Gentrification is fifty years old this year, UBC professor and Canada Research Chair in Geography David Ley explained to a University of Toronto audience earlier this week. Or at least the word “gentrification” is.
Although attributed to sociologist Ruth Glass first in 1964, the term can be found in an unpublished paper of hers five years earlier. Glass’ definition still holds up well, Ley explained. Gentrification is the movement of middle income households into lower income or working-class neighbourhoods.
Ley was speaking a Cities Centre hosted lecture entitled “Are there limits to gentrification? Evidence from Vancouver.” Reflecting back on the decades of work he has done on Vancouver neighbourhoods, Ley made the following points, some new, some old.
Shifts in the housing and labour markets are linked
While the labour marker and the housing market have been “commonly partitioned in academia,” they are coupled.
Citing the historical shifts in Cabbagetown, Ley read off a list of occupations from the 1960s and then a few decades afterwards. Physicians replaced Punch Press Operators. Teachers replaced transit workers. Higher income occupations replaced working class occupations. (It’s similar to the process I have described in my own neighbourhood in an earlier post.)
“Clearly a social change was going on,” said Ley.
The growth in the managerial and professional class occurred at the same time as the closure of factories were disappearing from Canada’s 5 largest metropolitan areas. Almost as an aside, Ley pointed out the unrecognized role good quality public sector jobs has played in generating this shift. [One can’t help thinking how this links to Richard Florida’s idea of the creative classes.)
So, as the labour market shifted, the housing markets were likely to follow.
Industrial transition is the meta-narrative in the story of gentrification.
Gentrification plays out differently in different places because of the varied conditions. Urban areas with a stronger industrial base, such as Winnipeg and Windsor, will be less likely to face gentrification than post-industrial cities, such as Toronto. During the 1970s and 80s, for example, Toronto gained 60,000 of these higher status jobs while 75,000 jobs were lost in other parts of the economy.
The movement of artists predicts gentrification
The presence of artists other “pre-professionals” (with a lot of cultural capital, but little economic capital) signals a neighbourhoods in transition.
Ley described artists as modern magicians, transforming the material world of disinvested neighbourhoods, creating cachet. Young professionals, eager to pick up such cultural capital, soon follow, driving prices up. So artists are continually shunted along out of the secure neighbourhoods into other working class, and often non-English -speaking, ones.
“So where they were in 1971, they are gone. And where they weren’t, they are in 1991,” Ley said. “Their concentration leads to their own elimination.”
The middle class then begins to move in, once terra incognito is proven. In Toronto, we saw movement along Bloor Street as this occurred. In Vancouver, the growth was along Main Street.
So what kinds of neighbourhoods has gentrification favoured?
Ley’s study of Vancouver neighbourhoods since the 1970s found these patterns:
This is the founding pattern. Ley said wryly that he missed the opportunity in the 970s to become a millionaire when he had the predictive model to see where gentrification would spread. Instead, Ley said, he had only the deep moral satisfaction that he had had the insight, if not the wit, to invest.
“However, once the market is ‘proven,’ a much more eclectic, experimental phase follows,” Ley explained, “and areas likely to gentrify become much harder to predict.”
Some neighbourhoods resist gentrification
People have been talking about the imminent gentrification of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and Grandview Woodland for 35 years, Ley explained. It has many heritage buildings, walkable, close to water and some tree-lined streets, all indicators in the earlier model of a place ripe for gentrification. And yet, they remain, some of the poorest census tracts in Canada.
Attempts at gentrification are regularly made by hopeful arrivals. Condo marketers have played off this grittiness, advertising, “Be bold or move to the suburbs.” But, as one local business owner said to Ley, “these people just wash through.”
So how have these neighbourhoods resisted persistent attempts to move them upscale?
Ley’s short answer: A complex local sense of place which is unfriendly to gentrification
Ley’s longer answer:
Neighbourhoods “in decline” are where poor people are housed, yet, Ley cautioned later, governments need to be cautious about intervening there, as improvements may lead to displacements.
Gentrifiers can triumph through persistent incrementalism
“There is clear evidence gentrifiers are trying to change their externalities,” Ley said as he flipped a transparency onto the overhead.
The graph showed the number of complaints about the smell emanating from the local rendering plant. A wave of complaints in the 1990s lead to changes. Then, in 2005, the complaints sky-rocketed, doubling, even when additional changes were made.
Ley flipped another transparency onto the overhead: An excerpt from the Globe & Mail’s real estate section, Done Deal. A five bedroom house with a two bedroom rental unit in Grandview Woodland.
It is one of the dichotomies of the private market, Ley explained, later in answer to a question from the audience. “The bottom line is if we have a free-market in land, than those with the most money will outbid others and hold the land.”
Recognizing the right to the city for poor people
The Downtown Eastside has held gentrification at bay, mainly, Ley says because 40% of housing in the neighbourhoods is non-market. The City has sustained affordable housing units, and neighbourhood residents and organizations have a “poor people’s turf” legitimate.
