News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/584204

Poor neighbourhoods growing across Toronto


Feb 08, 2009 04:30 AM
Patty Winsa
STAFF REPORTER

Toronto's middle class is disappearing.

Since 2001, 15 of the city's middle-income neighbourhoods have vanished, according to a yet-to-be released University of Toronto report. The majority became low-income areas, where individual earnings are 20 to 40 per cent below the city average.

Hardest hit are the suburbs. Declines in Scarborough and north Etobicoke have continued. Falling income is also affecting parts of Brampton, Mississauga and Durham. In 1970, 86 per cent of 905 neighbourhoods were middle class. In 2005, that number had tumbled to 61 per cent.

From 2000 to 2005, the number of city neighbourhoods with very low earnings – more than 40 per cent below the Toronto-area average – grew by almost 50 per cent. Residents in these neighbourhoods live on welfare-level earnings, says U of T researcher David Hulchanski.

The report, due out this year, is an update of the groundbreaking 2007 The Three Cities within Toronto report by Hulchanski and a team of university researchers.

It analyzed and mapped Statistics Canada census data from 1971 to 2001, finding that not only were middle-class neighbourhoods disappearing, but Toronto was divided into three distinct geographic areas: City 1, which consistently gained income; City 2, which maintained its income but shrunk in size; and City 3, whose residents saw their earnings fall over the 30-year period.

Hulchanski says municipal governments are not to blame.

"The people of Toronto did not do this to themselves. This is a national trend. What we're showing on these maps is the way federal and provincial policies, as well as the economy, have played out in Toronto's neighbourhoods."

He says policies such as universal health care and social assistance helped build the middle class. Cutbacks, including downloading of social services from the province to cities and a lack of affordable housing and job protection, are leading to its destruction.

"You didn't talk about McJobs in the 1970s, or even part-time jobs without benefits. Whoever heard of a job that wasn't full-time without benefits?" he asks. "That would be shocking 25 years ago. Now it's normal."

Hulchanski's updated study, with another five years of data from the 2006 census, confirms the decline of the middle class and the continued polarization of rich and poor neighbourhoods. From 2001 to 2006, individual incomes in wealthy areas grew 14 per cent, while residents of low-income neighbourhoods made only modest gains.

During the 1970s, Toronto was a predominantly middle-class city, with 341 of its 520 census tracts – neighbourhood areas determined by Statistics Canada so that they have roughly 4,000 residents each – in the middle-income category. Poverty was contained in the city's urban core.

Thirty years later, it's a city divided.

Richer residents live along the Yonge St. corridor, close to services and transit. Individual incomes average almost $90,000 a year.

The proliferating poorer communities are located in Toronto's pre-amalgamation suburbs, the middle-class bastion of the 1950s. In 2006 that area included 40 per cent of the city's census tracts. Sixty-one per cent are immigrants. There is little rapid transit and an average income of $26,900.

Sandwiched between the two areas is a shrinking City 2, neighbourhoods with static income where the average income is about $35,700.

Hulchanski began his research in 2005 with a $1 million grant (spread over five years) from the Social Science Humanities Research Council of Canada. He teamed with St. Christopher House, an omnibus social service agency in the city's west end, to examine how gentrification was changing the neighbourhood.

The data was difficult to analyze. Within the 30-year period, census boundaries had changed and some of the information wasn't available electronically. A U of T data analyst took more than a year to get it into shape.

By the time Hulchanski began his work, Toronto and the United Way had completed research showing the city's poverty was highest in 13 priority neighbourhoods.

"The trend line was clearly there. Researchers saw it and the city's work with the United Way was going on," says Fiona Chapman, manager of social research and analysis for Toronto.

"What David's work has done is absolutely confirmed the concerns. And I think why everybody doffs their cap to David is (that) he's been very good at helping the public understand these concerns."

*****

BY THE NUMBERS

How the income decline affects the outer suburbs

$40,074
Average 2005 individual income, all Toronto census districts

61
Percentage of population comprising immigrants in districts where incomes have declined more than 20 per cent since 1970

34
Percentage of population comprising whites in such districts

19
Number of subway stations within 300 metres of such districts, versus 40 for biggest-gaining districts

54
Percentage of 2005-07 homicides in such districts, versus 12 per cent for biggest-gaining districts


Source: University of Toronto Cities Centre
 
Poor neighborhoods in the Toronto area...

Wylie: Interesting article on lower-income neighborhoods in the City of Toronto-I found it interesting that the poorer areas are situated mostly away from ample TTC services like the Subway-the somewhat opposite of some other US cities outside NYC and Washington-in which better transit INCREASED real estate values.

Even though,some rapid transit lines serve poor areas which depend on them for their survival.
It interests me that some areas in Toronto's former outer boroughs which once had more middle-class residents are slipping in this manner.

There are signs of this happening in sprawling suburban areas like Long Island-especially with the recession and high costs like property taxes at the top of importance here. There are indeed areas with high percentages of poor people.

