decrepit shape and needed a gut reno, were a retiring Chinese couple. They took our cash and bought a smaller bungalow in Agincourt (ours is a 3-story, narrow Victorian) which was much better for them (the husband was quite frail and had trouble with the stairs). They got a nice house much better suited to their new needs and close to family and friends (they said.) However, they did leave the neighbourhood, so if that's your only criteria, they were 'flushed.'

We re-did their uninsulated, 1896ish old house, greening it by insulating, new wiring/plumbing/energy-efficient appliances, etc., etc., etc.

How is this a problem?

 

[ahm]

LAz did mention that she or he lives in Chicago.

LAz - you kinda started this thread as an inquisition into gentrification here, asking about what neighbourhoods were experiencing gentrification. As someone who doesn't live in Toronto, maybe you could refrain from setting the terms of this discussion so stridently?

For me, gentrification implies that there are groups of people who don't have access to power and money who must move from a neighbourhood because landowners buy up large properties, mostly rentals, and increase rents. Development, or redevelopment, is a more inclusive process that has the City and various government agencies working with home owners, developers, business owners, landlords, and tenants to try and guide the process so that there is minimal conflict and people don't end up complaining so much that they were simply priced out of a neighbourhood.

 

[urbandreamer]

Gentrification in Toronto means ppl who can afford to renovate older rundown dwellings (rentals, apartments, co-ops, condos, single family dwellings) including retail stores and turn them into clean, attractive, fixed up dwellings/businesses. In Toronto, that is so far being done by the established classes--mostly white/Jewish ppl--driving out the former mostly immigrant groups that dominated the neighbourhood. For example, Beaconsfield Village--c.1970-2005?--was dominated by the Portuguese, while the "drake effect" led to increased yuppies--aka, non-portuguese ppl--buying and renovating "dumps."

I think the current wave is hitting Bloor/Junction/Wallace/Lansdowne area, and even St Clair/Christie area.

Next decade watch out: Eglinton West between Marlee and Dufferin/Keele, Pape north of the Danforth, Islington, etc.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

In processes of gentrification, the old class is displaced. Period. Their neighborhood is torn up and thrown out.

What is your alternative? Stasis? We should somehow pick an arbitrary date and say that everyone who lived in a given area pre-19xx is authentic and that they should live in that area permanently?

Let me illustrate how my neighbourhood has "gentrified" several times. Pre-WW1 and up to WW2 my nieghbourhood Earlscourt (or Corso Italia) was originally a very poor neighbourhood where predominantly Anglo-Saxon working class (evidenced by its former name of "Little Picadilly") purchased lots and built their own houses. You can see the legacy of this in the neighbourhood in the number of peculiar houses that still exist. There was some speculative building, and some professionally buillt housing as well, but the character of the nabe was set by the self-builders. We can call this the first wave of construction; establishing the neighbourhood.

Post-WW2 the general increase in affluence and first wave of Italian immigrants really began the first phase of gentrification. The Italians began to buy property and improve the neighbourhood through a change in both built structure and through a revived commercial strip. Typically, the older working class inhabitants sold up and moved to first generation suburbs, or stayed in the nabe but their children moved elsewhere when they looked to buy property. Some (including my family) never really left, but that's a small minority.

By the 80's we began to see a third phase of gentrification. This time, it was the Portuguese buying into the neighbourhood and fixing up what remained un-gentrified, or by continuing the process started with the first phase of gentirfication. As well, and into the 90's, there was (and remains) an amount of new construction by people buying into the neighbourhood and building new houses in place of older housing stock. Typically (though I have only anecdotal evidence) the children of the first wave of Italians left for Woodbridge or other second and third generation suburbs.

Now we are begining to see the fourth round of gentrification as the Portuguese move outwards and younger (typically Canadian-born) people move in and make further improvements. Certainly the stores along St. Clair are beginning to reflect their presence. Undoubtedly some of the older people have been "forced" out due to rising assessments, or what have you, but they've done alright in the sense that they've sold the house they bought for $15,000 40 years ago for a significant profit. Indeed, they may well be moving closer to where their families and communities have gone.

Laz, in this situation, how would you determine who has been displaced? Is it the British working class, the Italian working class, the Portuguese? In a constantly changing city, change does not always equal displacement, and nor can any one group claim "ownership" of a neighbourhood indefinitely.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Wholescale displacement of an entire socioeconomic class is probably NOT a desirable outcome - but on the other hand, changes in the socioeconomic makeup is probably not something the state can effectively prevent in its' entirety. What the state CAN do is to ensure a somewhat balanced mix - and that means having different housing forms (detached, low rise, high rise) and types (private, co-op, social, seniors, etc).

AoD

 

[adma]

Next decade watch out: Eglinton West between Marlee and Dufferin/Keele, Pape north of the Danforth, Islington, etc.

