Gentrification

[King of Kensington]

Here is an interesting research report on gentrification in Toronto (as well as Montreal and Vancouver) prepared by Alan Walks and Richard Maaranen:

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/p...cation2008.pdf

[carrefour]

I used to believe Gentrification was awesome. I liked the "voyageur" aspect of it. Besides, it's part of the natural cycle of a neighbourhood. But today's new form of Gentrification has become pre-packaged goo. Nothing interesting about it. And the effects on lower-income home owners is unfortunately rarely looked at.

Check out the documentary called Flag Wars (2003) on the effects of upper-income white residents displacing the original lower-income black residents in an effort for "gentrification".

Or this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/ny...on&oref=slogin) from the New York Times about the "gentrification" of Harlem. My favourite quote attributed to a new resident is: 'there are too many churches in Harlem'

[Admiral Beez]

Pretty biased language in that report.

"....in gentrified and gentrifying neighbourhoods have upgrading in the social character of the neighbourhood..." Upgraded, if I was working class I'd be offended.

As for myself, I love gentrification. As I sit in my four-level semi in Cabbagetown, having owned it since the mid-1990s, I love watching the development all around me. Regent Park, Star of Downtown, Parliament semis and better retail is coming our way.

[King of Kensington]

What I like about the report is that they establish some pretty solid criteria in terms of defining it - rather than a trendy cafe came or some "loft" is being built or some "professionals" have moved into the neighborhood, etc.

The timing they have for some areas seems a little early - i.e. Riverdale gentrified in the 1970s?

I'm going to look at 2006 data today to see if any tracts have moved into the fully gentrified category or if some other tracts are moving in that direction.

[Urban Shocker]

Richard Beal, one of my instructors at OCA(D) and a graduate of RCA in London, did a gorgeous reno to a house on Langley in the mid-70s. He was one of the first to start fixing up forgotten Riverdale, after renovating in Cabbagetown - where prices were already rising. And, in "gay index" terms, the Popert-Mossops ( an A-list queer political activist couple ) moved across the Valley and bought a place ( on Millbrook, if I recall ) in the late '70s. Artist Flavio Belli lived in a former retail space on Logan in the mid-70s ( and used the front window as an art showcase ), so it's an accurate enough assessment.

[UserNameToronto]

What I like about the report is that they establish some pretty solid criteria in terms of defining it - rather than a trendy cafe came or some "loft" is being built or some "professionals" have moved into the neighborhood, etc.

The timing they have for some areas seems a little early - i.e. Riverdale gentrified in the 1970s?

I'm going to look at 2006 data today to see if any tracts have moved into the fully gentrified category or if some other tracts are moving in that direction.

Looking forward to this update.

[doady]

Pretty biased language in that report.

"....in gentrified and gentrifying neighbourhoods have upgrading in the social character of the neighbourhood..." Upgraded, if I was working class I'd be offended.

Your use of the term "working class" shows you have the same bias. And I think all "working class" people would consider the professional/managerial class to be an "upgrade" from their current status as well.

The increase of incomes and land values of a neighbourhood is a major aspect of gentrification, which you have ignored, so you are the one who seems biased to me.

The report does talk about the rarely-mentioned negative effects of gentrification on low-income people, so it doesn't seem biased to me.

I used to believe Gentrification was awesome. I liked the "voyageur" aspect of it. Besides, it's part of the natural cycle of a neighbourhood. But today's new form of Gentrification has become pre-packaged goo. Nothing interesting about it. And the effects on lower-income home owners is unfortunately rarely looked at.

Its not just low-income home owners, but also low-income renters as well. Gentrification reduces the stock of rental housing causing large increase in rents, too much for low-income people.

[King of Kensington]

Looking forward to this update.

Census tract reference maps for Toronto CMA are available here:

http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss2006/...&fileName=#geo

Maps #6 and especially #7 cover most of the relevant area:

According to the authors, the following tracts are fully gentrified in 2001:
10 (Niagara), 11 (King-Spadina), 12 and 13 (waterfront), 14-16 (downtown), 20, 21, 22, 24 (Beaches), 35 (downtown), 49, 51 (High Park), 59-60 (Harbord Village), 62 (South Midtown), 67-68 (Cabbagetown), 69-71 (Riverdale), 78-79 (Upper Beach), 84 (Danforth), 85 (Playter Estates), 88, 90 (North Midtown), 89 (Yorkville), 91-92 (Annex), 93 (Seaton Village), 104 (Bloor West Village), 114, 116 (Hillcrest), 120 (Summerhill)

Since 2001, tract 57 (Palmerston), 64 (Jarvis/Sherbourne/Wellesley - whatever that area is called) and 77 (Upper Beach) could be added to this group.

[PukeGreen]

Your use of the term "working class" shows you have the same bias.

Agreed. Terms like that are relative and often based on a person's situation. In a similar way, everyone's idea of "gentrification" is different. I laugh when I see "die yuppie scum" scrawled on condo billboards, because I live in a condo, so I guess to some people that makes me yuppie. Nevermind that many condo owners are people who are just scraping by, living in condos because they are more affordable than the full-scale houses they would rather live in (not in my particular case, but it is not unusual). My wife and I work hard, though we work in cubicles and not on our feet, so I guess we're not "working class".

But then I walk along King E. and look in the shop windows at $15,000 chairs and I shake my head at the people who can afford that furniture, and the houses big enough to put them in. Die yuppie scum, eh.

Do we all want to live in neighbourhoods with crumbling Coffee Times and drug dealers on every corner? Is there a happy medium that brings money into a neighbourhood without turning it into a sea of Starbucks and $150-a-plate trendy restaurants? I think so. We tend to look at extreme examples of gentrification in Toronto but there are many neighbourhoods I can think of, including my own, that have improved greatly in recent years but still seem pretty lively and livable for the average person.

[King of Kensington]

Then there's those high-income professional types who insist that the neighborhood gentrified just AFTER they moved in...

[Admiral Beez]

Your use of the term "working class" shows you have the same bias.

No it doesn't. It shows I read the article and have used the terminology thereof, as in "...housing stock in gentrified and gentrifying neighbourhoods have upgraded the social character from predominantly working class to middle class or elite status." I do have a bias though, that of towards checking my facts before making insinuations.

I do dislike the term working people that Dippers and union bosses use. When do you stop being a working person? Is there an income cut off when you stop working?