Gentrification & Urban Redevelopment

[Eug]

Those arguments smack of rarified academia.

It's rare to get real people (including poor ones) complaining that their neighbourhoods are getting cleaner and safer.

 

[LAz]

Those arguments smack of rarified academia.

It's rare to get real people complaining that their neighbourhoods are getting cleaner and safer.

I am gonna have to agree with you on this. But of course, the key thing to note is that once the people are displaced, it is no longer their neighborhood. So technically you are correct, as these people get displaced.

This is one of the methodological flaws that some gentrifier supporters have done... they researched gentrification in places which have been already gentrified. They missed the people who got displaced. So yeah, these people... their voices do not get heard. They do not complain.


Do us a favor and read this guy,
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tslater/evicton.pdf
You might get a a few things out of the journal article. Resistance was big in the 1980s, but it has been much smaller in the third wave of gentrification. In it during the 1990s, there was more displacement. Resisters themselves got displaced, resulting in fewer resisters, and thus a resistance that was easier to crack come each new day.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Never have I encountered such a ludicrous statement. Someone talking about the literature who clearly has not read much if any of it. Qualitative and quantitative research over the decades, and the subsequent publications in both countless journal articles and books is so overwhelming that anyone who even bothers to scratch the surface of it will be amazed to read such a statement that you wrote.

So now we're back to "Gentrification is bad because I think I've read more than the rest of you...here's some links to prove it."

 

[Eug]

Do us a favor and read this guy,
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tslater/evicton.pdf

Heh. It reads like a political diatribe, from someone with a big axe to grind.

 

[LAz]

So now we're back to "Gentrification is bad because I think I've read more than the rest of you...here's some links to prove it."

No no no, we were never at that. As said earlier, though you overlooked what I wrote, gentrification can be seen as a good process depending on how it is framed. Gentrification however, for the incumbent population is for the most part a negative thing, producing more harm than good. To say that the incumbent population is not displaced would not make gentrification gentrification. The underlying factor here is as was said, class based displacement.

Heh. It reads like a political diatribe, from someone with a big axe to grind.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. But tell me, are you suggesting that displacement is not occurring? Or do you welcome that?

It's not like Italians moving to Woodbridge from Corso Italia are being replaced by significantly more wealthy residents.
----

*Applause*

I'd like to hear Laz's view on this phenomenon in respect to his gentrification position.

Well, lets look into this Corso Italia neighborhood... and while we're at it, we could include Greektown, Little Italy and the Gerald Indian Bazaar. .
There is a reason to my madness in this part of the post. Hackworth and Rekers published an article called "Ethnic Packaging and Gentrification: The Case of Four Neighborhoods in Toronto."

To sum it up in a paragraph...
Historically, ethnic commercial strips are a result/organic extension of a nearby ethnic residential enclave. What we see in these four neighborhoods is a "commercially manufactured nature of ethnicity." They are strategically produced. In fact, the city has gone out of its way to make them ethnically defined business improvement areas.

Corso Italia is a more authentic Italian place than Little Italy. Gentrification however might not be in there in full force. Prices have remained stable at the time that the article was written. There are some early signs of gentrification, but it does not seem destined in the short term, as the article says. The neighborhood remains more isolated than traditional gentrified neighborhoods closer to the city. It has a different feel to it.

 

[Therion]

We can argue about the positive and negative effects of gentrification all we want, but the bottom line is that if a landlord wants to sell his property to a middle-class or wealthy couple, or to a developer, in this free country of ours nothing can, or should, stop him. The best way to not get evicted is to buy your own place.

 

[kEiThZ]

Great. The gentrification siren troll who knows little to nothing about Toronto, is back. I don't see how much of this discussion is relevant to Toronto. We have not had gentrification on any where near the scale as other cities have. And by LAz's own admission our ethnic neighbourhoods are artificial which of course means that they are difficult to sustain and will eventually evolve, be replaced over time.