Dunno about Islington. I suspect more money would place their bets on Mimico/New Toronto/Long Branch, still...

When might Mount Dennis ever gentrify?

 

[christiesplits]

Dunno about Islington. I suspect more money would place their bets on Mimico/New Toronto/Long Branch, still...

When might Mount Dennis ever gentrify?

East Danforth from Jones to Woodbine is the place to watch. As are the old East York retail strips along Pape, Donlands and Coxwell. The closing of Greek and Italian social clubs along these strips is emblematic of the shifting demographics, particularly along Danforth Village. Gen X'ers and their tots are taking over the bungalows and small semis of their elders, and with them will come the inevitable fair trade coffee shop and dog salon.

In fact, I think its safe to say that any high density pocket close to the centre of the city, and particularly the subway lines, is ripe for gentrification within the next decade. The lower-middle classes are being squeezed out from the city core, and gentrifiers simply cannot sustain their enviro-conscious, feng shui-driven wine-bar hopping lifestyle in Woodbridge.

 

[Towered]

Dunno about Islington. I suspect more money would place their bets on Mimico/New Toronto/Long Branch, still...

I was wondering about that too. Islington is mostly residential, with a few ugly plazas here and there. It doesn't have the built form necessary for gentrification. Believe me, I wish it did! The whole street should be lined with mid-rises and retail.

 

[adma]

I suppose the main hypothetical alibi for Islington is that it's close to the subway line. But otherwise, the environs are just too much of a cacaphonous mix of too-genteel, too-scummy, and too-dystopian. (And I believe the reference was less to Islington Avenue per se, than to Islington Village, out around Dundas + Burnhamthorpe--but even that falls short, somehow. Too BIA-ish, I suppose.)

 

[mr airbus]

its amazing the Mimico, Long Branch area has never really taken off. Home prices have risen, some decent reno action but the retail is still pretty weak despite its access to the core

 

[LAz]

tenants to try and guide the process so that there is minimal conflict and people don't end up complaining so much that they were simply priced out of a neighbourhood.

They do not guide them at all. They just flush them out. In Chicago there has been much work on tearing up former public housing and replacing it with mixed income communities. Oh and guess what, the former residents get allocated oh say between 25 and 50 percent of the new low income in the mixed thing. And then that slowly is reduced by the time of finishing to about 5 percent. Nobody gives a damn what happens to the former residents. Nobody. The local government only cares to help the rich class, the developers.

Cities change. That is part of what makes them exiting.

Change has been for the most part the removel/obliteration of manufacturing from both country and city. This is the change that has damned cities and communities.

For the past twelve years, I've seen my community get nicer and nicer

Sure. You're one of the gentrifiers. How can it possibly be wrong for you? You were not one who was not able to afford the rent and had to leave.

Literally would imply that some capitalistic Monopoly Man doppelganger is actually taking a hose to poor people to flush them out.

Arsons, intimidation and such things are very common in this. So that's why I said literally.

gentrification is a 100% voluntary economic process.

Involuntary movement is not voluntary. People move because they can not afford it, not because they really want to move.

what difference does it make if jobs are catered to locals? Almost no one in Toronto, regardless of income, works within their neighborhood. Most of us are lucky if we can work within 3-5km of our homes. Hardly anybody who works at King/Bay lives at King/Bay, by your logic that makes the financial district bad. More over, the construction and retail jobs typically associated with gentrification rarely fall under the social class of "ruthless capitalistic exploiter." Most people who benefit from gentrification are totally ordinary middle class people, from landlords who earn a return on their investment to construction workers who receive increased contracts. Even the newer "gentrified" residents are rarely even "rich."

Oh I am very well aware of consumption explanations of gentrification. But it is big ignorance to avoid the production explanations.

The only way you can possibly come up with a gem to the effect that nobody of importance thinks gentrification is a net positive is with your head stuck so far up the rear end of some kind of lefty-faculty (urban equality?). If you are going to come here and start telling people about how well reviewed scholars like Lance Freeman, not to mention virtually the entire political, business and social establishments, are "idiots" because they disagree with your freshman approach to urban development don't except anybody to take you seriously.

Oh yeah? Looks like we have a wise guy here. We know what we do to them - beat them down into the ground by showing how wrong they are. Prepare to be shamed.
1) Your point here assumes that scholars are never opposed to gentrification. Have you ever looked into the actual literature of gentrification? You clearly have not. Most of the known scholars in this field are against gentrification. They are mainly geographers and sociologists.
2) I know Freeman very well. He wrote that book there goes the hood - and trust me, I do plan on buying it sooner or later. I am currently studying gentrification extensively, and after my current book I plan to read one by a well acclaimed Neil Smith. Smith tore Freeman and extra a$$#0|3 in his damning review of the there goes the hood book. Smith is one of the biggest experts on gentrification and is a big opponent of it. Similarly there are many scholars who are. Look into David Harvey, he might enlighten you a bit. There are so many people man. I believe that Hackworth down at UofT is into this, and that Lay at UBC is into the criticism of it too. You see, if you bothered to just look at the literature you would see that there is so much that criticizes gentrification and various aspects of it.
Here's a good start.
http://www.amazon.com/Gentrificatio...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244508492&sr=8-1
Freshman approach? Hah, what a fool to throw such accusations when you do not even know the literature. Freshman yourself my boy. "facepalm"

About the 'flushing': The people who sold us our house,

Hold it. Stop right there. Most people who are getting displaced are renters, not owners.

buying and renovating "dumps."

