[scarberiankhatru]

BTW, my neighbourhood is being slowly gentrified through death and rezoning.

85 year olds living in old bungalows are dying off and developers are buying the houses and updating them to flip. Meanwhile a few of the old commercial sites are being rezoned to support higher densities, including residential. Ie. There is residential starting to appear where it never existed before. Let's just say there is very little resistance from the residents of the neighbourhood for this type of change.

I've been told the one group that has been "displaced" are the drunks who used to hang out outside the Beer Store. They're gone now cuz that Beer Store closed. Needless to say, everyone else save the 8 drunks is quite happy about that.

Then the only thing displaced is soil in the local cemeteries.

 

[LAz]

If they own their home, why would that happen? The rolling property assessments do protect homeowners against dramatic swings in taxation. And in general, we don't have large disparities in the cost of living across this city. So beyond personal misfortune, what would cause a homeowner to end up in a circumstance where they could not afford said home?

That is where you are wrong. Taxes do increase. Of course, an entire neighborhood is not uprooted in one year. It takes many years.

Yes, a handful of districts in the core are being 'gentrified'.

Handful? Some 40% by the statistics that I showed earlier. That is a lot, no? Those were places that were already gentrified.

Toronto has fairly good protection for what are termed as stable neighbourhoods.

Look at that map that I posted. A significant part of the city has been gentrified. Now tell me, those people who were forced to leave, where was their protection?

I mean look, you claim that this stuff is not happening.

Did I not post stuff about gentrification in South Parkdale? What about that?
Here's some more, anti-gentrification movement in Cabbagetown... http://update.ocap.ca/node/470 ... though that place is for the most part gentrified.

I mean, look at what is said about Miller...

Under 'our' new 'progressive' Mayor, the agenda of gentrification, redevelopment and social cleansing is accelerating.

...

The whole agenda of building a city that pushes out the poor and focuses on upscale residential and commercial development has not changed.

http://update.ocap.ca/node/350

What's even more ridiculous is that your stance on 'gentrification' is basically anti-development rhetoric that would prevent the kind of transit friendly development this city desperately needs to meet the pressures of population growth. I'd much rather these new residents live in 'gentrified' mixed use neighbourhoods close to the core than out in the 'burbs and using tons of energy to commute.

For a start, please stop using mixed, because they are not mixed. They are less than 5% of the former residents, and if that is mixing, well screw it, if 95% are gonna get displaced.

Revitalizing a neighborhood not the same as gentrifying one. We need to ask ourselves what are we doing in terms of development. In this system we see poor becoming more poorer and rich becoming more richer. Our whole system is aimed at accumulating money, not at helping EVERYONE rise up.

Gentrification has come with much urban development, because this development has more and more been about displacing people for the benefit of capital.

If it's happened, then great! It's not a relevant topic for discussion any more.

Oh shit, I guess we should both read entire posts before we start replying to them.
So you view the displacement of much of toronto's population a good thing, because these places are more richer now. Tell me, why does it not dawn upon you that these places could have undergone development without displacement??

What's the city supposed to do? Put in a subway and not build any dense neighbourhoods around it? Then what the heck is the point of building subways? Since you oppose this kind of development, I would love for you to tell us how the city should handle the influx of future residents without any gentrification and yet prevent sprawl, traffic congestion, pollution, and the myriad other problems that come with population growth.

Simple solution. Community development FOR communities themselves, and not for outsiders aiming to make a buck. The city itself should look for sustainable projects aimed at HELPING communities, not private projects that are aimed at making a buck, resulting in the displacement of communities.

While we are talking about reducing traffic congestion and preventing sprawl... that is a whole different beast that should be tackled through other things completely... mainly, intense construction of subway lines, light rail, and a war on the auto industry, similar to the war that they waged on the street cars all over north america.

If you read the whole slide package, you'd see that there were benefits to some residents as well and that the Canadian context for gentrification is not as clear cut on 'class displacement' as it is south of the border....see slide 5.

It still happens. That's the point. It's not as bad/intense as in the US, but it still happens.

When someone moves out and someone different moves in, it is not displacement.

Replacement is displacement. Sorry, but it is.














To quote someone from a topic that I found on here....

It's a reversal, yeah, from the poor being in the inner city while the rich live around it, to the affluent reclaiming downtown and pushing the poor to the suburbs. Neither of these scenarios is particularly good for poor people.

This is a view shared by me and many people. We are not all insane lunatics.

The inner city is becoming a place that is slowly turning into a place for the rich. The concern that poor and middle class people are being pushed out is a serious concern. There can be many policies in place to limit people from moving into these places, and from the rise in prices. None of this is going on.

It is downright low and dirty to paint someone who is concerned about the transformation of the city as a person who is against development. I am critical of certain processes that are going on. On top of all this, you ignore one thing... development for whom?


