The geographic divide in Toronto

[RC8]

Which office development success is this? The sprawling business parks next to Pearson? They exist there because the city of Mississauga could afford to throw away farmland in return for jobs, and because employers wanted to move closer to where their middle-aged suburban workforce lived while paying pretty much nothing in taxes for property so unattractive no one would want to convert into anything else. Costs for transportation, environmental degradation, and social exclusion are all externalised in these developments. Luckily the presence of the airport means the land wouldn't have been too valuable either way, making the state of things there much more acceptable than it would be otherwise.

Meanwhile in North York, if you want new office development you are encouraged to build an expensive office tower next to the subway line or go home. That, or Jane and Finch! It is unreasonable to expect the inner suburbs to replicate what's happening beyond Toronto if they don't have the tools that allow the others to! Downtown Mississauga's lack of success proves that it's not a tax or regulation issue keeping people outside Toronto.

Cheap fuel, worthless land, low maintenance costs, and a healthy professional middle-class allow suburbs in the GTA to attract employment. Another detail about any recently built suburb is that everyone is well-off because if they weren't they wouldn't been able to buy a house there in the first place! Add to that most of the work is paid for by developers who pave and tidy up subdivisions before handing them over to people who will maintain them in good shape in the short term. It takes many decades before these places have to exist as a 'real' municipality. Many pockets of Mississauga, Vaughan, and Brampton will inevitably reach Scarborough-like levels of poverty in the medium term. Their low density built form will make it very difficult for them to deal with social and infrastructure issues without seriously raising their tax-rates.

 

[King of Kensington]

I disagree with this. North Etobicoke and Scarborough were once middle-class (whereas now they contain the poorest communities in the city). What happened with many of the old neighbourhoods is that they went through abandonment as people flocked to suburbs with modern appliances and space for vehicles. This abandonment of inner city neighbourhoods wasn't just some spontaneous phenomenon, but rather a process driven and encouraged by the city - which wanted to widen streets and raze neighbourhoods out of existence to keep up with post-war 'progress'. If the city had built a highway through Rosedale and (like they cut Parkdale from the lake), you bet Rosedale would have suffered too.

I didn't mean to say that no neighborhood has declined since 1920! I should have used a more specific term than "well to do" - but Scarborough and Rexdale were really more working class than middle class even in their postwar heyday. Those were of course the days when working class people and people without university educations had more opportunities to live a "middle class" lifestyle. Now these areas have gone from being predominantly middle-income to having much more of a low-income population.

Look at a map of Toronto in say 1970 and see where large numbers of professionals and people with university degrees (a much more "elite" group then than now) lived. Basically it was midtown (Yorkville, Annex), Rosedale and North Toronto, stretching to the Forest Hill area, and up Yonge St. through York Mills, Willowdale and into Thornhill and Richmond Hill. Plus central Etobicoke/Kingsway, and Clarkson-Lorne Park and south Oakville. Same as today, though obviously the metro area has expanded greatly since then - there's been gentrification of many inner city neighborhoods, the growth of the downtown core and a major expansion of "905" since then. And there's also been a "filling in" process along the Yonge corridor, where areas like Davisville and Bedford Park (which presumably developed as sort of solidly "middle middle class", i.e. for teachers rather factory workers or lawyers) have gotten wealthier due to their being surrounded by a bunch of wealthy neighborhoods.

I can't see anything having gone into steep decline in these areas within the timebound I outlined, whether they be 1920s-era developments like North Toronto, or postwar housing stock.

The Annex and South Parkdale comparison is interesting. The original housing stock is roughly from the same era, and they both went into decline around the same time - i.e. starting in the 1920s (when the wealthy fled, largely to the Avenue Rd. "hill district" and probably Rosedale in the case of the former and presumably many went to Kingsway Park in the case of the latter). And in the Depression, many large houses took in boarders.

The Annex came out much less unscathed, its central location and proximity to the university meant that it was (re-)gentrified in the 1960s. Parkdale in contrast was more "out there" and continued to go downhill with the construction of the QEW in the late 1950s. But while Parkdale was choked off by the expressway, it had long ceased to be an elite neighborhood - in other words it was not the expressway that *caused* Parkdale's decline in status.

