[LAz]

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.

Looking up my good old stuff... lets see...

...well, yeah, the tourism thingy is right in that it was started in 1972 with that indian movie place opening up. In 1970 there were no south asian businesses there at all.
This place was not an organic response to the local community, but an accident of ground rent.

pause - to insert your other quote...

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.

No gentrification? Wait now. The community is a working class one, and has not yet bore the brunt of gentrification. Without further addoo, I spent some time writing word for word a paragraph from the article by hackworth and rekers that I mentioned earlier in this topic. Get the entire thing, it's worth reading.

"That said, the larger neighborhood of South Riverdale, (within which Gerrard India Bazaar sits) is beginning to experience signs of gentrification - an influx of artists, the construction of trendy condo projects, and copious attention by the local real estate press - but development remains very pocketed. As Table 4 suggests, these pockets of development have yet to meaningfully affect aggregate income and real estate statistics for the neighborhood. Overall house values have ranged from 60% to 70% of CMA averages during the past 30 years, and rents have fluctuated dramatically between 75% and 101% of CMA during the same period. Incomes have actually declined appreciably during the past 30 years, but much is also attributable to the simple fact that the neighborhood is still firmly working class in its orientation.In short, while the classic antecedents to gentrification appear to be emerging in pockets around Gerrard Indian bazaar, it is unclear whether they will germinate and more importantly how (or if) they are related to the Bazaar ethnic package. But importantly for our purposes here, the Bazaar's presence remains a crucial component (along with the neaby film district and Chinatown East) of South Riverdale's bohemian panache, and as such has created an ethnic package that has the potential for sale to gentrifies in the future.


Well well, interesting I must say. Damn working class public housing. In chicago that shit just gets torn down, after deliberate lack of funding transformed them into vertical ghettos. But anyways, in toronto there is more social protection than in chicago, so it looks like the rights of people have won, in a big slap in the face to the what some see as "economic development" and what other see as dislocation.


But anyways, that article also hits on some statistics. Mother tongue of residents... it was less than 1 percent south asian in 1991 and prior to 1991. In 1996 it was 4 percent and in 2001 it was 6 percent. On the rise, no doubt. The article is from 2005... so it would be nice if someone got some figures for 2006 to cue us in a bit more, as to weather or not there is a south asian invasion.

(the fact that LAz calls it Gerald Indian Bazaar also shows that he knows nothing about Toronto btw)

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the Official City name for this business district?! http://www.gerrardindiabazaar.com/

Any suggestion that South Asians are being 'displaced' from Gerrard Street is laughable.

I never said this! Read my posts over! You are deliberately lying.

Anyone that quotes from OCAP is a damn fool!

I would disagree.

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.

This quote might cue you in...
'In 1999 my landlord doubled the rent in the apartment but we didn't understand why.… My rent went from $750 to $1200. So he almost doubled it. There were five other families in the building, one from Ecuador, one from Columbia … worked in factories all of their lives, lived there for about 28 years; we were there for 8 years.… My apartment was taken over by a couple and their cat. So that's what he wanted. He always said he wanted to put trees on the block.… He put trees on it, fixed the gates and then sends everybody a letter saying the rent doubled. It wasn't that he wanted to make it nice for us. That's where gentrification affects people. He was making it look better and fixing it up but he was doing it with a mission to put in luxury condos for other people.' (A displaced New York tenant quoted in Newman and Wyly, 2006, p. 44)
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a912725157~db=all~jumptype=rss

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.

Never telling you while I am alive, but just about any class on gentrification in any department, be it urban studies, sociology or geography, will produce students like me.

When ever promoters of gentrification like Freeman say that there are negative effects and we need to work to limit those - then wtf are we talking about?! The biggest promoter of this admits that there are problems associated with it, and yet you are here trying to be a smart alleck by claiming the gentrification has no bad side?!

Anyone that quotes from OCAP is a damn fool!

 

[gristle]

'In 1999 my landlord doubled the rent in the apartment but we didn't understand why.… My rent went from $750 to $1200. So he almost doubled it.

With the exception of extremely rare circumstances, no such rent increase on a residential apartment could happen in Toronto.

 

[LAz]

With the exception of extremely rare circumstances, no such rent increase on a residential apartment could happen in Toronto.

True, but I simply answered what the problem is when a landlord decides to go out for full profit 100%. Read that entire paragraph. It's an example in another city, and is reason enough to be weary against such efforts that many landlords in Toronto envy. Man, when we used to live there, this one sonofabitch landlord did not let anyone do laundry with warm water. We reported him and left soon afterwards... was he steamed at us!

I mean man, just read the thing, it's what happened to a guy... and some people here day say that displacement does not happen??? Shit, I know of a case in Chicago where a landowner bribed a kid to do arson on his own building - and later go caught for that. This is the kind of stuff that happens. Now, hey, these are more extreme examples, but it is exactly what should be given to people who say "oh what is wrong with this". Lets show them what it can be like, in order for them to realize why it is a reason for concern.