And lastly, I think I know a thing or two about suburbanization and mass transit. Opposing the creation of subway lines is a lunatic idea, that you accuse me of. At any rate, new subway expansion is going to happen outside of the central city. I fully support these plans to expand towards vaughan, richmond hill and along sheppard. They do not cause much displacement, Fighting congestion should come by bringing this transit to people who are further away from it. Toronto will not see subway construction near the core in a long time. Not until 2020 at least. To make it sustainable, there must be an attack on the auto-culture. Gentrification would be limited if subway expansion first occurred on the outside, because it would create a bit more of a balance. If we had the subways only being made on the inside, we will see many people coming down to the inner core areas, instead of buying a property in a big condo along the sheppard line, that produced minimal displacement if any.

edit/add:

Then the only thing displaced is soil in the local cemeteries.

Then explain the shitloads of anti-gentrification movements by communities under threat of developers.
Here's one for a start. Are the people crazy, or is it just me? http://techforpeople.net/~housingcommittee/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=45

Here's a whole article that talks about displacement, http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/researchbulletins/CUCSRB31-NewmanWyly.pdf , only a minor one out of a whole ocean of them.

You must be a fool to deny that displacement happens. You simply do not want to accept that communities CAN suffer at the expense of higher classes moving in.


edit/add2:
I ran into an interesting article on where gentrification may be heading in Toronto.
http://www.globizenproperty.com/?p=160
Keep in mind that it says where to next. There will always be a next, under our current system. It is something that is not being contained.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Your ability to miss point after point and use buzzword after buzzword without knowing what they mean is impressive. You're not even reading the stuff you link to or the posts of the people helping you learn about Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yeah, I give up. The sage of Chicago seems to know more than me about my hometown. Thankfully, not too many of us really care for his view. I do love how academically balanced he can be in considering only the downsides of gentrification. LAz please let us know what school you go to. I'd love to know what institution produces such brilliant graduates who have this amazing ability to look at issues without bias, with full due to the local context and with full understanding of local history.

 

[kEiThZ]

HAHAHA. I just noticed he cited OCAP as a source. Now I know the emperor truly has no clothes.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

To elaborate on kEITHz' laughter

Here's some more, anti-gentrification movement in Cabbagetown... http://update.ocap.ca/node/470 ... though that place is for the most part gentrified.

I mean, look at what is said about Miller...

http://update.ocap.ca/node/350


This is a view shared by me and many people. We are not all insane lunatics.

OCAP is an organization of law-breaking anarchists gathered around a messianic individual who has become more and more marginalized as they have done more and more lunatic things, including the attempted butchery of a police horse during a supposedly peaceful demonstration. To quote them is to marginalize yourself.

And, the Cabbagetown Diner is a great example of your lack of knowledge of local context. Everything that had ever been said about the place, the things OCAP is decrying, are the God's honest truth. The drunken, screaming fights between patrons, the continual abuse of its license... the list goes on & on. If these are the people you're trying to keep from being displaced, don't worry. They'll be being displaced to the Don Jail soon.

 

[Therion]

Jiang said one of the opponents of his restaurant banged on one of the restaurant's windows Friday morning after noticing a taped-up poster for last night's OCAP rally before shouting, "go back to China!"

The above is from the first OCAP link. Those damn racist middle-class gentrifiers! Let me do a Seth Myers-style, "Really? I mean, REALLY?" interposition here...

 

[vultur09]

Nevermind the avaricious practices of commercial landlords in poor neighbourhoods. That's a totally different topic.

Why shouldn't commercial landlords be entitled to maximize their profit the same way other businesses do? I don't follow this point at all AHM.

 

[urbandreamer]

Anyone that quotes from OCAP is a damn fool!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Well, lets look into this Corso Italia neighborhood... and while we're at it, we could include Greektown, Little Italy and the Gerald Indian Bazaar. .
There is a reason to my madness in this part of the post. Hackworth and Rekers published an article called "Ethnic Packaging and Gentrification: The Case of Four Neighborhoods in Toronto."

To sum it up in a paragraph...
Historically, ethnic commercial strips are a result/organic extension of a nearby ethnic residential enclave. What we see in these four neighborhoods is a "commercially manufactured nature of ethnicity." They are strategically produced. In fact, the city has gone out of its way to make them ethnically defined business improvement areas.

Corso Italia is a more authentic Italian place than Little Italy. Gentrification however might not be in there in full force. Prices have remained stable at the time that the article was written. There are some early signs of gentrification, but it does not seem destined in the short term, as the article says. The neighborhood remains more isolated than traditional gentrified neighborhoods closer to the city. It has a different feel to it.

