News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

For the record, I live in Scarborough myself. The data is all from the 2006 census. Specifically the number is from the "Item Code: 1587 Default Label: Average income $" field. The same field the data for the other parts of town come from.

If you doubt me, here is a screenshot of the tract 339 data from Beyond 20/20:

4839103519_623edf9df6_b.jpg


You can also find a full online profile for this tract here. It doesn't include that average income field I've used, but the median income of $36,299 is the same on both.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted this data in some way? If so, please let me know so I don't make the same error again.
 
Last edited:
SimonP, I sincerely doubt that you are a resident of Scarborough. Regardless, your mistake appears to have been in using the incorrect postal codes for the 'affluent' areas of Scarborough. Whether you've done that maliciously or genuinely by mistake is questionable. (It's peculiar how you'd get it right for
those neighbourhoods outside of Scarborough) Scarborough, like Toronto is a city of 'have's' and 'have nots' and effectively what you've done is the
equivalent to putting the postal code of Jane and Finch for Bridlepath because they're both in North York, or Parkdale/Regent Park for Rosedale/Forest
Hill because they're both in Toronto and broadcasting incorrect and unsubstantiated demographic information about the WRONG neighbourhood.

In any event, for Centennial Scarborough (which is part of the Port Union area) you can click on income/poverty on the following link to verify the family
income distribution of residents in this area:
http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/cns133.htm

The correct StatsCan Census Data Community Profiles based on CORRECT postal codes are arrived at by extracting postal codes through doing reverse
Canada411 lookups of streets in Centennial, West Rouge, and the FallingBrook communities, respectively. (Used are the streets of wanita road in
centennial port union west, starspray boulevard in west rouge or port union east, and fallingbrook road) Note: The order

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-rece...=E&CTCODE=4020&CACODE=535&PRCODE=35&PC=m1c1v4
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-rece...=E&CTCODE=6163&CACODE=535&PRCODE=35&PC=m1c4n8
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-rece...=E&CTCODE=1323&CACODE=535&PRCODE=35&PC=m1n2t4

This suggests median family income (half above, half below) is 135k for the first, 125k for the second, and 105k for the last (which suggests centennial
(port union west) and west rouge (port union east) are the most affluent neighbourhoods in Scarborough. Also, to me this indicates that average
income should be even higher than median, because as the previous toronto demographics site indicates, incomes are skewed on the higher
end in these areas. I can verify theis as there are surgeons, corporate lawyers, Investment Bankers and EVPs at Banks, and CEOs of mid-size
firms, abound in this area.

In looking at the Fraser Institute Report Card Rankings for Centennial and West Rouge schools for my son: (Charlottetown PS and West Rouge PS) it is
noted that average family income of students at the schools are 148k. And EVEN wikipedia, 'WIKIPEDIA' mentions "port union" as an affluent area.
Pretty tough sell for a neighbourhood with ~50k family incomes, wouldn't you say Simon?

What my point is - is that you have to be very analytical when looking at things.
Port Union, while not equivalent to Bridlepath, Rosedale, or Hoggs Hollow is still a very affluent area (I'd compare it to Leaside, or some areas
of the Kingsway - strong upper middle class). While there are hidden mansions in Port Union too, the average house value is so low at 350-600k
against the 2M-10M you'd be shelling out for other areas where average income REALLY isn't that much higher (Moore Park and Forest Hill for
instance) The average family income: average house price ratio of these areas of Scarborough are the highest by far - so these are very
ATTAINABLE and the best value for money..

Trust a statistician to tell you. And I apolgize to those of you who wont be able to sleep tonight after learning three of the top fifteen
high income neighbourhoods in all of Toronto are in SCARBOROUGH. And yes, there are well over 400 census data profile
neighbourhood tracts for Toronto alone.
 
Last edited:
Pretty tough sell for a neighbourhood with ~50k family incomes, wouldn't you say Simon?

What my point is - is that you have to be very analytical when looking at things.

Average pre-tax income for people above in Toronto is about $40,000. ... These are also numbers by individual, most households have more than one person. The average household also has 1.8 people over 15. That puts the average household income at $72,000.

Step one to being analytical... actually reading what people say before you start making wild accusations.

Learn to be respectful or you'll be asked to leave.
 