 

[kEiThZ]

No gentrification? Wait now. The community is a working class one, and has not yet bore the brunt of gentrification. Without further addoo, I spent some time writing word for word a paragraph from the article by hackworth and rekers that I mentioned earlier in this topic. Get the entire thing, it's worth reading.

The words of someone who's never been to Gerrard Street. Yeah, I don't think anybody who's been there in the last little while is worried about gentrification there. Parts of Riverdale maybe. But not Gerrard Street.

Well well, interesting I must say. Damn working class public housing. In chicago that shit just gets torn down, after deliberate lack of funding transformed them into vertical ghettos. But anyways, in toronto there is more social protection than in chicago, so it looks like the rights of people have won, in a big slap in the face to the what some see as "economic development" and what other see as dislocation.

And that's what several of us have been trying to tell you. It's ridiculous to transpose your Chicago experience to Toronto.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the Official City name for this business district?! http://www.gerrardindiabazaar.com/

There's a lot of ridiculous official names in Toronto. Nobody uses them. Nor do most people define the neighbourhoods the way the city does which is really a mish-mash of various definitions leftover from the pre-amalgamation era. Anybody from Toronto would know that.

I never said this! Read my posts over, you troll! You are deliberately lying.

Btw. Calling me a troll is pretty hilarious. You have come to blog about Toronto, failed to provide discussion relevant to Toronto beyond throwing out random googled links, rattling off a few neighbourhood names, and have stuck to basically one theme in basically a handful of threads, are not willing to accept the viewpoint of others, and routinely berate others and use foul language. Who's the troll?

I would disagree.

You would wouldn't you. All you did is google 'anti-gentrification' and 'Toronto' and used the first link you saw. I know what you did cause I tested that out myself. Pretty lazy for a grad student if you ask me. Too bad for you that OCAP has little to no credibility in the eyes of most Ontarians, even those on the left. It's name may sound official. But the methods of its members leave much to be desired.

This quote might cue you in...
'In 1999 my landlord doubled the rent in the apartment but we didn't understand why.… My rent went from $750 to $1200. So he almost doubled it. There were five other families in the building, one from Ecuador, one from Columbia … worked in factories all of their lives, lived there for about 28 years; we were there for 8 years.… My apartment was taken over by a couple and their cat. So that's what he wanted. He always said he wanted to put trees on the block.… He put trees on it, fixed the gates and then sends everybody a letter saying the rent doubled. It wasn't that he wanted to make it nice for us. That's where gentrification affects people. He was making it look better and fixing it up but he was doing it with a mission to put in luxury condos for other people.' (A displaced New York tenant quoted in Newman and Wyly, 2006, p. 44)
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a912725157~db=all~jumptype=rss

Sigh. Another non-Toronto example. Couldn't you find anything that was relevant to Toronto? Oh wait, we have rent control in Ontario. That doesn't happen so easily over here. But you'd know that if you really did research on Toronto wouldn't you?

Never telling you while I am alive, but just about any class on gentrification in any department, be it urban studies, sociology or geography, will produce students like me.

God. I seriously hope that students at U of T aren't getting a Master's in poor googling skills, foul language, and hard headedness.

When ever promoters of gentrification like Freeman say that there are negative effects and we need to work to limit those - then wtf are we talking about?! The biggest promoter of this admits that there are problems associated with it, and yet you are here trying to be a smart alleck by claiming the gentrification has no bad side?!

Yet you have failed to provide any relevant examples from Toronto (other than links that say gentrification occurred or is occurring) that show purely negative impacts on a neighbourhoods. We acknowledge that there might be some downside. However, most of us feel that Ontario's laws are adequate to minimize this downside. And most of us feel that there are net benefits to many of these neighbouhoods (most of which are simply transforming from industrial wastelands not from pre-existing residential areas).

Your credibility here will continue to be limited as long as you can't use colloquial neighbourhood names, defined by boundaries people actually use, citing observations about gentrification that most of us see and judging these impacts impartially for both their positive and negative effects. Otherwise you are just some ignorant American who thinks Canada is like the US and that this automatically gives you the right to come up here and lecture us. We don't suffer fools easily.

 

[adma]

Never telling you while I am alive, but just about any class on gentrification in any department, be it urban studies, sociology or geography, will produce students like me.

Whether that's a norm is another question entirely.

 

[kEiThZ]

In the interest of moving dialog beyond Laz's ridiculous rants, I propose a new line of discussion:

"What impacts have been observed on older neighbourhoods because of the imposition of the GTA greenbelt? Is the curbing of urban sprawl driving gentrification in the case of Toronto?"

 

[Tewder]

Toronto before 'gentrification':

those photos of the Ward reminded me how stunningly poor many immigrants were when they first arrived in the city. the conditions are hard to comprehend.