One question is though: by the time the Spadina Expressway was proposed, the Annex had already been "recaptured" by educated, highly articulate middle class professionals. Had it been proposed 10 years earlier, would it have been successfully fought off?

 

[RC8]

The Annex and South Parkdale comparison is interesting. The original housing stock is roughly from the same era, and they both went into decline around the same time - i.e. starting in the 1920s (when the wealthy fled, largely to the Avenue Rd. "hill district" and probably Rosedale in the case of the former and presumably many went to Kingsway Park in the case of the latter). And in the Depression, many large houses took in boarders.

The Annex came out much less unscathed, its central location and proximity to the university meant that it was (re-)gentrified in the 1960s. Parkdale in contrast was more "out there" and continued to go downhill with the construction of the QEW in the late 1950s. But while Parkdale was choked off by the expressway, it had long ceased to be an elite neighborhood - in other words it was not the expressway that *caused* Parkdale's decline in status.

One question is though: by the time the Spadina Expressway was proposed, the Annex had already been "recaptured" by educated, highly articulate middle class professionals. Had it been proposed 10 years earlier, would it have been successfully fought off?

It is normal for the very rich to migrate to newer more 'exclusive' neighbourhoods when plenty of land and fuel are accessible and available. This happened in both Parkdale and The Annex, but they remained very respectable neighbourhoods up until the city decided to do away with them.

In the case of Parkdale, 1955 is the year it went from upper-middle class to working class almost overnight. The Gardiner effectively destroyed a neighbourhood that today would probably look like a nicer version of The Beaches! I have no doubt that if left relatively untouched it would still be a very exclusive neighbourhood.

The Annex didn't suffer that much, but still suffered a great deal. Look at this picture of Spadina Rd. pre-widening:

Or look at what Harbord street used to look like where it intersected Spadina:

It is very obvious that as our city consciously gave itself to the car, it was deemed acceptable to destroy all these neighbourhoods. The Spadina Expressway would have certainly done the trick - and I believe that you are right in that it would have come to fruition if it hadn't been an already reclaimed neighbourhood.

The moral of the story is that a lot of the decline in the old city was an inorganic intentional side-effect of our obsession with modernist planning ideals. The structure and characteristics of the neighbourhoods themselves had nothing to do with their decline - unlike what we see in the inner suburbs.

 

[King of Kensington]

Thanks for the pictures, it's absolutely striking to see the contrast compared with today.

Your point about car-centered urban planning is well taken. While it's certainly true that suburbanization was under way well before 1945, there is a sheer difference in scale. Postwar development that involved "urban renewal" did indeed do a lot of damage to urban neighborhoods (which was indeed the planning orthodoxy of the day). The so-called "streetcar suburbs" of the early 20th century are in my opinion much more pleasant and better planned.

However it isn't true that Parkdale "went from upper-middle class to working class almost overnight." It was already underway by the 1920s. For instance, the proportion of homeowners dropped from 51 percent in 1931 to 14 percent(!) in 1941. The proportion of professionals and managers dropped from 25 percent in 1921 to 11 percent in 1941. I get these figures from Carolyn Whitzman's book, Suburb, Slum, Urban Village.

 

[RC8]

However it isn't true that Parkdale "went from upper-middle class to working class almost overnight." It was already underway by the 1920s. For instance, the proportion of homeowners dropped from 51 percent in 1931 to 14 percent(!) in 1941. The proportion of professionals and managers dropped from 25 percent in 1921 to 11 percent in 1941. I get these figures from Carolyn Whitzman's book, Suburb, Slum, Urban Village.

Those are very interesting figures, but it would be great to look at, say, The Beaches during the same period. I think that the great depression and world war II must have dearly affected these relatively new enclaves of upper middle class - even if simply because the number of upper middle class people plummeted!

I agree that 'overnight' wasn't most accurate in any case.

 

[King of Kensington]

Don't have the Beaches, but Whitzman reports that in in the Annex it fell from 56% to 36% in the same period. The Great Depression conditions obviously played a role here, but even taking it into account the drop is staggering indeed!