The local ethos is preservation, public investment and revitalization without displacement. It is a grudging recognition of a right to the city for poor people.
Government regulation and policy is central
In the past century, Ley explains, neo-liberal policies have encouraged the spread of gentrification and the displacement of poor people because of the lack of investments it has made in affordable housing. Escalating levels of public debt will work against the revival of a welfare state that will create new housing.
The current push for sustainable housing and improved “eco-densities” will further aggravate the problem of affordable housing and further prime the inequality that is running the poor out of Canadian cities, Ley explained.
Although newer developments purport to improve densities, building taller buildings, the units are large and use more expensive materials, leaving those with low incomes displaced form the areas being “renewed.” Indeed these taller buildings often have fewer people in them then low-rises they replaced.
Gentrification cannot be benign
Strictly speaking, if higher-end housing units are built as infill or on brownfield, displacement of the poor is not an issue.
However, Ley explained in response to an audience question, the argument shifts then to the affects beyond the building unit itself, such as whether other middle income households are then drawn to the area. Housing co-ops, for instance, have been argued to prime neighbourhoods for gentrification. One social housing service provider explained to Ley that they want their housing to be “gritty” so that it doesn’t generate these external effects.
Finally, approached afterwards on the topic of mixed neighbourhoods, Ley explained that social mixing is usually just a transitional stage, on the way to complete gentrification.
The audience would have stayed longer to flesh out the lecture further, but another class arrived, this time to face an exam.
The De-fence Project is coming to Riverdale.
One of my favourite direct action groups is the Toronto Space Committee’s De-fence Project. With an obvious sense of fun, the group encourages homeowners to take down the front yard chain-link fences which were popular in many downtown neighbourhoods.
The fences were considered an improvement when they began their spread in the 1970s over the higher wooden fences of earlier times. The open links allowed air flow while maintaining security. Yet, as the De-fence crew says, our front gardens end up looking like jail yards.
I remember the delight my family felt when a former neighbour with a large, ill-mannered dog moved away. Our delight was compounded because the new neighbour was glad to have us take down the fence between us, and to simply allow the day lilies define our border.
The Globe and Mail’s Architourist’ Dave LeBlanc wrote a recent article the movement to neighbours sharing their yards rather than fencing them. His focus was on the suburbs.
Join the De-fence volunteers Sunday October 18th, and bring pliers and work gloves, if you’ve got them.
11am: 180 Riverdale Avenue
Noon: 173 Riverdale Avenue
1:30: 157 Withrow Avenue
2:30: 124 Wolfrey Avenue.
GOOGLE MAP: http://tinyurl.com/ylyr6b5
For further info, contact: defence@publicspace.ca
The Ontario-based 25-in-5 Network for Poverty Reduction met in the basement of a community agency this week to hear some radical news. U of T’s Ernie Lightman and Andy Mitchell were at the front of the room. Economist Hugh Mackenzie had joined them. Policy wonk John Stapleton came in soon afterwards. Various funders, networks and advocacy groups sat around the room. Now Magazine’s Alice Klein sat at the side.
Lightman explained that this was a preliminary discussion rather than an off-the-record one.
We were there to discuss the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). Despite the hue and cry against it, Mitchell and Lightman’s analysis was showing that it is a progressive tax.
When the HST was announced, Lightman, habituated by a long history watching the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, was an early critic. Soon after he was interviewed one morning on CBC radio, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan followed with his own rebuttal: university professors shouldn’t speak about things they didn’t know about, Duncan said.
Lightman, to his credit, took up Duncan’s challenge. He and Mitchell, a stats master, met with Treasury Board staff, gathered some data and began the number-crunching. The preliminary results have induced them to rethink their original position and to broaden the discussion to this audience.
Mitchell’s analysis looked at the announced changes to the HST, personal income tax and Ontario Tax Credits and their combined effect on economic families (which includes singles too). The calculations did not include the transitional “bribe”. Here’s what they found:
Now, Mitchell and Lightman cautioned this was a projection using SPSM Stats Can data. It does not account for any changes in spending habits which may occur after the changes are brought in. So, for instance, if a consumer decides to a get a haircut less frequently because of the higher costs, then these numbers may shift.
As the gathered group began to thresh through what this meant, a few obvious advocacy positions emerged.
Hugh Mackenzie had the final part of the discussion, framing the importance of taxes because they boost “the robust fiscal capacity of government which allows government to drive services.” And, if services are boosted, as his work with Richard Shillington last spring in A Quiet Bargain showed, the poor were more likely to receive an equitable share. When it’s implemented, this “tax-grabbing” change introduced by the Ontario Liberal government may just raise enough millions and billions to do that.
The HST sounds like a good deal to anti-poverty activists, after all.