To what degree is 'gentrification' simply a function of progress occurring due to natural forces at play (a formerly non-desired area becoming desired, supply and demand, free enterprise etc)? Isn't it natural and desireable that the pre-war industrial-era squalor of Toronto has 'gentrified' over time with changes in technology, the economy, workforce demands, socio-economic and socio-cultural trends? It seems to me that trying to force a halt to these natural forces, no matter how well-intentioned, will always ends up feeling artificial and will always fail, whether it's a case of trying to falsely maintain the early ethnic character of a neighbourhood when the ethnic group has moved on, or of trying to falsely preserve it at a certain income level when the value and desireablity of an area - such as Cabbagetown - has grown far beyond what they originally were? Also, who gets to arbitrarily decide what a falsely non-gentrified area should look like? Who decides which demographic best represents a certain neighbourhood: which group best represents a pre-gentrified Church Street, pre-gay or post-gay? Who decides which income level gets to stay and which one gets to move on?? The bottom line is that natural economic forces at play already do this. As others have already said, this is not always a 'sad' or negative thing: people improve their lives and station and move on to other contexts that suit them better as they evolve in their lives. Of course there is a negative side to this and some people will inevitably lose out when growth and change occur, but that's sort of the same with most things in life. Unfortunately, 'Gentrification's is a bit of a blanket concept that focuses on the negative impact and dismisses all the other realities, and it tends to like the big dramatic shifts (Yorkvile, from hippy to priviledged) whereas imost shifts are more diverse and more nuanced.

 

[LAz]

The words of someone who's never been to Gerrard Street. Yeah, I don't think anybody who's been there in the last little while is worried about gentrification there. Parts of Riverdale maybe. But not Gerrard Street.

Hackworth teaches at UofT and is one of the more renowned experts on Gentrification!!!

And that's what several of us have been trying to tell you. It's ridiculous to transpose your Chicago experience to Toronto.

I was responding to the guys question as to what is wrong with rent increasing. I gave him a nice example, though an extreme one. What is wrong here? I think it's quite useful, if it will result in someone finding out the potential danger.

There's a lot of ridiculous official names in Toronto. Nobody uses them.

Nobody? I wholeheartedly disagree here. I will continue to call that what I call it.

Btw. Calling me a troll is pretty hilarious.

Wtf, you said that I said that south asians are being gentrified out of gerrard indian bazaar... a totally insane accusation that is false! Come on man, stop with your cheap moves of trying to portray me like a lunatic.

You have come to blog about Toronto, failed to provide discussion relevant to Toronto beyond throwing out random googled links, rattling off a few neighbourhood names, and have stuck to basically one theme in basically a handful of threads, are not willing to accept the viewpoint of others, and routinely berate others and use foul language. Who's the troll?

Tell me, are you and others any different? You guys completely reject the idea of anything bad regarding gentrification.
I did not google links. I have read quite a few articles on the thing. I have them ready.

Oh wait, we have rent control in Ontario. That doesn't happen so easily over here. But you'd know that if you really did research on Toronto wouldn't you?

Gawd, they were not in place forever. Further, they come and go. For example, a conservative government in the 1990s eliminated them completely. I suggest to look back. Don't think of gentrification as something going on from now, but some ongoing thing, going back a few decades.

Yet you have failed to provide any relevant examples from Toronto (other than links that say gentrification occurred or is occurring)

I have rattled off a bunch of neighborhood names, combined with maps. You seem to ignore that, especially the maps. You seem to not care, I would say.

However, most of us feel that Ontario's laws are adequate to minimize this downside. And most of us feel that there are net benefits to many of these neighbouhoods (most of which are simply transforming from industrial wastelands not from pre-existing residential areas).

Tell that to the working class communities that were displaced. You guys seem to not give a damn about the working class. Lets screw them, howabout that? Does that sound better? Some here claim that there is NO displacement and are completely blind to any negative effect. On top of all that, displacing an entire class, or reducing them to less than 10 percent of the original community's population (through mixed income fraud) is further exacerbating the process. I do not see there being much "community development" for the communities themselves. We are not raising people up. We're changing communities for OTHERS, and doing it on purpose, and I find that to be troublesome. Gentrification is primarily seen in working class neighborhoods, not wastelands. It is real and has displaced what, 40% of the inner city, according to that one statistic I mentioned earlier? You say that's nothing? I say it's something. Sorry.



break between posts.... I think that the post is long enough, and do not want to risk having too many characters like before...

 

[kEiThZ]

Hackworth teaches at UofT and is one of the more renowned experts on Gentrification!!!

I am sure he is quite an expert. But I do see a prof with quite an agenda and a certain shall we say political bent….and his views do explain many of yours. I'll leave the titles of his publications for all to judge:
http://www.geog.utoronto.ca/people/faculty/hackworth/outline-jh

I was responding to the guys question as to what is wrong with rent increasing. I gave him a nice example, though an extreme one. What is wrong here? I think it's quite useful, if it will result in someone finding out the potential danger.

Gawd, they were not in place forever. Further, they come and go. For example, a conservative government in the 1990s eliminated them completely. I suggest to look back. Don't think of gentrification as something going on from now, but some ongoing thing, going back a few decades.

You have been challenged here repeatedly to provide examples relevant to Toronto. In case you have not noticed, this forum is called UrbanToronto. Unless the examples you give are directly applicable, we couldn't care less about them. Talking about a place without strict rent control laws like there are in Ontario makes no sense. Even when Conservatives did scrap the laws (and it was not for that long) rents did not double like in your example. They rose faster than the historical average but the rent increases weren't anywhere near double digits in most cases let alone being doubled. Moreover, with rents increasing everywhere, it's not like there was much displacement going on. You completely ignore the context of Ontario having rent controls for decades and still having them today to pick an egregious example which would never happen here. As for your other ridiculous example. Arson might happen in the States. But I challenge you to find an example like that in Toronto. Our laws and their enforcement are sound enough to prevent that kind of behaviour.

