scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Most post-war neighbourhoods are relatively new and are still going through their first cycle...there's been no opportunity for something like gentrification to occur.
|
|
|
- Thread starter screenplaying
- Start date
rpgr
Active Member
U of T though was never a big name for "socialist" data. Their methods are traditionally suspect in that department. I'll comment further later on but for now, it's almost time to sleep.
Still 1 more day till the holidays ><
Still 1 more day till the holidays ><
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
Three distinct DEMOGRAPHIC cities in Toronto...
Everyone: To me this is an interesting observation-I was going to say that Toronto once had 6 boroughs but instead of POLITICAL boundaries that this research found these DEMOGRAPHIC boundaries. Toronto's lower income communities to me are opposite of what you will find in many US cities having poor inner city residents-in Toronto they tend to be in what I used to think was "White-Bread Suburbia".
On Long Island-the epitome of suburb and sprawl-there are low-income areas just the same. One of my favorite examples in Nassau County is the bordering incorporated villages of Garden City and Hempstead. GC is very well to do and has a predominately white-collar population while Hempstead is low-income and has a predominately Black and Latino lower working class. On this border you can literally cross a street from GC's upper 6 to 7 figure value homes and be in a rough-around-the-edges or worse Hempstead neighborhood in just a few blocks. The demographic changes that quickly!
I was wondering: Can that demographic change be observed in Toronto and which streets can be considered "boundary lines" ? Again-interesting stuff! LI MIKE
Everyone: To me this is an interesting observation-I was going to say that Toronto once had 6 boroughs but instead of POLITICAL boundaries that this research found these DEMOGRAPHIC boundaries. Toronto's lower income communities to me are opposite of what you will find in many US cities having poor inner city residents-in Toronto they tend to be in what I used to think was "White-Bread Suburbia".
On Long Island-the epitome of suburb and sprawl-there are low-income areas just the same. One of my favorite examples in Nassau County is the bordering incorporated villages of Garden City and Hempstead. GC is very well to do and has a predominately white-collar population while Hempstead is low-income and has a predominately Black and Latino lower working class. On this border you can literally cross a street from GC's upper 6 to 7 figure value homes and be in a rough-around-the-edges or worse Hempstead neighborhood in just a few blocks. The demographic changes that quickly!
I was wondering: Can that demographic change be observed in Toronto and which streets can be considered "boundary lines" ? Again-interesting stuff! LI MIKE
Geoshadow
New Member
Seniors are only a small part of the explanation. The study has a detailed table in it that shows that seniors in City #3 increased from 5% to 13%. In City #2, they increased from 8% to 15% but income went down much less in City #2 then City #3. City #1, where income went way up, seniors were high to start with at 13% and increased slightly to 14%.
There are a lot of things that have happened over the last 30 years that contribute to this growing divide in Toronto:
1) Massive immigration of a mostly non-white, non-english speaking population who faces many barriers in their adaptation to Canadian life. For instance, we have thousands of talented but under-utilized immigrants because Canadian employers do not recognize their foreign credentials/experience.
2) Radical economic change from a production economy to a service and information/knowledge based one. Many middle-income manufacturing jobs have left for countries with cheaper wages. Then we have the rise in temporary/contract/insecure jobs and out-dated rules for Unemployment Insurance which most people cannot qualify for when they need it.
3) Radid technological change with an aging population means some jobs have become obsolete and some of the workers aged 50-64 who lose their jobs face age discrimination. They must either take lower paying jobs or take an early pension for example to get by.
4) Resistence to wage increases for people making minium wage, retrenchment of the welfare state, falling labour unionization rates over time, ease of CEO's, politicans and other high-income people to gain obscene wage increases.
5) End of good, rapid public transit expansion in Toronto since the YUS and BD subway lines were built. The Sheppard line and RT lines are inadequate planning disasters. Neighbourhoods far from the subway line and downtown, such as Malvern in the north east and Jamestown/Jane-Finch in the northwest are less accessible, less desirable, car-oriented places to live. Malvern is 1.5 hours away from downtown for example on the TTC and when the outdoor sections of the BD subway and RT line have snow/ice problems like recently, that has gone up to about 2 hours travel time one way.
6) Crime (shootings, grow-ops, drug labs, etc.) in the inner suburbs is driving relatively higher income people away (who earn enough to choose a different neighbourhood to live in) who then get replaced by lower income people who have fewer location choices.
There are a lot of things that have happened over the last 30 years that contribute to this growing divide in Toronto:
1) Massive immigration of a mostly non-white, non-english speaking population who faces many barriers in their adaptation to Canadian life. For instance, we have thousands of talented but under-utilized immigrants because Canadian employers do not recognize their foreign credentials/experience.
2) Radical economic change from a production economy to a service and information/knowledge based one. Many middle-income manufacturing jobs have left for countries with cheaper wages. Then we have the rise in temporary/contract/insecure jobs and out-dated rules for Unemployment Insurance which most people cannot qualify for when they need it.