But what's interesting is that in the 1961 census, the social composition of the postwar apartment buildings in South Parkdale was largely middle class, not all that different from apartment dwellers in the Annex or North Toronto. The number of people below the poverty line was at the city average, even though only one third were homeowners (compared to 62% in Toronto then). And income levels were in the middle quintile, same as the Annex (North Parkdale in contrast was in the second-lowest quintile). By 1971, however, the poverty rate was double the Toronto average. I agree that the gentrification process in Parkdale would have been further along if not for the Gardiner.

What's interesting about the 1961 census is that the Chicago school concentric zone model - did indeed apply to Toronto then.

 

[Glen]

Which office development success is this? The sprawling business parks next to Pearson? They exist there because the city of Mississauga could afford to throw away farmland in return for jobs, and because employers wanted to move closer to where their middle-aged suburban workforce lived while paying pretty much nothing in taxes for property so unattractive no one would want to convert into anything else. Costs for transportation, environmental degradation, and social exclusion are all externalised in these developments. Luckily the presence of the airport means the land wouldn't have been too valuable either way, making the state of things there much more acceptable than it would be otherwise.

Meanwhile in North York, if you want new office development you are encouraged to build an expensive office tower next to the subway line or go home. That, or Jane and Finch! It is unreasonable to expect the inner suburbs to replicate what's happening beyond Toronto if they don't have the tools that allow the others to! Downtown Mississauga's lack of success proves that it's not a tax or regulation issue keeping people outside Toronto.

Cheap fuel, worthless land, low maintenance costs, and a healthy professional middle-class allow suburbs in the GTA to attract employment. Another detail about any recently built suburb is that everyone is well-off because if they weren't they wouldn't been able to buy a house there in the first place! Add to that most of the work is paid for by developers who pave and tidy up subdivisions before handing them over to people who will maintain them in good shape in the short term. It takes many decades before these places have to exist as a 'real' municipality. Many pockets of Mississauga, Vaughan, and Brampton will inevitably reach Scarborough-like levels of poverty in the medium term. Their low density built form will make it very difficult for them to deal with social and infrastructure issues without seriously raising their tax-rates.

Perhaps if it was not true that commercial land is more expensive and development fees much higher outside of the 416 than in it, your remarks would be valid. Alas, they are nothing more than misinformed opinion.

 

[RC8]

Perhaps if it was not true that commercial land is more expensive and development fees much higher outside of the 416 than in it, your remarks would be valid. Alas, they are nothing more than misinformed opinion.

Nonsense. Companies settling down in Mississauga business parks obviously don't want to be in Jane and Finch. Costs in desirable parts of Mississauga are much lower than costs in desirable parts of Toronto.

No one should expect Toronto's decrepit (i.e. mature) inner suburbs to compete with anyone. It would be like expecting Richmond Hill to be up there amongst desirable places 30 years from now while remaining unchanged.

 

[King of Kensington]

What's particularly striking to me is the "appeal" of York Region. Thornhill and Richmond Hill in particular are very expensive (more than the generally more pleasant Oakville and Burlington!) Shows that the advantage of being in the Bathurst/Yonge/Bayview corridor, even that far north. (And presumably being closer in to the city center plays a role).

 

[taal]

What's particularly striking to me is the "appeal" of York Region. Thornhill and Richmond Hill in particular are very expensive (more than the generally more pleasant Oakville and Burlington!) Shows that the advantage of being in the Bathurst/Yonge/Bayview corridor, even that far north. (And presumably being closer in to the city center plays a role).

Depends what part of York region you are referring too ... the office space development has really only been concentrated in Markham (along Hi-way 7) and Mississauga, around the airport / further east.

The rest of York region hasn't really seen too much in the way of office development.

 

[taal]

Nonsense. Companies settling down in Mississauga business parks obviously don't want to be in Jane and Finch. Costs in desirable parts of Mississauga are much lower than costs in desirable parts of Toronto.