On this point as well. You have also repeatedly drawn ridiculous equivalencies between Canada and the US, referring in the other thread to Canada as America Junior. Before your hole gets any bigger, I suggest you back up some of these claims in the other threads, if you want to keep asserting American examples as being definitive of the Canadian experience.

Nobody? I wholeheartedly disagree here. I will continue to call that what I call it.

Okay fine. Some neighbourhoods. But here's a real example for you. My parents like at Morningside and Finch. Tell me which community they live in. I can guess the answer you'll give and I can tell you it's not what the residents there will say. Another example. The stretch of Sheppard between McCowan and Markham. What neighbourhood is that in?

Wtf, you said that I said that south asians are being gentrified out of gerrard indian bazaar... a totally insane accusation that is false! Come on man, stop with your cheap moves of trying to portray me like a lunatic.

You said Gerrard street is being gentrified. Ever been on Gerrard? There aren't that many non-South Asians living there. The stats used were for Riverdale areas that border Gerrard. This is what I mean by using messed up artificial, official boundaries to come up with non-relevant statistics.

Tell me, are you and others any different? You guys completely reject the idea of anything bad regarding gentrification.

No. We completely reject the idea that there are no benefits at all or that in some cases there are no net benefits (like in the Corktown/Distillery District case). Most of us understand that any socio-economic change will create winners and losers. We just don't share your belief that cleaning up a neighbourhood and building a few condos will lead to more losers than winners.

I did not google links. I have read quite a few articles on the thing. I have them ready.

What academic source did you come across that cited OCAP?

I have rattled off a bunch of neighborhood names, combined with maps. You seem to ignore that, especially the maps. You seem to not care, I would say.

And I have already explained to you that some of these boundary definitions are flawed. That results in skewed maps.

Tell that to the working class communities that were displaced. You guys seem to not give a damn about the working class.

Tell me how many working class residents did Corktown and the Distillery District have before gentrification got underway?

Lets screw them, howabout that? Does that sound better?

No. Let's let them live where they want and not demand that they be confined to certain neighbourhoods.

Some here claim that there is NO displacement and are completely blind to any negative effect. On top of all that, displacing an entire class, or reducing them to less than 10 percent of the original community's population (through mixed income fraud) is further exacerbating the process.

You repeat this 10% number. Yet it's an American statistic. Find a Canadian statistic and we might believe you. Other than that, nobody said that there is no displacement. For some neighbourhoods, sure some of us disagree with you. And for some others, we just don't buy your argument that the amount of displacement is significant or that it is being aggressively undertaken by sinister landlords and scheming developers.

I do not see there being much "community development" for the communities themselves. We are not raising people up. We're changing communities for OTHERS, and doing it on purpose, and I find that to be troublesome.

Nice rhetoric. What does that mean exactly? Do you want to pass laws preventing landlords from selling property? Do you want laws that prevent tenants from moving out from old neighbourhoods? Do you want laws forcing landlords to rent to certain income levels? I'd love for you to explain how your rhetoric can be translated in to working policy. I see some upgrading in core neighbourhoods as part of the natural cycle of a city's neighbourhoods as the lower income residents keep moving to fringes of an urban area. What's the alternative? No development at all? And how would you prevent sprawl if you don't want to build condos in the core?

Gentrification is primarily seen in working class neighborhoods, not wastelands.

If that's the case then why are neighbourhoods like the Distillery District being listed as undergoing gentrification.

It is real and has displaced what, 40% of the inner city, according to that one statistic I mentioned earlier? You say that's nothing? I say it's something. Sorry.

Considering that pre-war Toronto is probably a significantly smaller area than the pre-amalgamation city of Toronto, I think 40% of such a tiny area is not significant given the size of the city today. And I trust that most of my fellow UTers would probably agree. I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[LAz]

Response to photo dude Tewder...

"Toronto before 'gentrification':"

Er wtf? Why on earth did you post pictures of Toronto in 1900 or something? What relevance does that have to anything going on here??? The poor class back then was dominant and everyone was rising.

I think you are a bit confused or have some misinterpretations on gentrification.
NOBODY considers it to be a process in the 1910s, or heck, maybe 1800s... I don't know when those pics are from.

Isn't it natural and desireable that the pre-war industrial-era squalor of Toronto has 'gentrified' over time with changes in technology, the economy, workforce demands, socio-economic and socio-cultural trends?

Hold on now. First, you are assuming that the flee of manufacturing is good, which is very controversial.

Second, do you know what the gentry is? That is the rich slobs over in the countryside. I find it very worrying to see 90% or more of a community's neighborhood composition CHANGE because of these other people moving in and displacing the others.

It seems to me that trying to force a halt to these natural forces, no matter how well-intentioned,

Good intentions? The intentions are to increase piles of cash. That's always the intention behind most policies.

