wild goose chase
Active Member
It seems like income inequality is happening across cities more generally all over (you hear talk about gentrification nowadays, whereas years back you hardly did).
|
|
|
- Thread starter SP!RE
- Start date
DarnDirtyApe
Active Member
That's because the same factors are at play all around the world; some jobs benefit from increasing scale and technology and some don't.
Think of a software engineer for example. It takes the same amount of time to write code for a program used by 100 or 1 million or 1 billion users, and so the value of their work increases with globalization. It's relatively hard to become a software engineer so workers have a lot of leverage when it comes to pay increases. In contrast, a cashier can only serve one customer at a time (little opportunity to benefit from scale) and it's a pretty low-skill job (and there are lots of potential cashiers out there) so their wages have remained stagnant. It's also generally easier to get rid of low skill jobs in favour of automation - think self-serve checkouts at the grocery store or robots working in factories. It's not so easy to create a robot or computer program that can replace a lawyer, doctor or engineer, for example.
Think of a software engineer for example. It takes the same amount of time to write code for a program used by 100 or 1 million or 1 billion users, and so the value of their work increases with globalization. It's relatively hard to become a software engineer so workers have a lot of leverage when it comes to pay increases. In contrast, a cashier can only serve one customer at a time (little opportunity to benefit from scale) and it's a pretty low-skill job (and there are lots of potential cashiers out there) so their wages have remained stagnant. It's also generally easier to get rid of low skill jobs in favour of automation - think self-serve checkouts at the grocery store or robots working in factories. It's not so easy to create a robot or computer program that can replace a lawyer, doctor or engineer, for example.
Last edited:
wild goose chase
Active Member
The income polarization happening in Toronto is happening in the US but one thing I notice is that the term "gentrification" is used a lot (including in Chicago where I live) but you rarely hear it called "gentrification" in Toronto.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
I hear it pretty regularly.
wild goose chase
Active Member
I guess I do hear it in Toronto, but just far less compared to cities like Chicago or New York, where it is talked about much more it seems, among people, in the local media, becoming the topic of heated regular conversation.
There is a divisiveness to the discussion of gentrification, for instance in Chicago, that I don't feel as much in Toronto (where I feel people are more passive about accepting "revitalization" projects). It's just on another level in US than Canadian cities. Either sheer anger with a view that an entire community's way of life is being displaced or driven out by hipsters, or the opposite framing of gentrifiers boldly moving into these "bad areas" as if they were launching a beach-head or something, to pave the way for others to improve them. In Toronto, the gentrifiers and the "locals" don't see each other as "other" as much as I've seen stateside.
There is a divisiveness to the discussion of gentrification, for instance in Chicago, that I don't feel as much in Toronto (where I feel people are more passive about accepting "revitalization" projects). It's just on another level in US than Canadian cities. Either sheer anger with a view that an entire community's way of life is being displaced or driven out by hipsters, or the opposite framing of gentrifiers boldly moving into these "bad areas" as if they were launching a beach-head or something, to pave the way for others to improve them. In Toronto, the gentrifiers and the "locals" don't see each other as "other" as much as I've seen stateside.
Last edited:
wild goose chase
Active Member
I don't also perceive strong anti-gentrification movements or protests in Toronto. Even in Vancouver, there seems to be more of that than in Toronto.
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
An infill project I'm currently working on has a "Danger Due To..." sign on the fence out front that someone on the block filled in with 'Gentrification'. Now reads: "Danger Due To Gentrification". Brilliant, I thought.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
The "low income" map has shifted and expanded quite dramatically over the last several decades (though many inner city low income sections remain) but most of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the city today were also the wealthiest neighborhoods in 1960.
Yorkville is the only area to have gone from an area with income below the CMA average to one of the very richest census tracts over time (the east Annex and Cabbagetown would be next down the list).
It isn't really surprising that the midtown Annex-Yorkville area was the first to really gentrify in the 1960s, given its location between downtown (and U of T) and the traditional "favored quarter" running north of downtown.
