[Eric City]

New to the community so I will introduce myself as well as elaborate on the title of this thread.

I'm Eric and am a first year architecture/urban planning student and have a couple questions regarding a project that I am working on. I have an active interest in local issues and have perused this forum in search of research material, architecture around the city, urban planning concepts, etc.

I am writing a paper on the population changes that have occurred in the Toronto CMA since 1971 and after data calculations, rate of change, etc, I have noticed increases in all municipalities (quite obvious I guess,) excluding metropolitan Toronto, to which I have found a slight decrease. (0.9%, i'll say approximately)

My question is in context to gentrification + intensification. Assuming that immigration and suburbanization is for the most part responsible for these large increases in population, (Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, etc,) I am in the process of concluding that gentrification + intensification is being employed in keeping the metro area of Toronto's population at a constant value. Essentially, excluding the departure of the middle class residents, pushing lower classes out while replacing them with more productive, professional residents. (This is not a judgement on class structure by any means)

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated + please keep in mind that I am very new to urban studies.

Cheers
Eric

 

[BobBob]

Thoughts:

1. The population of the City of Toronto (old Metro), as well as the Toronto CMA, has grown steadily since 1971. You must be talking about the old, pre-amalgamation City of Toronto.

2. "Gentrification" means wealthier people moving in and to some degree displacing poorer people. Since wealthier people want (and can afford) more space, this tends to reduce population density in the area, until (where possible) new construction can catch up with demand for floor space.

 

[CDL.TO]

I am writing a paper on the population changes that have occurred in the Toronto CMA since 1971 and after data calculations, rate of change, etc, I have noticed increases in all municipalities (quite obvious I guess,) excluding metropolitan Toronto, to which I have found a slight decrease. (0.9%, i'll say approximately)

What was the population of Metro Toronto in 1971?

 

[kool maudit]

just over two million.

 

[CDL.TO]

just over two million.

How about a more specific number (like the one from the census)? Eric is discussing this in the context of writing an academic paper.

 

[Glen]

Essentially, excluding the departure of the middle class residents, pushing lower classes out while replacing them with more productive, professional residents. (This is not a judgement on class structure by any means)

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated + please keep in mind that I am very new to urban studies.

Hi Eric,

I cringe hearing the term 'more productive'. Recall that Manhattan is a huge 'productive' class as well and it served as the epicenter for trillions in lost wealth.

 

[Eric City]

I think my question has been somewhat misunderstood.

It is obvious that the population of Toronto has steadily increased since 1971 but I was referring to the Toronto CMA classification of the "inner city" of Toronto declining. This does not include East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough or York, all classified as "inner suburbs" of Toronto.

My question relates to this "inner city" area and does not account for the amalgamation. The population data I am using is from 1971: 738,395 (Toronto "inner city") to 2001: 676,352 (Toronto "inner city") Stats Can


Thank you for the responses thus far.


Eric

 

[CDL.TO]

Terminology can cause confusion.

You specifically stated, in the paragraph I quoted, that you "have noticed increases in all municipalities excluding metropolitan Toronto, to which I have found a slight decrease". Metropolitan Toronto, by definition, included East York, Scarborough, York, North York, and Etobicoke.

If you're talking about the "former City of Toronto", then it's hardly surprising that it has seen a population decrease with the effects of gentrification and "professionalization" over the past 40 years.

 

[nfitz]

If you're talking about the "former City of Toronto", then it's hardly surprising that it has seen a population decrease with the effects of gentrification and "professionalization" over the past 40 years.

Or even the plain and simple smaller family sizes (less children) in the last 40 years. Heck, I'd think that would be the biggest one. It would be interesting to correlate the population with the average age of the home-owner in particular neighbourhoods as well.

 

[Eric City]

Or even the plain and simple smaller family sizes (less children) in the last 40 years. Heck, I'd think that would be the biggest one. It would be interesting to correlate the population with the average age of the home-owner in particular neighbourhoods as well.

After looking at immigration statistics and the immigration policy itself, low birth rate has been a major factor in policy. With this steady rate of population, the majority of immigrants are being pushed to the fringes but it seems as though the ability for an immigrant to acquire housing in this main downtown core would require him/her to acquire it through gentrification. Is this happening at all?

I will look into this and a few other factors and post my results.

 

[CDL.TO]

Or even the plain and simple smaller family sizes (less children) in the last 40 years. Heck, I'd think that would be the biggest one. It would be interesting to correlate the population with the average age of the home-owner in particular neighbourhoods as well.

I agree, I think fewer children is a big one. But I think gentrification, as the population shifts away from blue-collar workers and immigrants (who would tend to have more children) to professionals and domestically-born (who tend to have fewer children) could have a larger effect than the general society-wide trend of smaller families. It would require further study to be certain.

Age of the home-owner, AKA the demographic cycle, probably has less of an effect in the former City of Toronto than anywhere else in the CMA. The house-neighbourhoods that make up the majority of the former city tend to have a real mix of ages, from young families to old retirees. I don't think you'll find any that are dominated by one age group. Of course, this doesn't apply to renters and apartments which is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[CDL.TO]

With this steady rate of population, the majority of immigrants are being pushed to the fringes but it seems as though the ability for an immigrant to acquire housing in this main downtown core, he/she would have to acquire it through gentrification. Is this happening at all?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "acquire it through gentrification"?

 

[Eric City]

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "acquire it through gentrification"?

I might have worded that a little wrong/broad but do we see in the downtown core, a steady increase in the amount of immigrants moving in? ex. a wealthy immigrant family. Is a major planning concept in the core to gentrify the area with professionals solely?

 

[SimonP]

There is no reason immigrants can't also be professionals. There is certainly no planning aim to keep immigrants out of the core, though the rapid increase in housing prices have reduced some of the traditional immigrant reception areas. There is no planning goal to bring professionals to the core either. Gentrification is not a goal of the City. Quite the opposite, the City under Miller worked very hard to try to make sure affordable housing survived in the Old City.

 

[CDL.TO]

There is no reason immigrants can't also be professionals. There is certainly no planning aim to keep immigrants out of the core, though the rapid increase in housing prices have reduced some of the traditional immigrant reception areas. There is no planning goal to bring professionals to the core either. Gentrification is not a goal of the City. Quite the opposite, the City under Miller worked very hard to try to make sure affordable housing survived in the Old City.

Exactly right. The effects we have seen are a result of supply and demand, not policy.

Immigrants can be professionals, but as the media has showed us, for most of them it's very difficult to find professional employment.