Being of Indian descent, I can see this happening to Gerrard Street already. Virtually, every South Asian person I know thinks Gerrard Street is useless these days. The South Asian community has grown substantially and has spread outside the core. The new centres for the South Asian community as Brampton, Scarborough, etc. From these places, Gerrard Street is too far to access on a regular basis. And given the quality of housing in that area (housing size being a major constraint for South Asian families) even fewer still would consider living in that area. If most South Asians had their way, they'd mow down half the street so that they could build new developments. Instead, the businesses are simply migrating out to the burbs where the South Asians are. And new South Asian residents are choosing to live in the burbs as well, because that's where the support network. As such, I doubt any South Asian would look at Gerrard Street as undergoing 'class based displacement'. Any academic who argues that, is woefully ignorant about the socio-cultural and socio-economic dynamics of the South Asian community in Toronto.

Other than that, Therion is correct. It's a free country. What are we supposed to? Should we impose means tests on buyers and make sure landlords only sell to those below a certain income level? I doubt you'll find any neighbourhood any where that does not want to attract wealthier (and usually more educated) residents. To argue that such evolution constitutes a war on the poor is a bit of a stretch in my books. Ask anyone who lives in a run down neighbourhood if they don't want any gentrification. Having grown up in Malvern (which will never be a trendy neighbourhood),I would not find the answer all that surprising, but some high minded academics might. The latter group prefer that poor neighbourhoods remain poor. Any influx of wealth residents, in their eyes is 'class based displacement'.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It is a shame that "gentrification" has become associated with "displacement" regardless of whether or not anyone has actually been displaced. Even when class shifts occur over time that leave poorer people less able to live in a neighbourhood, this can and does occur without a single individual resident being displaced. Most "displacement" is really just restricted access...free to leave a neighbourhood, not as free to return to it.

 

[LAz]

I don't see how much of this discussion is relevant to Toronto. We have not had gentrification on any where near the scale as other cities have.

Well, howabout looking into some stuff...

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/researchbulletins/CUCS_RB_43-Walks-Gentrification2008.pdf
Go to page 5 right there. It's significant, no? I mean dude, just look at the map.

The article looks at gentrification in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. From page 3... "As a proportion of the old pre-war inner city, gentrification is most prevalent in Toronto (39 percent of census tracts), followed by Montreal (38 percent) and Vancouver (24 percent). Now how can one say that it is not happening in Toronto? Oh I think I know... it already happened! Of course!



Go to page 13 here, and you will see another map of the widespread gentrification in Toronto.
http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/Murdie_UAA-2006_Conf_full-p.pdf

It is a shame that "gentrification" has become associated with "displacement" regardless of whether or not anyone has actually been displaced.

Uh dude, if there is no displacement then there is no gentrification. I think you are confused by the word.

Even when class shifts occur over time that leave poorer people less able to live in a neighbourhood, this can and does occur without a single individual resident being displaced.

You are suggesting that the poor became richer? If the poor go, it means that they are displaced. They do not leave voluntarily, you forget that.

We can argue about the positive and negative effects of gentrification all we want, but the bottom line is that if a landlord wants to sell his property to a middle-class or wealthy couple, or to a developer, in this free country of ours nothing can, or should, stop him. The best way to not get evicted is to buy your own place.

It's not as simple as that. If someone has been living for 20 years in a place, they should not be evicted 'cause someone wants to make a buck or two at their expense.

Second, you totally ignore the circumstances when someone has to sell because they can no longer afford to live where they live.



edit/add:

And by LAz's own admission our ethnic neighbourhoods are artificial which of course means that they are difficult to sustain and will eventually evolve, be replaced over time.

Eh, those were just four. Surely there are others too?

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not as simple as that. If someone has been living for 20 years in a place, they should not be evicted 'cause someone wants to make a buck or two at their expense.

Can you show examples of where that happens? If anything the city and province are far too generous with the tax breaks for seniors sitting on million dollar properties downtown. Keep in mind that this country does not have an estate tax either. The old guy lives in his million dollar shack with a tax break and then when he croaks his estate does not get taxed to recoup all the money the city gave him to prevent him being 'displaced'

Yet another demonstration of your ignorance of the Canadian/Ontarian/Torontonian context.