3) Radid technological change with an aging population means some jobs have become obsolete and some of the workers aged 50-64 who lose their jobs face age discrimination. They must either take lower paying jobs or take an early pension for example to get by.
4) Resistence to wage increases for people making minium wage, retrenchment of the welfare state, falling labour unionization rates over time, ease of CEO's, politicans and other high-income people to gain obscene wage increases.
5) End of good, rapid public transit expansion in Toronto since the YUS and BD subway lines were built. The Sheppard line and RT lines are inadequate planning disasters. Neighbourhoods far from the subway line and downtown, such as Malvern in the north east and Jamestown/Jane-Finch in the northwest are less accessible, less desirable, car-oriented places to live. Malvern is 1.5 hours away from downtown for example on the TTC and when the outdoor sections of the BD subway and RT line have snow/ice problems like recently, that has gone up to about 2 hours travel time one way.
6) Crime (shootings, grow-ops, drug labs, etc.) in the inner suburbs is driving relatively higher income people away (who earn enough to choose a different neighbourhood to live in) who then get replaced by lower income people who have fewer location choices.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the notion of income as a general indicator. I realize that there may be no other way but ultimately wealth is what matters not income. A person with a high income but no wealth is actually in a position of weakness not strength. It is my experience for instance that immigrants or visible minorities own the majority of property and businesses in the city. This wealth is not necessarily reflected in income statistics.
This sounds fatalistic but to some degree I think income stratification is almost a function of city size, meaning we should fight the good fight as best we can but to some degree we are fighting against the incoming tide as the city grows. My prediction is that poverty entrenchment particularly beyond the 401 will be the story of our generation but that we will see many neighbourhoods closer to the old city of Toronto actually lifted out of poverty as spill over from the increasingly affluent downtown. Increasingly also I think poverty will become just as much a 905 story as 416. 905 mayors will wake up one day to find to their surprise that some of the worst neighbourhoods and most grinding poverty will lie in their jurisdictions.
This sounds fatalistic but to some degree I think income stratification is almost a function of city size, meaning we should fight the good fight as best we can but to some degree we are fighting against the incoming tide as the city grows. My prediction is that poverty entrenchment particularly beyond the 401 will be the story of our generation but that we will see many neighbourhoods closer to the old city of Toronto actually lifted out of poverty as spill over from the increasingly affluent downtown. Increasingly also I think poverty will become just as much a 905 story as 416. 905 mayors will wake up one day to find to their surprise that some of the worst neighbourhoods and most grinding poverty will lie in their jurisdictions.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
There's always ways to compare things, but using income here made for more dramatic maps.
There's plenty of regular middle class households who have been relegated to the scary 'city' of poverty only because a) no millionaires live in these middle class areas, so there's no one who can drive up average income and b) the neighbourhoods are too new and gentrification and its associated explosion in income growth would not have occurred.
grey
Senior Member
The conclusions are correct. Even if Scarborough was farms, it wouldn't affect the geography of poorer households - they might have been farmers, but most of those farmlands were in holding and probably weren't inhabited, so they would have not significant residents that would have been included in the census.
What they found is consistent with global city theorising.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
I never said the conclusions were incorrect...it is common knowledge that most of Scarborough isn't particularly affluent, after all.
Jonny5
Senior Member
It certainly exists, especially where there have been block wide redevelopments or hyper-gentrification.
Cabbagetown/Regent Park/St. Jamestown is good example of a large redevelopment creating an income gap on different sides of the same street. Gerard is a clear dividing line between the Community Housing properties to the south and a very affluent neighbourhood to the north. Parliament Street makes the same type of boundary at Wellesley. To the immediate west is St. Jamestown and the low income high rise slabs. To the immediate east are well appointed and renovated Victorian row houses. There
Queen and King Streets West were famous for their hyper-gentrification hitting a wall at the rail line near Dufferin Street. That's been penetrated recently but the renewal is scattered now and there isn't a clear break anymore.
salvius
Active Member
While wealth is not equal to income, there's zero doubt that those with higher incomes will have more wealth.
It's much less likely that those with low incomes have a lot of wealth since the income from any investments made in any businesses and properties has to be reported AS income. The money they made from their holdings don't just disappear into a vacuum. There are, of course, tax evasion mechanisms and outright fraud, but this will not skew the results in a way as to make them worthless.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Victoria Park is the most substantial boundary line, although it divides Scarborough from the rest of the 416 according to house prices, not demographics, and it is not observable like what one experiences crossing into or out of the city of Detroit. I don't believe there are demographic boundary lines in Toronto that are comparable to American cities - there's places that have apartments on one side of the street and houses on the other, but that's not quite the same thing. One does not "enter" Jane & Finch or Malvern at an agreed upon threshold, for example.
There's always exceptions...a single yuppie at Yonge & Eglinton may have a high individual income but own nothing, while a family of six in Malvern may have low average individual incomes but own a mortgage-free house worth $600,000. But this family apparently lives in the decaying city of poverty.
There's always exceptions...a single yuppie at Yonge & Eglinton may have a high individual income but own nothing, while a family of six in Malvern may have low average individual incomes but own a mortgage-free house worth $600,000. But this family apparently lives in the decaying city of poverty.