How am I supposed to respectful when such outright false claims are made on here?
Maybe you should focus your attention on moderating those.

The fact is SimonP is using calculations to arrive at the figures I'm providing..
And they are WAY off (pre tax-income of 72K versus 140K is not even close)

That's all I have to say. Be analytical - the information is out there, but you
have to make use of the resources appropriately.
 
Last edited:
How am I supposed to respectful when such outright false claims are made on here?
Maybe you should focus your attention on moderating those.

The fact is SimonP is using calculations to arrive at the figures I'm providing..
And they are WAY off (pre tax-income of 72K versus 140K is not even close)

That's all I have to say. Be analytical - the information is out there, but you
have to make use of the resources appropriately.

It's amusing how someone can link to multiple pages of statistics yet not be able to actually use a single number on those pages to rebut someone else's simple statements.
 
How am I supposed to respectful when such outright false claims are made on here?
Maybe you should focus your attention on moderating those.

The fact is SimonP is using calculations to arrive at the figures I'm providing..
And they are WAY off (pre tax-income of 72K versus 140K is not even close)

That's all I have to say. Be analytical - the information is out there, but you
have to make use of the resources appropriately.

If you feel he is wrong, point out why politely. It's called a discussion, it's really not that hard. In fact, it's the purpose of this message board.

And yes... actually read what he is saying. It's clear that you're not looking at the same numbers. Individual vs. household as well as average vs. median.
 
RE

Amusing..maybe but what's even more pathetic is that most of us can't even compile statistics (or know where to look)
Rather point fingers without ever contributing in meaningful discussion.
People are like cattle - and follow a herd mentality. No logic, rationale, or objective transparent thinking.
Rather blind faith, heresay, rumors, and mindless banter rule the day.
And I'm not talking about SimonP..but rather the comments,
Scarlem, scarberia, 'no good areas' in Scarborough etc etc.

I don't think I needed to refute any of HIS numbers. My numbers speak for themselves.
Good day
 
Last edited:
The fact is SimonP is using calculations to arrive at the figures I'm providing..
And they are WAY off (pre tax-income of 72K versus 140K is not even close)

I didn't do any calculations. Those numbers come directly from the StatsCan data, and I pointed out where anyone can check that information if they have access to the raw census data.

You seem to be relying on household income data, while I was reporting on the individual income data. There will obviously be a sharp difference between the two. I don't think the household data is the best comparisson though. For instance tract 361.1 in Centennial has a household income of $106,472 while tract 339.0, covering Fallingbrook, has a household income of $64,449. Based on those numbers you might guess that Centennial is much wealthier. But then look at the household size. Centennial has 3.2 adults per house while Fallingbrook has only 2.1. Divide those numbers by person and the gap is much smaller $33,300 to $30,600. Since StatsCan only includes people who have at least some income in their stats, and Centennial has more people with 0 income (more kids), Fallingbrook slightly edges out Centennial with a reported median income of $36,299 vs. $36,234. All numbers come from the linked pages.
 
I didn't do any calculations. Those numbers come directly from the StatsCan data, and I pointed out where anyone can check that information if they have access to the raw census data.

You seem to be relying on household income data, while I was reporting on the individual income data.

And not just any household income data. He cited median income for couple households with children and the presence of "hidden mansions." He might as well have cited the median income and height of midgets in Gujarat.
 
If anyone is interested, here are the wealthiest tracts by average family income:

0264.00 (Bridle Path) - $771,608
0265.00 (Lawrence Park) - $689,416
0087.00 (South Rosedale) - $659,063
0140.00 (Lytton Park) - $644,460
0266.00 (Hoggs Hollow) - $575,776
0130.00 (Forest Hill) - $491,157
0086.00 (North Rosedale) - $427,599
0230.01 (Humber Valley Village) - $426,123
0138.00 (Lawrence Park) - $415,480
0131.00 (Forest Hill) - $403,889

The list isn't much different than the individual income one.