As fuel becomes more expensive and the car dependent lifestyle becomes more problematic I feel that more people-especially younger people-will seek transit-friendly areas to reside-compared to sprawling McMansions that will offer expenses like high property taxes and dependence on cars for basic existence.

North America built itself on the dependence of low-cost fuel for the past 60 or so years-basically since the end of World War 2. Those days may be coming to an end-perhaps sooner then later. Areas that have good transit development will only benefit from a fuel-short scenario.

Toronto for the most part never suffered from the exodus that many US cities suffered after WW2 in especially decades like the 60s.
Toronto I suspect would fare well if fuel shortages become a problem in the future.

-LI MIKE-
 
I actually found the article in the Star and the accompanying maps fascinating. As a leftie, my first reaction was that the disappearing middle class in Toronto (which is shockingly evident from the maps) is a result of the free market ideologies that have been with us since the 1980's. But really, when I looked closer, even in the 1970's the rift between rich and poor was growing, and substantially so. Free trade, downloading, cutbacks on services, poorer integration of new immigrants - these things may have affected this drift between rich and poor, but I'm not sure they are the main cause. And I don't necessarily understand what is going on.

How is it that since 1970 Canada has moved from a country in which the overwhelming amount of people shared roughly the same income, with edges at either end off the scale, to today, where the middle range of incomes has largely disappeared. I wonder how the picture would change if the larger suburbs were included?

I found the article quite disturbing - I think a society that has moved from most being within a range of incomes, to a society marked by strong divisions between rich and poor, is not a positive development.
 
I actually found the article in the Star and the accompanying maps fascinating. As a leftie, my first reaction was that the disappearing middle class in Toronto (which is shockingly evident from the maps) is a result of the free market ideologies that have been with us since the 1980's. But really, when I looked closer, even in the 1970's the rift between rich and poor was growing, and substantially so. Free trade, downloading, cutbacks on services, poorer integration of new immigrants - these things may have affected this drift between rich and poor, but I'm not sure they are the main cause. And I don't necessarily understand what is going on.

.

But isn't integration of new immigrants dependant on how much a new immigrant wants to integrate? I mean, we as a society should be trying to help them, but what do we do if people refuse help (this can cause more problems if they have kids if immigrants are coming from cultures which are really, really different from the so-called "Canadian norm")? I have a cousin who came to Canada from Hong Kong at the age of 11 1/2 in 1990. He went to Toronto schools from the last two months of Grade 6 until he graduated from OAC in 1997. He then went to an Ontario university outside of TO (not Waterloo, though) and now works in the city. His spoken English is *STILL* horrible, considering that he's been in this country longer than he was in Hong Kong. I know people who came to Canada for university and speak better English. However, culturally, I've found that Hong Kong immigrants from the late 80s and early 90s have integrated far better. Maybe because HK culture (in general) and what's considered "acceptable" is closer to what's considered "normal" in Canada?

ETA: Of course, integration might also have to do with money (not necessarily the amount of money one had in the old country, but how much one has after arriving in Canada AND what one does in this country - I mean, many of the homes owned on the Bridle Path area are owned by people NOT born in Canada). I think my cousin (the guy who can't speak English as well as he should) is an exception to the rule, considering he pretty much lived a middle class existence.
 
Last edited:
Wylie: Interesting article on lower-income neighborhoods in the City of Toronto-I found it interesting that the poorer areas are situated mostly away from ample TTC services like the Subway-the somewhat opposite of some other US cities outside NYC and Washington-in which better transit INCREASED real estate values.

-LI MIKE-

I find this interesting because I was told the same thing about Vancouver when I went to visit. They told me that nobody wants to live right near a skytrain station because the proof-of-payment system means that sketchy characters can go anywhere all the time and not have to pay, thus the areas around the stations are a little dodgy.

More to the point though, I wonder how this would compare with similar sized cities as they grew, i.e. NYC after WWII. Part of me thinks that with the GTA growing in size but not the old city of toronto (where there is only so much space for new people), it will inevitably become more expensive similar to Manhattan. That in itself doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the trend that the poor are being pushed beyond the boundaries of Toronto into the 905 where there are significantly fewer services available for new immigrants. We don't want to become like Paris with a vibrant city, and all the poverty pushed out of sight until riots break out.

As has been said, a lot could have to do with how cities in Canada (Ontario at least) have ridiculously few resources available for raising revenue. It was announced that property taxes may go up 4% this year for people in the city, and people are already crying wolf. Well when the city is broke because they can't levy any other taxes, what the hell else are we supposed to do?

I wonder how much of a difference Transit City will really make to this problem. On the upside, there are lines going through many of the poorer areas of the city (jane & finch, parts of Scarborough), and subway access has shown that development follows, which tends to revitalize areas. I guess we'll see whether the LRT lines will be able to do the same thing
 
How is it that since 1970 Canada has moved from a country in which the overwhelming amount of people shared roughly the same income, with edges at either end off the scale, to today, where the middle range of incomes has largely disappeared. I wonder how the picture would change if the larger suburbs were included?