It's not always dumps. The media and developers sometimes portray certain places as dumps on purpose, in order to get support for their project.

Pape north of the Danforth

How far north? From what I know, there are quite a few highrise apartments, some 15 minutes walking north. It's hard to get into there. But, I have seen some condos start popping up north of pape.

What is your alternative? Stasis? We should somehow pick an arbitrary date and say that everyone who lived in a given area pre-19xx is authentic and that they should live in that area permanently?

Excellent question. This is where the whole problem lies... in manufacturing leaving the city in this era of neoliberal globalization. And hey, top experts in the field share this opinion, it is not me shitting out rants.
An alternative idea is this - preventing neighborhoods from deteriorating by imposing rent control, so that former renters do not get flushed out. Furthermore, it really depends where one is. For example, in Chicago, there has been so much segregation... that is not helpful, as it often creates ghettos.

Laz, in this situation, how would you determine who has been displaced? Is it the British working class, the Italian working class, the Portuguese? In a constantly changing city, change does not always equal displacement, and nor can any one group claim "ownership" of a neighbourhood indefinitely.

Gentrification usually deals with the displacement of the poor, not the displacement of the middle class. The questions we need to ask is why has a neighborhood been allowed to fall into the decay in order to allow gentrification to start later on.
Careful with your wording there, because phases of gentrification are actual terms. For example, phase 1 is called pioneer gentrification, where people move in and work to develop a place on their own. Later phases are more sophisticated. I recommend reading up on Clay's stuff from 1979. He was the first to talk about phases, and he identified four. Oh yeah baby I know my literature, unlike that other guy to whom I replied earlier.

Wholescale displacement of an entire socioeconomic class is probably NOT a desirable outcome

Sure it is. Developers see no sin in that. Profit accumulation is all that matters.

My personal favourite cartoon on the matter is this one...

Come on, we need some humor/satire to be able to regurgitate this down.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Look, dude, you obviously came on a Canadian urban discussion forum dragging your American urban cultural baggage with you. I'm not trying to downplay the social ills that exist in large Canadian cities, but they are obviously significantly different from those in American cities, seeing as how we are two countries that operate very differently.

I mean, how much would you laugh if I came onto a Chicago forum and started foaming at the mouth about how Richard Daley supports cuts to universal health care and how he should wait until the findings on the Royal Commission chaired by the Honorable Member of Parliament from Oark Park-Cicero?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You're not listening!

They do not guide them at all. They just flush them out. In Chicago there has been much work on tearing up former public housing and replacing it with mixed income communities. Oh and guess what, the former residents get allocated oh say between 25 and 50 percent of the new low income in the mixed thing. And then that slowly is reduced by the time of finishing to about 5 percent. Nobody gives a damn what happens to the former residents. Nobody. The local government only cares to help the rich class, the developers.

>>> LAz, you need to get rid of your blinkered worldview (dare I say Americanocentric?) or stop posting. Because you're NOT LISTENING. Two of the biggest redevelopments in my part of Toronto are owned by TCHC and are resettling all of the original RGI tenants back into new buildings. TCHC is an arm of the city government. Google Regent Park or Don Mount Court and read up. Or shut up.

Change has been for the most part the removel/obliteration of manufacturing from both country and city. This is the change that has damned cities and communities.

>>> Inner cities are not going to build new factories. The land is too valuable and there are too many people who would object to the pollution, power needs, noise, etc. What you need to figure out is what kind of job skills your underclass needs to garner jobs near home, if you don't want them to have to move. That'll be engineering, trades, services. Not manufacturing.

Sure. You're one of the gentrifiers. How can it possibly be wrong for you? You were not one who was not able to afford the rent and had to leave.

Arsons, intimidation and such things are very common in this. So that's why I said literally.

>>> In a Toronto context, this statement is RIDICULOUS.

Involuntary movement is not voluntary. People move because they can not afford it, not because they really want to move.

Oh I am very well aware of consumption explanations of gentrification. But it is big ignorance to avoid the production explanations.