The wealthiest five in Scarborough by family also don't change much:

1). 361.1 (Centennial/Port Union) - $146,584 - 68th highest in Toronto
2). 339.0 (Birchcliff/Fallingbrook) - $139,239 - 74th highest in Toronto
3). 802.2 (West Rouge) - $114,209 - 102nd highest in Toronto
4). 334.0 (Cliffcrest) - $114,205 - 103rd highest in Toronto
5). 375.2 (Tom O'Shanter-Sullivan) - $111,922 - 104th highest in Toronto
 
Last edited:
I don't intend to demean Scarborough by any of this. It doesn't have any tracts near to top for income, but it also doesn't have many near the bottom. Most of Scarborough hovers around the middle of Toronto average incomes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There are also individual pockets, such as along the bluffs, that are much smaller than a census tract, but would, if measured on their own, rank up their among the wealthiest.
 
And not just any household income data. He cited median income for couple households with children and the presence of "hidden mansions." He might as well have cited the median income and height of midgets in Gujarat.

Darrent just sent me this private message: "RE: Well then I may as well have been taking measurements of your family then, right paki?"
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/article...-highest-listed-price-in-toronto?bn=1#article

Toronto’s priciest home is going for $27M

By Tony Wong

How large do you live?

If you’re the owner of 9 High Point Rd. in Toronto’s pricey Bridle Path neighborhood, it’s all a matter of perspective.

At least for Margaret and Lee Ka Lau. They’re selling their mega-mansion for $26.8 million, currently the highest listed price for a property in the Toronto area.

Even by ostentatious Bridle Path standards, the home rates high on the bling factor. The living space is more than 40,000 square feet, making it one of the largest properties in the GTA. The estate is also on an extremely rare double Bridle Path lot, encompassing four acres.

One lot has the imposing living quarters with 22,935 square feet of space. The second two-acre lot has a sports complex (call it your very own Deerhurst Resort) with 17,645 square feet of space.

“It is absolutely magnificent,” says Elise Kalles, listing agent for the property. “It’s an estate that’s beyond anything else in the city.”

While tennis courts are a dime a dozen in the Bridle Path, 9 High Point is the ultimate in neighborhood oneupmanship.

For one thing, the tennis court is indoors. So no excuses about the sun being too hot, or the wind whipping the balls around. It also has a bowling alley and an indoor pool.

There is, of course, a cinema, and the tunnel leading from the main house to the sports complex has an indoor putting green. Just in case you get bored on the long walk from one part of the house to another. And no, a GPS is not included if you happen to get lost. But there are 13 washrooms throughout the house in case you need a pit stop.

The owners were certainly thinking big, which is why they ended up purchasing two lots. Homes on High Point Rd. and the Bridle Path were purchased and knocked down, before the new digs were built by society architect Joe Brennan about seven years ago, according to Kalles.

“This is very rare to have this kind of self-contained entertainment centre on this kind of scale,” says Kalles.

“But as large as it is, the home is in perfect taste, it’s not overdone.”

That may be a matter of opinion. In the main house, ceilings are 19 feet high. There is also a soaring 46 foot arboretum, the kind of scale that would dwarf some hotel lobbies.

Indoor parking is available for eight cars.

Fittingly, the Laus were hosts in November to perhaps Toronto’s splashiest charity party held in 2010.

Tickets for tables went for $10,000. And the 500 well-heeled guests included Warren Buffett, the world’s third richest man, and Canadian composer David Foster.

Singer Lionel Richie apparently serenaded fellow guest Muhammad Ali at the dinner, which raised an astonishing $3 million for children seeking organ transplants in Canada and around the world.

“It was a really incredible affair where you had a gathering of so many luminaries in one spot. There was a waiting list to buy tickets to meet Warren Buffett,” says Kalles, who attended the event.

The owners, who made their money in technology, (Lee Kau was a founder of Markham-based graphic chip maker ATI Technologies Inc.) decided to open their home to the fundraiser after hearing it was for children.

They will likely downsize once they have sold the house. (Although after owning this palace, downsizing is likely the only option.)

No word on what it costs to heat the place. But think about this: Property taxes alone are $115,341. That works out to $316 per day. And don’t forget to tip the gardener.


I see all these mansions with bowling alleys, wealthy folks don't strike me as bowling type people :rolleyes:
 
I'm surprised that The Kingsway is not listed as a wealthy neighbourhood, or listed on the average family income chart. Most homes on the Kinsgway are between $2 million to $5 million!

The Kingsway makes Lawrence Park and Lytton Park look like Regent Park !! LOLL
 

Back
Top