Also, who gets to arbitrarily decide what a falsely non-gentrified area should look like? Who decides which demographic best represents a certain neighbourhood: which group best represents a pre-gentrified Church Street, pre-gay or post-gay? Who decides which income level gets to stay and which one gets to move on??

I am not saying what a non gentrified area should look like. I did not say anything based on how an area should look like demographically. It really does not matter. Why do you bring this up? To try to paint me as a lunatic? Irrelevant stuff is being brought into the discussion, to help make your supposed point stronger.

You say this moving on. I have a problem with that. Why must there be moving on?? People do not want to move. They do move because of circumstances that make them do that. If the city decides to segregate people, and ghettoize an area, then yeah, sure, people would move. Shit, I am getting peeved with this thing that you call movement. In gentrification there is involuntary movement OUT of a neighborhood, while others move in to take it away.

people improve their lives and station and move on to other contexts that suit them better as they evolve in their lives.

Ah, this is an interesting point. You are referring to the gentrifiers no doubt. There are a couple ways to view this. Some see gentrifiers themselves as people who are liberating themselves. Indeed, it was to some extent like this back a few decades ago. Disadvantaged groups were at the forefront of this, like gays and other groups. There's a good documentary on gentrification in ohio... I forget which city, but in it gays displaced blacks. Quite frankly, it's hard to blame them, based on what the documentary. But, there is one key thing here... we have moved on beyond those days. Nowadays, the ones making gentrification happen are developers, and rarely people themselves like in those old days.

Of course there is a negative side to this and some people will inevitably lose out when growth and change occur, but that's sort of the same with most things in life.

Most of a community is not just "some people". You make it sound like only a few people get affected.

whereas imost shifts are more diverse and more nuanced.

We are looking at class based shifts, and in this process we do not see the previous class being pulled up, they get displaced and remain the lower class.

 

[LAz]

But I do see a prof with quite an agenda and a certain shall we say political bent….and his views do explain many of yours. I'll leave the titles of his publications for all to judge:
http://www.geog.utoronto.ca/people/f...rth/outline-jh

And this is accepted as correct.

You have been challenged here repeatedly to provide examples relevant to Toronto. In case you have not noticed, this forum is called UrbanToronto.

I gave many examples of both neighborhoods and even provided a map that sums it up. You seem to miss that.

Even when Conservatives did scrap the laws (and it was not for that long) rents did not double like in your example. They rose faster than the historical average but the rent increases weren't anywhere near double digits in most cases let alone being doubled.

Hold on there sonny. You said that Toronto has good rent control. Looking at the past shows this different picture!
Again, how many times must I repeat why I posted that example? A person did not understand what was wrong with raising rents to seek profits. The example explains it to the person well. No?
At any rate, rent rates are measured on the city as a whole. Averages I would say. Certainly there are going to be some pockets that are gonna experience high rises in rent, while some might even experience decreases. You would probably focus on places that show negative rates, to strengthen your points.

. As for your other ridiculous example. Arson might happen in the States. But I challenge you to find an example like that in Toronto.

Wtf are you on this? I never said this happened in toronto. I just said how far people go in some cases. To realize this process, one has to be aware of the potential.

Okay fine. Some neighbourhoods. But here's a real example for you. My parents like at Morningside and Finch. Tell me which community they live in. I can guess the answer you'll give and I can tell you it's not what the residents there will say. Another example. The stretch of Sheppard between McCowan and Markham. What neighbourhood is that in?

Armdale? I'm not too concerned.
I tend to like this map, of neighorhoods...
http://www3.thestar.com/static/googlemaps/starmaps.html?xml=090120_shapetool_neigbourhoods.xml

You said Gerrard street is being gentrified. Ever been on Gerrard? There aren't that many non-South Asians living there. The stats used were for Riverdale areas that border Gerrard. This is what I mean by using messed up artificial, official boundaries to come up with non-relevant statistics.

I believe I said that the area around it is undergoing early sings of gentrified?

We just don't share your belief that cleaning up a neighbourhood and building a few condos will lead to more losers than winners.

Maybe you don't. Some aggressive people here say that there is no displacement, and feel that there are no bad effects. Your buddies I suspect?

At any rate, your views might have changed. Or you might say that to sound more moderate. Freeman warns of this stuff, but that came after so much criticism and rejection of what he was saying. Does he really mean what he says, or does he say what he says to look a little more credible?

What academic source did you come across that cited OCAP?

Er, not sure, I didn't notice any one citing that organization.

Tell me how many working class residents did Corktown and the Distillery District have before gentrification got underway?

For a start, with the mutation of gentrification in the 1990s, it is no longer working class that need be displaced. Middle class can get displaced too. A simple internet search gives this... this old Toronto neighbourhood has begun the process of re-gentrification and revitalization in recent years.

Considering that something is starting... we have yet to wait a few years to see the full effects.

You repeat this 10% number. Yet it's an American statistic. Find a Canadian statistic and we might believe you.

No, howabout you find one such number. But let me give you a tip. Find the final number. They always start off at a big number. Maybe 40 or 50. Then they slowly and steadily reduce that to 20, then 15, then 10.