Late arrivers had to sit along the steps in the auditorium at New College/U of T. Ed Broadbent led off Social Planning Toronto’s Building the Future We Want symposium. Chief economist at the TD Bank Don Drummond sat in the second row, his session and chance to answer was up next. Potential candidate for mayor of Toronto Glen Murray was scheduled to finish at the end of the day.
It was the place to be. Registration had had to be cut off. Organizers were also wise enough to schedule long breaks so that registrants could network. {Shameless ad inserted here: If you haven’t become a member of the newly re-branded SPT, you should.}
I couldn’t stay for long, but even the few morning hours I attended yielded some great quotable quotes. Here’s two:
What did you hear?
This flyer came across my desk (well my computer) an upcoming seminar. Cities Centres at the University of Toronto, The Wellesley Institute and Rooftops Canada are bringing Ana Sugranyes, the General Secretary of Habitat International Coalition to speak on the topic: Right to the City! Lessons from Chile’s social housing experience. An estimable guest, to be sure, but a bit of a dry topic — unless one is one of those dedicated souls who maintains a keen interest in diverse worldly affairs.
But one of the phrases popped out at me: Right to the city.
It’s been chortling around in leftist circles for a little while, spreading across equator and creeping north now into the United States and Vancouver. Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman has profiled the topic. Right to the City chapters have erupted throughout U.S. cities, on three coast. Vancouverites have united under the same rallying call in their anti-Olympics advocacy.
The concept of Right to the city holds that, as inhabitants of the same urban space, we are all equal participants. The movement has become a way to capture the wide range of interests (of women, low-income people, immigrants, people of colour and all other diversities under one banner. It frames how we live together in these urban spaces.
Right to the city has been more eloquently described:
The question of what kind of city of city we want cannot be divorced from that of what kind of social ties, relationship to nature, lifestyles, technologies and aesthetic values we desire. The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanisation. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights.
David Harvey, The Right to the City
The Wellesley Institute has a notable record of identifying and acting on issues ahead of the curve, as examples their work on community-based research, social determinants of health, housing and inclusive zoning.Cities Centres and Rooftops are also no slouches.
So, if they’re bringing Right to the City to Toronto, it’s probably time to pay attention.
Today, Stats Can released a hot product: a report on crime in Toronto. Even though we are one of the safer metropolitan areas on the continent, Neighbourood Characteristics and the Distribution of Police-reported Crime in the City of Toronto is sure to draw some attention.
Produced by Mathieu Charron at the Canadian Centre for Crime Statistics, the report looks at the location of reported crimes and the characteristics of the neighbourhoods in which they occurred.
The data, drawn from Statistic Canada’s Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) “reflect reported crime that has been substantiated by police.” 106,175 incidents were clustered and mapped across the city.
The reports differentiates between violent crime and property crime, finding different correlations. The pattern shows that low-income and nearby neighbourhoods are more likely to suffer spillover effects.
Dividing crimes into violent and property ones, the report found:
Criminologists recognize the spatial patterns of crime. Crime comes in hot spots around the city. Mapping out various criminal activities, the report’s spatial crime patterns follow the same deprivation “U” which marks less privileged areas of the city. Densely populated cores, transportation and shopping hubs, which all draw large numbers of people, tended to report higher crime rates.
The report does not rank or rate specific neighbourhoods, however it did describe “some hot spots…Danforth, downtown east side, and the intersections of Lawrence and Morningside, Jane and Finch, and Jane and Eglinton.”
Here, for those who like the gory details, is what I could see on the maps. The highest levels of crime clustered in the following places:
In contrast, the city’s financial district and the north end of Yonge Street were identified as areas with lower rates of violence. In essence, the central neighbourhoods of the city are higher-income and safer areas, while neighbourhoods with poor physical infrastructure and social resources were more likely to have higher levels of police involvement.
So, the final word probably best belongs to Canadian housing activist Michael Shapcott who wryly noted in his Twitter feed about the study, “Plenty of crime in rich, white neighbourhoods (fraud, tax cheating, ‘white collar’), it just doesn’t get policed/reported.”
A year ago, I started this blog with the classic rookie mistake of naming my blog differently than the URL. Despite my zeal outweighing my wisdom, I knew that interesting ideas were worth sharing and that others might be interested in some of the same issues I am.
The blog began as an exploration of the idea of how we live together in urban communities and the structures and institutions within hemt that shape our lives.
Author Dionne Brand once described Toronto as “a city that has never happened before.” It’s a favourite quote of mine and what I set out to explore in each post.
Since then I’ve published 58 posts (and drafted another 30). Readership has built to an average 18 hits a day and a total of 3,600 through the year.
The top ten most popular posts have been:
I’ve had a lot of fun sharing what I have learned, whether at community meetings, the release of new research reports, or thoughts “from my front porch.” (And I have stayed up way too late!)
Thanks for a good year!