Eric City
New Member
So essentially, gentrification is somewhat of a natural occurrence and its the property owners that are somewhat responsible with the massive scale condo development, etc?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Eric City
- Start date
So essentially, gentrification is somewhat of a natural occurrence and its the property owners that are somewhat responsible with the massive scale condo development, etc?
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Fewer children isn't something that you can easily point to as having a clear affect on places at the neighbourhood scale, or even (sometimes) the municipal scale. There might be neighbourhoods in the old city of Toronto old enough to be home to a diverse enough set of age cohorts for there to be a gradual decline in kids per house over time (as opposed to some suburban areas perched on the abyss of a mini demographic meltdown because almost everyone's the same age and the kids leave at the same time), but gentrification is probably doing more to these old Toronto places than changing birth rates. It would be a different case if there were no rooming/subdivided houses, but the reality is these chopped up and rented houses do make a difference when converted back into one-family homes, going from 8 to 3 residents, or whatever: if a street has 100 stable residents, that one gentrified house just caused a 5% population drop.
If memory serves, the old city of Toronto lost about 1,000 people between 2001 and 2006. Of course, there's the usual disclaimers about census undercounts, but I suspect the sheer volume of new construction since 2006 has probably tipped the old city back towards growth, even if the average condo is only inhabited by 1.2 people or 1.4 people or something like that.
Also, if memory serves, Etobicoke, East York, and York lost people between 2001 and 2006, with York now slightly smaller than it was in 1971. It's frustrating trying to talk about these places and figures in meaningful, contemporary ways since the next census is so close.
But even booming Milton actually lost people between 1996 and 2001, and then went on to grow by 71% by 2006, so don't take these ups and downs at face value.
If memory serves, the old city of Toronto lost about 1,000 people between 2001 and 2006. Of course, there's the usual disclaimers about census undercounts, but I suspect the sheer volume of new construction since 2006 has probably tipped the old city back towards growth, even if the average condo is only inhabited by 1.2 people or 1.4 people or something like that.
Also, if memory serves, Etobicoke, East York, and York lost people between 2001 and 2006, with York now slightly smaller than it was in 1971. It's frustrating trying to talk about these places and figures in meaningful, contemporary ways since the next census is so close.
But even booming Milton actually lost people between 1996 and 2001, and then went on to grow by 71% by 2006, so don't take these ups and downs at face value.
Last edited:
CDL.TO
Moderator
I'm sure some people can point to policies that they would argue encourage condo development and gentrification.
But generally, yes. It's not the city building the condos. Property owners want to maximise their value, whether through charging the highest rent they can or through revelopment.
Eric City
New Member
Thanks scarberiankhatru and everyone else.
I notice Scarborough, between 81 - 91, lost 200k worth of its population, while Etobicoke + North York each gained 100-150k. Could this have been simply due to a change in the city limits at the time? That would be ample evidence to explain this loss/gain.
I notice Scarborough, between 81 - 91, lost 200k worth of its population, while Etobicoke + North York each gained 100-150k. Could this have been simply due to a change in the city limits at the time? That would be ample evidence to explain this loss/gain.
CDL.TO
Moderator
As I suggested above, we'll have an easier time assessing the accuracy of your figures if you post the actual figures.
Eric City
New Member
1981.
Etobicoke: 163,202
North York: 433,471
Scarborough: 765,602
1991:
Etobicoke: 328,718
North York: 589,653
Scarborough: 558,960
CDL.TO
Moderator
What is your source? Compared to the census, the 1981 figures are really off. Way too high for Scarborough and way too low for North York and Etobicoke. The 1991 numbers are closer, but still off.
Have a look at this (former) City of Toronto report which includes 86, 91, and 96 population: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/profile01.pdf
That report agrees with this table from UofT: http://prod.library.utoronto.ca/datalib/codebooks/c/cc06/torontocma_bycsd.xls
Have a look at this (former) City of Toronto report which includes 86, 91, and 96 population: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/profile01.pdf
That report agrees with this table from UofT: http://prod.library.utoronto.ca/datalib/codebooks/c/cc06/torontocma_bycsd.xls
Eric City
New Member
Wow. I am strictly using numbers given to my by my professor.
SimonP
Active Member
Those numbers are crazy. There is no way Etobicoke doubled its population in the 1980s, or Scarborough lost a third of its pop that decade.
The numbers CDL linked to are correct. They show the suburbs growing steadily during the 1970s and 1980s. By about 1990 the last of the agricultural lands were gone, and the outward growth of the suburbs was capped. Since then there's been a steady erosion of population due to falling household sizes.
Eric City
New Member
Im glad that I started this discussion but my analysis is going to reflect numbers that aren't accurate to the handout. My gain I guess
nfitz
Superstar
You should ask him where he got his 1981 numbers, as they are clearly very wrong. And the 1991 numbers you give are clearly the 1996 numbers. I don't recall any boundary changes to these municipalties between 1981 and 1996.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Nope, no boundary changes in that time.
Only changes (AFAIK) since the 60s was when Metro Toronto was reorganized in 1967 and West Rouge was transferred from Pickering to Scarborough in 1973.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
I will have to look up the exact data, but the Old City's population has basically grown downtown and along the lakefront and has declined in "the neighborhoods." The loss of population in the west-central area (say, Spadina to Dovercourt) has probably been the most significant, and that can be attributed to gentrification. Don Vale's population has also declined. In other areas there has been some decline as well but it's not necessarily gentrification. For instance, the old borough of York's population is now in decline I believe, but gentrification certainly isn't the culprit; the same is likely true in some far-flug working class districts in the Old City.
MisterF
Senior Member
Try getting your hands on actual census numbers. You won't get anything useful from what your prof is giving you. Public libraries should have all the historic info you need.
CDL.TO
Moderator
If he's at a university in Toronto he can download it from he school's library website. Probably true for all universities outside of Toronto as well (but I can't say for certain).