Other than that, nobody said that there is no displacement.

Oh, some people did. This one guy said it was a made up thing, no?

Nice rhetoric. What does that mean exactly? Do you want to pass laws preventing landlords from selling property? Do you want laws that prevent tenants from moving out from old neighbourhoods? Do you want laws forcing landlords to rent to certain income levels? I'd love for you to explain how your rhetoric can be translated in to working policy. I see some upgrading in core neighbourhoods as part of the natural cycle of a city's neighbourhoods as the lower income residents keep moving to fringes of an urban area. What's the alternative? No development at all? And how would you prevent sprawl if you don't want to build condos in the core?

Sprawl can boom with condos going up at the same time. Policy must tackle many things at once. What good is condos in the core to reduce sprawl, when people from the core are being displaced into sprawling places?

I feel that landlords should not be evicting people, for the sake of increasing piles of cash. Speculation is big. But you forget one thing here. It will just be a process which results in a circle. They key thing in gentrification is that poor go to other places, to devalue them. Then gentrification goes after them, and sooner or later the poor go back to places where they originally left. That is the model, if we accept the rent gap thesis. It's a viscous cycle that is useful for the sake of profit generation, not sustainable development.

Why are the condos not built for the former residents? It's usually exclusively for new ones, with a few drops of the old ones.


I am not saying abandon development, but community development. Do not push out the community that is there. Pick up that community! If they want to leave, okay, but it has to be uninfluenced. This is what surprises me, the complete lack of concern for the previous community. Traditional freeman style rhetoric says "rub off work ethnic will raise them", which is such stupid bullshit. If a neighborhood is gonna be fixed up, then there have to be policies to fix up those people there too. Instead, the goal is to replace the people, not pick 'em up.

If that's the case then why are neighbourhoods like the Distillery District being listed as undergoing gentrification.

I already addressed this a few times. It's because of the mutation of gentrification in the third wave of this process.

I don't know if there is super gentrification in Toronto, but in Chicago there is. A super rich neighborhood has poped up. They displaced the middle class, not the working class. The process mutated to include more things.

Considering that pre-war Toronto is probably a significantly smaller area than the pre-amalgamation city of Toronto, I think 40% of such a tiny area is not significant given the size of the city today.

But I posted that map... why not look at it? It's a significant area, I would think.

 

[AGTO]

Nobody? I wholeheartedly disagree here. I will continue to call that what I call it.

Then continue calling Gerrard Street "Gerald" and we'll continue thinking that you don't have the foggiest idea.

stop with your cheap moves of trying to portray me like a lunatic.

Sorry, but you've taken care of that all by yourself.

Er wtf? Why on earth did you post pictures of Toronto in 1900 or something? What relevance does that have to anything going on here???

It's as relevant as your Chicago based 'examples'.
If you want to debate with adults, you need to start acting like one.

Hold on there sonny.

I realise I'm going to lower myself to your level, but you really need to fuck off with this condecending bullshit.

 

[kEiThZ]

And this is accepted as correct.

And that's why we don't quite trust your 'unbiased' 'academic' point of view. You're more partisan than unbiased apolitical scholar. There may be a history of partisan academics in the US. But here in Canada, that's generally frowned upon.

I gave many examples of both neighborhoods and even provided a map that sums it up. You seem to miss that.

A map based on flawed boundary definitions that the city uses and which uses rather alarmist rhetoric like 40% of pre-war Toronto....which as I've pointed out is an extremely narrow definition given that the vast bulk of Toronto's urban development (including the defining subway lines) occurred post-war.

Hold on there sonny.

This is a perfect example of why nobody respects you or takes you seriously. The earlier foul language is another reason. And suggesting that Canada is America Junior is a third.

You said that Toronto has good rent control. Looking at the past shows this different picture!

The Mike Harris government was an anomaly in Ontario's history. For the majority of this province's history there have been Progressive Conservative governments and they've all supported rent control in the post-war era. Even the Harrisites began to reverse their views once the abolition of rent control didn't lead to the boom in apartment construction that they had hoped for (one big reason for the removal of rent controls was the low vacancy rate). When Ernie Eves came in he did begin to reverse some of these policies. He didn't stay long and got turfed, of course...only to be replaced by a Liberal premier who promptly returned rent controls to the status ante. Today rent control is not even a political issue for the Conservatives. Having learned from their mistake, they're loathe to even suggest any alteration of rental laws. So to suggest that Ontario (and by definition Toronto) has weak rent controls or a checkered past on this front is patently ridiculous. And that too coming from a Chicago resident where nothing approaching the laws in Ontario exists.

Again, how many times must I repeat why I posted that example? A person did not understand what was wrong with raising rents to seek profits. The example explains it to the person well. No?

You chose a dramatic example to illustrate your point. Fair enough. However, I am just as correct to point out the irrelevancy of your example to the Torontonian context.

At any rate, rent rates are measured on the city as a whole. Averages I would say. Certainly there are going to be some pockets that are gonna experience high rises in rent, while some might even experience decreases. You would probably focus on places that show negative rates, to strengthen your points.