How dare the city define a commercial district by it's (once) ethnic inhabitants (commercial and residential) and not let the free market decide how best to use the area now that the ethnic group that defined it have long left! All those of Italian descent should be forced to live in Little Italy or Corso Italia for the sake of maintaining this manufactured authenticity.

Gentrification is all but done in Corso Italia, only it's not your definition of gentrification. The Italians have all but left the region for places like Etobicoke, Brampton, North York, and Woodbridge. The ethnic businesess that remain are nothing more than an ethnic mask over top regular old shops. Even the Italian restaurants are rarely owned operated by Italians.

 

[kEiThZ]

In Laz's books, they didn't choose to move to Woodbridge for the bigger homes, sense of community, etc. They were apparently 'displaced' by 'gentrifiers'. That makes me laugh. I haven't met a single South Asian that was dying to live on Gerrard Street (the fact that LAz calls it Gerald Indian Bazaar also shows that he knows nothing about Toronto btw) and could not afford the rent in my nearly two decades of living in Toronto. Any suggestion that South Asians are being 'displaced' from Gerrard Street is laughable. Most are more than happy to leave and they just want to find someone to sell to who will pay enough. I am fairly sure, it's the same for Italians and Corso Italia.

I remain deeply skeptical too, of the fact that all this literature uses pre-war Toronto for its analysis. That's such a small portion of the city. Saying 40% of pre-war Toronto's districts are being gentrified is pure sensationalism.

 

[SimonP]

I haven't met a single South Asian that was dying to live on Gerrard Street (the fact that LAz calls it Gerald Indian Bazaar also shows that he knows nothing about Toronto btw) and could not afford the rent in my nearly two decades of living in Toronto. Any suggestion that South Asians are being 'displaced' from Gerrard Street is laughable. Most are more than happy to leave and they just want to find someone to sell to who will pay enough.

Gerrard Street is something of a special case as there was never much of a South Asian population there. It was always a South Asian commercial area surrounded by European residential neighbourhoods. This Toronto Life article discusses the history of the area:

This forgotten little pocket—not quite Riverdale or Leslieville, sandwiched between the Danforth and the Beach—was once dominated by Greek and Italian construction workers and Anglo-Saxon people who worked at Colgate and Wrigley in the days before those names branded condo lofts. By 1972, when a north Indian businessman named Gian Naaz bought the old Eastwood Theatre, just west of Coxwell, to show Bollywood films, the strip had become poor and shabby. The Naaz Theatre drew hordes of South Asian visitors, but most of them could already afford to live in better areas than the east end. Before long, an Indian record shop opened up nearby, then a restaurant and a clothing store, and soon a South Asian market had been grafted on top of a mostly white district. Old hardware stores and hair salons became sari emporiums and sweet shops. An area that covered barely three blocks was transformed into a destination not only for the inhabitants of South Asian communities around the city and across Canada, but also for those in Buffalo, Detroit and Chicago.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ How does that matter? Just because there were no South Asians there till the 70s does not make it artificial. Keep in mind that South Asian immigrants only started arriving in earnest in the 70s and 80s and that's when Gerrard Street really took off (in that sense these immigrants were actually gentrifiers themselves) and actually started attracting some residents in its environs. It's just that its history has been shorter because it got swept up in the gentrification wave impacting on some the surrounding neighbourhoods and other ethnic neighbourhoods in the city.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Woodbridge was much the same way. A community of mostly white anglo-saxon and/or christian people that had it's roots in farming. During the late 1800's it was actually a fairly significant (albeit small) town with the annual fall fair drawing thousands and being compared to the Royal Agricultural Fair in Toronto. It even had a connection to North West Toronto via a Trolley car route.

Were these poor unfortunate souls displaced by the wave of Italians moving in? Or did they choose to leave the town long before the arrival of the 'gentrifiers'.

 

[SimonP]

^ How does that matter? Just because there were no South Asians there till the 70s does not make it artificial. Keep in mind that South Asian immigrants only started arriving in earnest in the 70s and 80s and that's when Gerrard Street really took off (in that sense these immigrants were actually gentrifiers themselves) and actually started attracting some residents in its environs. It's just that its history has been shorter because it got swept up in the gentrification wave impacting on some the surrounding neighbourhoods and other ethnic neighbourhoods in the city.

I was correcting the idea that South Asians ever lived around Gerrard. It is unique among the immigrant neighbourhoods of Toronto in that it was only a commercial and never a residential area. There was never a South Asian population there. It's thus not a surprise that you don't know many people who wanted to live there, as it was never a common place for South Asians to live.

In terms of the debate about gentrification, this example very much contradicts LAz's theories of displacement. Since the 1970s new immigrants have chosen to live in the suburbs. The Gerrard area was cheap, available, and home to a thriving Indian commercial area, but most families chose to remain further from the core.