Come to think of it, New York is probably the only North American city where gentrification has brought a significant number of census tracts into the very top tier of wealth. Half a century ago, only the area near Park Ave. could really compare to the wealthiest suburbs of Westchester, Connecticut etc. But today a lot of Manhattan from Central Park southward is that wealthy (New York County's per capita income exceeds all of the suburban counties).
San Francisco maybe also.
New York is also the clearest "doughnut" metro: affluent in the center (Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn), lower income in the next ring (most of the outer boroughs and urban New Jersey) and then surrounded by affluent suburbs again. There's a slight northward bias towards Westchester/Fairfield but Long Island has equally wealthy areas. Law firm partners who don't live in Manhattan would come in from north of the city, from Long Island, from New Jersey etc.
Toronto's 3 Cities model does indeed suggest a "doughnut" trend: the core is increasingly affluent and the wealthy suburban districts tend to be closer in and more accessible to the core, while Scarborough, north Etobicoke, etc. are lower income. But there's also more of a "favored quarter" running north. Most law firm partners on Bay St. would live in this northern zone, a few would come from the west and very few from the east.
Chicago is a good example of a "favored quarter" (more pronounced than Toronto): the vast majority of "partners at the law firm" would commute from the North Side and North Shore suburbs. Though obviously there's a "doughnut" pattern there too.
Yorkville is the only area to have gone from an area with income below the CMA average to one of the very richest census tracts over time (the east Annex and Cabbagetown would be next down the list).
It isn't really surprising that the midtown Annex-Yorkville area was the first to really gentrify in the 1960s, given its location between downtown (and U of T) and the traditional "favored quarter" running north of downtown.
Come to think of it, New York is probably the only North American city where gentrification has brought a significant number of census tracts into the very top tier of wealth. Half a century ago, only the area near Park Ave. could really compare to the wealthiest suburbs of Westchester, Connecticut etc. But today a lot of Manhattan from Central Park southward is that wealthy (New York County's per capita income exceeds all of the suburban counties).
San Francisco maybe also.
New York is also the clearest "doughnut" metro: affluent in the center (Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn), lower income in the next ring (most of the outer boroughs and urban New Jersey) and then surrounded by affluent suburbs again. There's a slight northward bias towards Westchester/Fairfield but Long Island has equally wealthy areas. Law firm partners who don't live in Manhattan would come in from north of the city, from Long Island, from New Jersey etc.
Toronto's 3 Cities model does indeed suggest a "doughnut" trend: the core is increasingly affluent and the wealthy suburban districts tend to be closer in and more accessible to the core, while Scarborough, north Etobicoke, etc. are lower income. But there's also more of a "favored quarter" running north. Most law firm partners on Bay St. would live in this northern zone, a few would come from the west and very few from the east.
Chicago is a good example of a "favored quarter" (more pronounced than Toronto): the vast majority of "partners at the law firm" would commute from the North Side and North Shore suburbs. Though obviously there's a "doughnut" pattern there too.
wild goose chase
Active Member
How about Vancouver? That's another Canadian city often associated with gentrification.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
There's a very sharp east/west divide in Vancouver.
wild goose chase
Active Member
How does overseas/foreign investment tie in with gentrification? I notice I hear about locals complaining that the gentrifiers are foreign investors in Vancouver and London (in the UK) and even in some Australian cities, yet not really so in Toronto, and hardly much at all in US cities where mostly the gentrifiers are suburbanites or out-of-towners.
Is there any pattern or trend as to what determines whether a city gentrifies from nearby suburbanites or residents of richer city neighbourhoods moving in, or from people farther afield moving in (from other states, provinces or overall other parts of the country), or even from foreign investors not of the country itself?
Is there any pattern or trend as to what determines whether a city gentrifies from nearby suburbanites or residents of richer city neighbourhoods moving in, or from people farther afield moving in (from other states, provinces or overall other parts of the country), or even from foreign investors not of the country itself?
Last edited:
King of Kensington
Senior Member
I think in Toronto people don't see "wealthy foreigners" (namely wealthy Asians) as a problem. We have wealthy WASP neighorhoods, Jewish neighborhoods, Italian neighorhoods etc.
Also in Vancouver the local elite is probably pretty small, while in Toronto there's no sense they're being "overwhelmed."