Jonny5
Senior Member
The author's main conclusions are being lost in dramatics/hysterics about the income change maps (it is clearly not intended to be a rich/poor map).
Their point is that there aren't ever going to be very high or high income earners to fill out these parts of the city or cause gentrification and the middle income earners there now will soon wind up in a lower income bracket.
They cite data that in 1970, 66% of the city was in the "middle income" bracket. That has fallen to 35% now and a predicted 10% by 2020. The same data says that in 1970 18% was in the "low income" bracket and that has risen to 40% today and a predicted 55% in 2020. Low income is the second lowest on their scale, there is also a "very low income" bracket which rises to 15% of the pop. by 2020.
What needs to be examined is their methodology of predicting future income levels, not getting hung up on how many farmers were in a corner of the city 30 years ago.
If the rich/poor divide becomes as geographically polarized as they conclude, then we're in for a lot of upheaval in how the city operates and how and to whom services are delivered.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
So it's not a rich/poor map, it's just a geographical representation of the rich/poor divide.
I never said there's anything wrong with the conclusions, I just think they're not useful and potentially misleading.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
"While wealth is not equal to income, there's zero doubt that those with higher incomes will have more wealth.
It's much less likely that those with low incomes have a lot of wealth since the income from any investments made in any businesses and properties has to be reported AS income. The money they made from their holdings don't just disappear into a vacuum. There are, of course, tax evasion mechanisms and outright fraud, but this will not skew the results in a way as to make them worthless."
In hindsight I don't think my point on income and wealth has enough impact on the study in question to warrant further discussion. However, I thought I might point out the following:
If incomes used in the study are based on tax return lines note that you control the level of reported income from property or distributions from corporations depending on how you offset that income with expenses or tax deferal on capital gains and other legitimate legal means. The immigrant mentality is protect the asset and business (in essence the wealth generation) and only draw enough income to take care of basic needs. So many of the old italian and portugese people in my neighbourhoods for example have small businesses, rent out parts of their houses and often have supplimental rental property. I guarantee you that their reported family incomes as extracted from their personal tax filing are very low and they have negligable government administered retirement savings but they have well over 1 million dollars in asset wealth.
It's much less likely that those with low incomes have a lot of wealth since the income from any investments made in any businesses and properties has to be reported AS income. The money they made from their holdings don't just disappear into a vacuum. There are, of course, tax evasion mechanisms and outright fraud, but this will not skew the results in a way as to make them worthless."
In hindsight I don't think my point on income and wealth has enough impact on the study in question to warrant further discussion. However, I thought I might point out the following:
If incomes used in the study are based on tax return lines note that you control the level of reported income from property or distributions from corporations depending on how you offset that income with expenses or tax deferal on capital gains and other legitimate legal means. The immigrant mentality is protect the asset and business (in essence the wealth generation) and only draw enough income to take care of basic needs. So many of the old italian and portugese people in my neighbourhoods for example have small businesses, rent out parts of their houses and often have supplimental rental property. I guarantee you that their reported family incomes as extracted from their personal tax filing are very low and they have negligable government administered retirement savings but they have well over 1 million dollars in asset wealth.
whatmeworry
New Member
Twenty-five years ago, when I moved downtown from Highway 7 and Yonge, it was clear to me the most desirable areas to live in the future were going to be right smack in the city, or way the heck out of it. The inner suburbs were a no-no. I was partly right I guess.
My reasons were based on the conviction that commuting woes would make downtown living more appealing (it was taking me even then 45 minutes to drive downtown), and waves of immigration would make the inner suburbs less appealing (for income reasons, like it or not).
So I don't think this is a very illuminating study, it just confirms subjective shifts in 'attractive areas to live'. My future son-in-law still thinks he would prefer to live in outer suburbia.
I'm skeptical of the 'disappearing middle class' argument. Any definition of 'incomes' should be for 'net' income, after adjusting for taxes and benefits. It may well be for example, that the 'poor' sector would be considerably less relatively poor once housing subsidies, etc, are factored into their income comparisons. I don't know if they used net incomes; I doubt they did, it wouldn't suit their agenda (and they do have one, they might as well be on the Toronto Star editorial board). I stand to be corrected on that.
My reasons were based on the conviction that commuting woes would make downtown living more appealing (it was taking me even then 45 minutes to drive downtown), and waves of immigration would make the inner suburbs less appealing (for income reasons, like it or not).
So I don't think this is a very illuminating study, it just confirms subjective shifts in 'attractive areas to live'. My future son-in-law still thinks he would prefer to live in outer suburbia.
I'm skeptical of the 'disappearing middle class' argument. Any definition of 'incomes' should be for 'net' income, after adjusting for taxes and benefits. It may well be for example, that the 'poor' sector would be considerably less relatively poor once housing subsidies, etc, are factored into their income comparisons. I don't know if they used net incomes; I doubt they did, it wouldn't suit their agenda (and they do have one, they might as well be on the Toronto Star editorial board). I stand to be corrected on that.