You put up the stats that show there was significant displacement during the Harris years in the supposedly gentrifying neighbourhoods and I'll concede this point.

Wtf are you on this? I never said this happened in toronto. I just said how far people go in some cases. To realize this process, one has to be aware of the potential.

And again, I pointed out that such far fetched examples are not applicable to Toronto. By proposing this as an example of how far somebody is willing to go, you are suggesting that it could happen in Canada. I am suggesting that your ignorance of our culture, laws, etc. prevents you from understanding that this won't happen here.

Armdale? I'm not too concerned.
I tend to like this map, of neighorhoods...

If you can't look up even the correct intersection on a map, why should we trust the rest of your shady class-war rhetoric?

http://www3.thestar.com/static/googlemaps/starmaps.html?xml=090120_shapetool_neigbourhoods.xml

A rehash of badly constructed city maps...

I believe I said that the area around it is undergoing early sings of gentrified?

Nope, you cited a report as evidence of gentrification occurring in Greektown, Little Italy and Gerrard street (or Gerald Indian Bazaar as you like to call it).

Maybe you don't. Some aggressive people here say that there is no displacement, and feel that there are no bad effects.

For some neighbourhoods that you have suggested this is happening. Yes, we don't agree. Our ground truth does not seem to correspond to what you are reading in a book. I really don't think Corso Italia or Gerrard Street is undergoing gentrification leading to class displacement.

Your buddies I suspect?

Believe it or not, I've never met a single person from the forum. Yet, isn't it remarkable how we all agree in this thread about your views? Could it be that living in the same city and experiencing the areas you talk about give us a completely different perspective?

At any rate, your views might have changed. Or you might say that to sound more moderate.

Nope. My views have been consistent all along. The only way they are going to change is if you start providing relevant socio-economic data from the specific neighbourhoods that you suggest are gentrifying.

Freeman warns of this stuff, but that came after so much criticism and rejection of what he was saying. Does he really mean what he says, or does he say what he says to look a little more credible?

(Mods excuse my language for a moment)

I don't know Freeman, nor do I give a fuck what he says. You must need some serious meds if you see him in every corner and every person you talk to. Though, after encountering you I might actually try and read his work. As for that Harvey guy, if his disciples are so pompous as to continue to assert that they know from a book and Google what goes on in the community I live in, then for me, their dissertations aren't worth the paper they are written on.

You are exactly the type of individual that generates that anti-academic backlash that we see so frequently in the US. You think you know more and are a better person than than the rest of us because you read a few books. Yet you can't find an intersection on a map or research relevant statistics to bolster your argument. When challenged you then resort to rude, offensive language and then tell the person who challenged you to do your job and find statistics to bolster your argument. I seriously hope this is not how you conduct yourself as a grad student.

Er, not sure, I didn't notice any one citing that organization.

Yet you cited them as a source (which shows me you were googling). I know the 'Ontario Coalition Against Poverty' sounds like a bunch of do-gooders. But they are far from it. Using them to bolster any argument really demolishes your credibility.

For a start, with the mutation of gentrification in the 1990s, it is no longer working class that need be displaced. Middle class can get displaced too. A simple internet search gives this... this old Toronto neighbourhood has begun the process of re-gentrification and revitalization in recent years.

Considering that something is starting... we have yet to wait a few years to see the full effects.

You do realize that not everybody uses the same definition of gentrification that you do, right? For most of us (and the netizens on Internets) gentrification simply means the cleaning up of a neighbourhood and maybe the addition of slightly higher income residents. Perhaps, because the experience has not been the same in Canada, we don't imagine residents being evicted, properties being set ablaze, etc. Developers in Canada tend to be small to medium sized largely family run concerns. We don't have the huge stock exchange listed developers that you do in the US. As a result the developers here tend to be far more cautious and conservative in their investments. I doubt you'd see them moving into a neighbourhood until well after a significant amount of organic gentrification has occurred. Despite, what you would like to believe, not every city undergoes the American urban experience. We don't have the class wars that you do. And we don't have residents getting evicted for developers to put up condos either.

 

[kEiThZ]

No, howabout you find one such number. But let me give you a tip. Find the final number. They always start off at a big number. Maybe 40 or 50. Then they slowly and steadily reduce that to 20, then 15, then 10.

You're the one trying to show the rest of us that there's a class war going on in Parkdale. It's contingent on you to back it up with the numbers. Otherwise, your just making random unsubstantiated claims. Bad for a blogger's credibility. Down right deplorable for the credibility of a grad student who claims to be an expert on the subject.

Oh, some people did. This one guy said it was a made up thing, no?

Fine. Challenge his opinion directly then. Basically suggesting that we're all blind fools or idiots does nothing to enhance your credibility or forward your argument.

Sprawl can boom with condos going up at the same time. Policy must tackle many things at once. What good is condos in the core to reduce sprawl, when people from the core are being displaced into sprawling places?

The GTA greenbelt has taken care of a lot of that.

http://www.greenbelt.ca/

There are not too many sprawling areas to be displaced into these days.

I feel that landlords should not be evicting people, for the sake of increasing piles of cash.