In Toronto older neighborhoods (pre-WWII) are generally bypassed by wealthy immigrants. The older wealthy districts here are mostly WASP or Jewish, while Asians live in newer areas like the Bridle Path. That's also a pattern found in a lot of US cities too (Upper East Side of Manhattan and Westchester vs. some far flung suburbs in New Jersey, NW DC and Chevy Chase vs. Potomac and NOVA, North Shore suburbs vs. western suburbs of Chicago etc.) In Van however the neo-Tudor West Side neighborhoods are being transformed demographically. There seems to be a lot of resentment about Point Grey and Dunbar (not exactly "middle income" areas to begin with!)
Also in Vancouver the local elite is probably pretty small, while in Toronto there's no sense they're being "overwhelmed."
In Toronto older neighborhoods (pre-WWII) are generally bypassed by wealthy immigrants. The older wealthy districts here are mostly WASP or Jewish, while Asians live in newer areas like the Bridle Path. That's also a pattern found in a lot of US cities too (Upper East Side of Manhattan and Westchester vs. some far flung suburbs in New Jersey, NW DC and Chevy Chase vs. Potomac and NOVA, North Shore suburbs vs. western suburbs of Chicago etc.) In Van however the neo-Tudor West Side neighborhoods are being transformed demographically. There seems to be a lot of resentment about Point Grey and Dunbar (not exactly "middle income" areas to begin with!)
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Here's some income maps for Toronto and other CMAs, based on 2012 taxfiler data
http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/documents/2015/12/maps-of-ct-incomes-eight-cmas-2012.pdf
http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/documents/2015/12/maps-of-ct-incomes-eight-cmas-2012.pdf
James
Senior Member
MoneySense and Maclean's recently did an updated 2015 Canadian wealth study, breaking down income and net worth by location.
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/
One essential aspect that these figures focus on is location and it's one of the most important factors when discussing averages. I find too many articles and reports simply lump all the numbers into one national figure, which completely distorts the usefulness of the data. As expected, the figures in the Toronto area are, and are expected to be, higher than those of the national average.
The study also distinguishes income and net worth between unattached individuals and families of 2 or more, which is an important distinction.
Some figures:
Income
Net Worth
Net Worth Breakdown
All images from original source: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/
One essential aspect that these figures focus on is location and it's one of the most important factors when discussing averages. I find too many articles and reports simply lump all the numbers into one national figure, which completely distorts the usefulness of the data. As expected, the figures in the Toronto area are, and are expected to be, higher than those of the national average.
The study also distinguishes income and net worth between unattached individuals and families of 2 or more, which is an important distinction.
Some figures:
Income
Net Worth
Net Worth Breakdown
All images from original source: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/are-you-in-the-middle-class/
Memph
Active Member
Interesting to see how Chicago compares to Toronto:
https://voorheescenter.wordpress.co...income-inequality-grows-spatially-in-chicago/
Chicago is still much more polarized, with low and high incomes more segregated into different sides of the city, and a much higher proportion of very low income census tracts. The proportion of very high income tracts is actually similar, although that picture might be different if you include the whole metro area, since I assume there's more high income areas in Chicago's suburbs than in Toronto's.
You do have somewhat similar trends as well though. Historically speaking, the increases in income have tended to focus in/near areas that were already middle to high income - North Side for Chicago; North Toronto, Kingsway and The Beaches for Toronto. But more recently, that has started to shift towards more working class areas that are close to downtown.
https://voorheescenter.wordpress.co...income-inequality-grows-spatially-in-chicago/
Chicago is still much more polarized, with low and high incomes more segregated into different sides of the city, and a much higher proportion of very low income census tracts. The proportion of very high income tracts is actually similar, although that picture might be different if you include the whole metro area, since I assume there's more high income areas in Chicago's suburbs than in Toronto's.
You do have somewhat similar trends as well though. Historically speaking, the increases in income have tended to focus in/near areas that were already middle to high income - North Side for Chicago; North Toronto, Kingsway and The Beaches for Toronto. But more recently, that has started to shift towards more working class areas that are close to downtown.