Oh yeah? Looks like we have a wise guy here. We know what we do to them - beat them down into the ground by showing how wrong they are. Prepare to be shamed.
1) Your point here assumes that scholars are never opposed to gentrification. Have you ever looked into the actual literature of gentrification? You clearly have not. Most of the known scholars in this field are against gentrification. They are mainly geographers and sociologists.

>>> They are also mainly people who're looking for an axe to grind, and are opposed to gentrification before they get into the field. Rare is the sociology PHd who is going to side with developers.

2) I know Freeman very well. He wrote that book there goes the hood - and trust me, I do plan on buying it sooner or later. I am currently studying gentrification extensively, and after my current book I plan to read one by a well acclaimed Neil Smith. Smith tore Freeman and extra a$$#0|3 in his damning review of the there goes the hood book. Smith is one of the biggest experts on gentrification and is a big opponent of it. Similarly there are many scholars who are. Look into David Harvey, he might enlighten you a bit. There are so many people man. I believe that Hackworth down at UofT is into this, and that Lay at UBC is into the criticism of it too. You see, if you bothered to just look at the literature you would see that there is so much that criticizes gentrification and various aspects of it.
Here's a good start.
http://www.amazon.com/Gentrificatio...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244508492&sr=8-1
Freshman approach? Hah, what a fool to throw such accusations when you do not even know the literature. Freshman yourself my boy. "facepalm"



Hold it. Stop right there. Most people who are getting displaced are renters, not owners.

>>> THAT is EXACTLY my point -- you're bringing your values to the conversation, and you're EXACTLY WRONG in the context of Toronto.

It's not always dumps. The media and developers sometimes portray certain places as dumps on purpose, in order to get support for their project.

>>> Whatever.

How far north? From what I know, there are quite a few highrise apartments, some 15 minutes walking north. It's hard to get into there. But, I have seen some condos start popping up north of pape.

>>> When were you North of Pape, Google Earth Guy? There's also a decent apartment on Broadview at Hogarth, south of Danforth. Google that, too, and tell me what the 'gentrification' level is, please.

Excellent question. This is where the whole problem lies... in manufacturing leaving the city in this era of neoliberal globalization. And hey, top experts in the field share this opinion, it is not me shitting out rants.

>>> No, it's you shitting out rants. Whether 'top experts' agree with you in some other context has nothing to do with your position on gentrification in Toronto.

An alternative idea is this - preventing neighborhoods from deteriorating by imposing rent control, so that former renters do not get flushed out. Furthermore, it really depends where one is. For example, in Chicago, there has been so much segregation... that is not helpful, as it often creates ghettos.

>>> OH. MY. GOD. Have you NEVER heard of the major issues with rent control Toronto faced in the eighties and nineties. When I first moved here in '91, there was NO PLACE TO RENT. Not for low income. Not for middle income. Not for high income. Why? Rent controls had stopped rental construction, full stop.

Gentrification usually deals with the displacement of the poor, not the displacement of the middle class. The questions we need to ask is why has a neighborhood been allowed to fall into the decay in order to allow gentrification to start later on.
Careful with your wording there, because phases of gentrification are actual terms. For example, phase 1 is called pioneer gentrification, where people move in and work to develop a place on their own. Later phases are more sophisticated. I recommend reading up on Clay's stuff from 1979. He was the first to talk about phases, and he identified four. Oh yeah baby I know my literature, unlike that other guy to whom I replied earlier.

>>> I don't need to be careful with my wording. You need to get your head out of your... literature.

Sure it is. Developers see no sin in that. Profit accumulation is all that matters.

My personal favourite cartoon on the matter is this one...

Come on, we need some humor/satire to be able to regurgitate this down.

Shoo.

 

[LAz]

Look, dude, you obviously came on a Canadian urban discussion forum dragging your American urban cultural baggage with you. I'm not trying to downplay the social ills that exist in large Canadian cities, but they are obviously significantly different from those in American cities, seeing as how we are two countries that operate very differently.

I mean, how much would you laugh if I came onto a Chicago forum and started foaming at the mouth about how Richard Daley supports cuts to universal health care and how he should wait until the findings on the Royal Commission chaired by the Honorable Member of Parliament from Oark Park-Cicero?

I am influenced to some degree by the processes going on here. Chicago is actually the playground, the backyard where so many of these processes occurred. Now look, while America is not Canada nor England, the fact remains that Gentrification emerged in the Big Anglophone cities. Toronto was one of the early ones actually. Now hey, classical gentrification has mutated in certain places, as there is for example... oh... tourism gentrification - french quarter of New Orleans. We are not dealing with these detailed things here. We are dealing with the general process which seems to be going on in most major cities.
This is not american cultural baggage that I bring. These are serious issues that happen not just in the US. It is, I would say, I common process that evolved from the Anglo-phone world, a process in which Toronto was at the forefront.

editaley is a very corrupt person... that's how many things work here in Chicago and Illinois too. I do not mind criticism about him. I welcome it.