You have yet to back up your class war rhetoric with evidence that landlords are evicting residents in Toronto to gentrify these neighbourhoods.

Why are the condos not built for the former residents? It's usually exclusively for new ones, with a few drops of the old ones.

Says you. Show us some stats to prove it. Most people I know usually move to a different neighbourhood for various other reasons. Affordability in the old neighbourhood is rarely one of them. Toronto as a whole is getting more expensive and young couples are usually seeking to buy homes in the 905 suburbs rather than in the core but that has less to do with displacement than a lifestyle choice....they want a bigger space than their money can buy in the core.

I am not saying abandon development, but community development. Do not push out the community that is there. Pick up that community! If they want to leave, okay, but it has to be uninfluenced.

And what makes you think they are being influenced? If you believe that we are wrong, I will gladly contribute towards an air ticket for you to come to Toronto. Better yet, why don't you hook up with the good professor at U of T and you can explore Toronto under his biased tutelage. Even time with him with give you a more nuanced view. As it stands you are making some rather sweeping assertions with no evidence to back it up.

The fact nobody agrees with you on here should be a clue. And this forum is made up of a diverse lot from every end of the city and from every income range and from every political leaning. If any group would have yielded you some supporters this is it.

This is what surprises me, the complete lack of concern for the previous community. Traditional freeman style rhetoric says "rub off work ethnic will raise them", which is such stupid bullshit. If a neighborhood is gonna be fixed up, then there have to be policies to fix up those people there too. Instead, the goal is to replace the people, not pick 'em up.

It is beyond me as to why you assume that Canadians would think that way? Shouldn't the fact that we have universal health care and pensions and rent controls demonstrated to you that Canadians are by and large a compassionate lot who don't buy into all that hard right rhetoric? Naturally, that would apply for local issues as well.

I already addressed this a few times. It's because of the mutation of gentrification in the third wave of this process.

What third wave? The area was an industrial wasteland. There was nobody living there before. You claimed it's being gentrified. I suggested that this is not the case since there was no residential neighbourhood there to gentrify.

But I posted that map... why not look at it? It's a significant area, I would think.

Saw it. Disagree that it's significant. Would you consider studying only pre-war neighbourhoods in Chicago for conclusive proof of widespread gentrification in that city? And at least Chicago had tons of development in the pre-war era. Those pics Tewder posted up were from the teens. That's the pre-war era. You can bet that things didn't change up during the Depression and through the War. A lot of Toronto has developed post-war. That's why I find that statistic rather selective and rhetorical.

-----

I know you'd like to think that every place is suffering from the kind of class wars that you have in the United States. And you probably can't imagine an English speaking country without that kind of conflict. Yet, there's Canada. And our country and our city and its people are really that good. Our landlords don't torch their properties. Nor do they throw renters out on the streets to put up million dollar condos. Our developers are mostly family run conglomerates run by folks that often live and work in the same city, and hence have a vested interest in improving the city and not instigating some kind of class war. To top it off, as much as Canadians complain, we have fairly responsible governments that are far less beholden to special interests than most other countries. This means that policies generally benefit the bulk of society. Here, we give tax cuts to the poor not the rich.

All that may sound absolutely unbelievable to you. So be it. Come visit and see for yourself. The nightmare that is gentrification to you is rather scarce in this city.

 

[SimonP]

Quoting academic sources is fine, but one should be aware of the differing perspectives of the academics themselves. There is debate about these issues, and there is a pretty large gap between Canadian and American scholars of gentrification.

Here is a good article that goes over the split between the dominant Canadian and American views. Here are some key quotes from the article.

Two discourses on gentrification have emerged from two different countries (cf. Lees, 2000; Slater, 2002). The ‘revanchist city’ discourse (Smith, 1996a), a negative construct arising predominantly from the study of gentrification in American cities, especially New York City, is almost the exact opposite of the ‘emancipatory city’ discourse (termed by Lees, 2000), a positive construct which has emerged in large measure from the study of gentrification in Canadian cities such as Toronto and Vancouver. Attention to these discourses addresses the crucial, enduring issue of whether gentrification is a desirable or objectionable aspect of urban transformation, and such attention therefore has political importance.

Smith is not alone in his vilification of gentrification in American cities. A large number of other researchers – working in American contexts - are in concert with his viewpoint that gentrification is a serious injustice that makes the American city more unequal than it already is, restructuring its geography along extant divisions of class and race and further dividing it into a maelstrom of privilege and underprivilege.

All this could not be in greater contrast to the emancipatory discourse on gentrification, emerging from Canadian city research. Almost a decade ago, Jon Caulfield (1994) published a detailed account of Toronto’s gentrification, extending arguments made in an earlier paper entitled ‘Gentrification and Desire’ (Caulfield, 1989), where gentrification in Toronto was explained as a middle-class reaction to the repressive institutions of the suburban life.

It seems clear that LAz is fully versed in the standard American understanding of things while the rest of us are committed to the Canadian positive understanding of gentrification. Even if most of us have never read him, just from the experience of living in the city we seem believe Caulfield's benign gentrification theories.