No one should expect Toronto's decrepit (i.e. mature) inner suburbs to compete with anyone. It would be like expecting Richmond Hill to be up there amongst desirable places 30 years from now while remaining unchanged.

Yes but why compare to Jane and Finch ... instead lets take one of the existing employment areas (i.e. the Victoria park / Sheppard area) and along the DVP in general, an area with quite a bit of space left for development (even a couple development propsoals that have been around for years) yet really no construction in the last decade or so, whereas Markham and the Airport area has took off and surpassed this node in terms of total office space.

Why is that ?

Wouldn't have one expected more growth in this area, and again here btw land prices are actually less then the 905 counterparts.

 

[Glen]

Nonsense. Companies settling down in Mississauga business parks obviously don't want to be in Jane and Finch. Costs in desirable parts of Mississauga are much lower than costs in desirable parts of Toronto.

No one should expect Toronto's decrepit (i.e. mature) inner suburbs to compete with anyone. It would be like expecting Richmond Hill to be up there amongst desirable places 30 years from now while remaining unchanged.

I am comparing it to NYCC, Consumers road and other areas that have office development already. Developers will pay more for land and development fees in Mississauga than inside Toronto's suburbs. This is a fact. It is also opposite to the premiss that you have based your opinion.

You might want to have a look at the proformas in this report....
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/pdf/TEDCO-Hemson-rep-jan-07.pdf

 

[RC8]

I am comparing it to NYCC, Consumers road and other areas that have office development already. Developers will pay more for land and development fees in Mississauga than inside Toronto's suburbs. This is a fact. It is also opposite to the premiss that you have based your opinion.

You might want to have a look at the proformas in this report....
http://www.toronto.ca/business_publications/pdf/TEDCO-Hemson-rep-jan-07.pdf

Thanks for the article. I quote from it:

In the City of Toronto, Most New Development in the
Districts Is Not Economically Competitive

The pro forma analysis suggests that most new development in the Employment Districts would not be economically competitive from the perspective of the private landowner or investor. In summary:

• For the scenarios tested, the analysis indicates a shortfall of revenues between the net present value of the cost of developing new buildings and their leased-up investment value, for both the pure office and industrial scenarios examined.

...

There would be shortfall of an estimated $74 per m2 for a new, pure office development on Consumers Road. By comparison, for a new pure office development in the Airport Corporate Centre in the City of Mississauga, there would be a surplus of an estimated $68 per m2.

In other words, Consumers road is an undesirable area of Toronto where costs are relatively cheap because it's an undesirable area. Therefore, you would lose money developing it.

Airport Rd. on the other hand is actually a relatively prestigious and socially acceptable place to work in Mississauga, preferred by many multinationals due to its proximity to Pearson, and by local companies due to its ease of access from most upper-middle-class suburbs in the GTA.

They are not equivalent to each other. That they are geographically close doesn't mean that they should be equally successful.

Airport Rd. is very cheap compared to equivalently desirable office locations in Toronto (closer to... things), and that's why many businesses locate there, in Vaughan, and in Markham. The reason why it's cheaper to build there than in desirable locations in Toronto is because demand for land is kept reasonably low through the externalisation of services.

 

[King of Kensington]

Depends what part of York region you are referring too ... the office space development has really only been concentrated in Markham (along Hi-way 7) and Mississauga, around the airport / further east.

The rest of York region hasn't really seen too much in the way of office development.

Sorry I was thinking of the housing market.

 

[adma]

What's particularly striking to me is the "appeal" of York Region. Thornhill and Richmond Hill in particular are very expensive (more than the generally more pleasant Oakville and Burlington!) Shows that the advantage of being in the Bathurst/Yonge/Bayview corridor, even that far north. (And presumably being closer in to the city center plays a role).

Well let's not forget the "affluent ethnoburban" element, i.e. the heavy Jewish and Asian tinge as opposed to the old-Ontario WASPiness that still defines Oakville + Burlington.

And when it comes to office/industrial base: remember that the Silicon Alley-ness of Markham is part of a de facto northward migration of what established itself w/IBM at the edge of Don Mills after WWII (or even in its turn, whatever may have transpired in Leaside during WWII?)