I found the article quite disturbing - I think a society that has moved from most being within a range of incomes, to a society marked by strong divisions between rich and poor, is not a positive development.

Archivist, I would highly highly recommend the book "Falling Behind" by Cornell economist Robert Frank. It's a tiny little book - barely 150 pages - but it explores the rising disparity of wealth in amazing detail. It ends off with an appeal to reform the income tax structure in America which applies, although not to quite the same extent, to Canada as well.

Figures like these:

1-29-06tax-f1.jpg


confirm that wealth creation over the past 30 years has been largely confined to the upper classes. The problem with growing wealth disparity (especially in a society where incomes were once fairly even) is that it creates the incentive for those lower on the economic ladder to engage in conspicuous consumption to "keep up" with those above them. As a result, the average home size went from less than 1,500 square feet to well over 2,000 square feet in less than a generation; the average car (usually an SUV) also moved dramatically upscale as well. To satisfy increasingly lavish lifestyles we have engineered a society that relies on access to borrowed money. Debt-financed lifestyles have had the dual effect of discouraging the rise of real incomes among members of the middle class while cementing the prosperity of the upper classes who prosper the most from increasing consumption lower down the chain.
 
Last edited:
What does bother me is the trend that the poor are being pushed beyond the boundaries of Toronto into the 905 where there are significantly fewer services available for new immigrants.

Many immigrants who move to the 905 do so because there are significantly greater social resources available to them there, though -- that is where significant chunks of various communities have shifted to.
 
Many immigrants who move to the 905 do so because there are significantly greater social resources available to them there, though -- that is where significant chunks of various communities have shifted to.

Yes, but these immigrants tend to be middle class. Hwy 7 and 404, where there is a significant Chinese population, isn't exactly super cheap. The area is pretty much an established middle class part of the 905.
 
Many immigrants who move to the 905 do so because there are significantly greater social resources available to them there, though -- that is where significant chunks of various communities have shifted to.

Many immigrants move to the 905 do so because of jobs. I don't buy that there is a greater availability/quantity of social resources.
 
Many immigrants move to the 905 do so because of jobs. I don't buy that there is a greater availability/quantity of social resources.

I don't know about other communities, but a lot of Chinese-speaking MDs and dentists have practices in the 905 (or close to the 905 border). Lots of banks have Chinese-speaking staff as well. If you live near Pacific Mall, you can get all of your necessary services done without having the need to speak English.
 
Yes, but these immigrants tend to be middle class. Hwy 7 and 404, where there is a significant Chinese population, isn't exactly super cheap. The area is pretty much an established middle class part of the 905.

Right. But where the concern is that those who hail from immigrant communities and settle in the 905 might suffer from "significantly fewer services available for new immigrants" (devil_dice's assertion), I would submit that, in fact, those who choose to settle in the 905 frequently do so because they are moving to areas in which those communities are significantly settled -- the social resources (i.e., other people) I am talking about.

I don't know about other communities, but a lot of Chinese-speaking MDs and dentists have practices in the 905 (or close to the 905 border). Lots of banks have Chinese-speaking staff as well. If you live near Pacific Mall, you can get all of your necessary services done without having the need to speak English.

Yes, I think you can do quite well in various parts of the 905 without English as long as you have Farsi, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Russian, etc., according to neighbourhood.

Many immigrants move to the 905 do so because of jobs. I don't buy that there is a greater availability/quantity of social resources.

Not quite sure I follow.

The reason Indians move to Brampton, Italians to Woodbridge, Jews to Thornhill, Iranians to Richmond Hill, Chinese to Markham, etc. -- yes I am naming particular 905 communities and there is more overlap between those 905 communities than I am allowing for -- is because their friends and families live there and they would like to be close to them. It's about being part of a community and have access to the people and stores and institutions of that community: not exclusively, but it's certainly a very significant factor.

The argument is not that there is a necessarily greater availability of social resources -- this is not an either/or or zero-sum game -- but that there is a significant and perhaps equal one from the point of view of the person moving there. In other words, that they are not disadvantaged by "significantly fewer services available for new immigrants" and that, indeed, they may be moving there (assuming they have previously lived in the 416, which seems quite the leap to me) precisely because they wish to live within a particular immigrant community.
 
and people are already crying wolf. Well when the city is broke because they can't levy any other taxes, what the hell else are we supposed to do?

it could focus more on the important things then trying to teach people how to sneeze.


That is the job of Health Canada and other groups. ^^^^
 
Simply because it has more important obligations to meet.

Instead of telling people how to sneeze.

It should spend such money on getting better public transit to these neighborhoods and improve community centers.


I think the many dozens of charities and health groups can do that job...
 
Debt-financed lifestyles have had the dual effect of discouraging the rise of real incomes among members of the middle class while cementing the prosperity of the upper classes who prosper the most from increasing consumption lower down the chain.

I think it's safe to say the "debt-financed" lifestyle is now dead. RIP.
 

Back
Top