Second, you totally ignore the circumstances when someone has to sell because they can no longer afford to live where they live.

If they own their home, why would that happen? The rolling property assessments do protect homeowners against dramatic swings in taxation. And in general, we don't have large disparities in the cost of living across this city. So beyond personal misfortune, what would cause a homeowner to end up in a circumstance where they could not afford said home?

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, howabout looking into some stuff...

http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/researchbulletins/CUCS_RB_43-Walks-Gentrification2008.pdf
Go to page 5 right there. It's significant, no? I mean dude, just look at the map.

Yes, a handful of districts in the core are being 'gentrified'. They are being guided by official city plans that often aim at protecting buildings and often aim at protecting the character of neighbourhoods as well. Have a gander at the plans:

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/south.htm

And keep in mind that a good chunk of what's being called 'gentrificiation' here is actually conversion of a lot of former industrial land (some quite contaminated) into cleaned up mixed use neighbourhoods. This ends up being labeled as gentrification because of the development impacts on the few residents who might live in that neighbourhood already. Personally, I'd rather in a neighbourhood with fewer warehouses and toxic sites and more residents and cafes and grocery stores. But that's just me. Maybe there are some who detest 'gentrification' and would rather live beside a lead contaminated strip of land.

In case you aren't aware, Toronto has fairly good protection for what are termed as stable neighbourhoods. This probably prevents far too much redevelopment for most of our tastes. For example, Queen east would probably never see the kind of density it should have to get its own subway because most of it is a stable neighbourhood. That's just one example. I would hardly label the redevelopment of Corktown as gentrification. If you've ever been there you'd understand. I don't understand how anyone can call the conversion of industrial wastelands (including some contaminated sites) into active mixed use communities while preserving many of the historic buildings as gentrification.

What's even more ridiculous is that your stance on 'gentrification' is basically anti-development rhetoric that would prevent the kind of transit friendly development this city desperately needs to meet the pressures of population growth. I'd much rather these new residents live in 'gentrified' mixed use neighbourhoods close to the core than out in the 'burbs and using tons of energy to commute.

The article looks at gentrification in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. From page 3... "As a proportion of the old pre-war inner city, gentrification is most prevalent in Toronto (39 percent of census tracts), followed by Montreal (38 percent) and Vancouver (24 percent). Now how can one say that it is not happening in Toronto? Oh I think I know... it already happened! Of course!

If it's happened, then great! It's not a relevant topic for discussion any more. Other than that, there's a lot more to Toronto than the handful of neighbourhoods in the core. Judging Toronto by the "the old pre-war inner city" is a ridiculously narrow standard. Forget gentrification. A lot of that has been paved over to build the central business district..and that happened 50 years ago. There's also been waves of gentrification that suprise, surprise coincide perfectly with the waves of immigration that this country had. There was no Corso Italia in the pre-war era. That's a much more recent phenomenon...a result of gentrification. That report also termed the development along the Yonge line as gentrification. What's the city supposed to do? Put in a subway and not build any dense neighbourhoods around it? Then what the heck is the point of building subways? Since you oppose this kind of development, I would love for you to tell us how the city should handle the influx of future residents without any gentrification and yet prevent sprawl, traffic congestion, pollution, and the myriad other problems that come with population growth. Better yet, we can fire all the planners Toronto has right now and you can tell us how we should solve the problems of traffic congestion, sprawl, etc that exist for the residents who live here today. Anybody who suggests that increasing the density of neighbourhoods along multi-billion dollar subway lines is a bad thing, is an absolute moron in my books.

Go to page 13 here, and you will see another map of the widespread gentrification in Toronto.
http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/Murdie_UAA-2006_Conf_full-p.pdf

If you read the whole slide package, you'd see that there were benefits to some residents as well and that the Canadian context for gentrification is not as clear cut on 'class displacement' as it is south of the border....see slide 5.

Do you even bother to read the stuff you post or are you just some bored, undergrad who has nothing better to do on Saturday afternoon than troll a blog about a city you've never been to (much less lived in) and lecture its residents about the evils of gentrification without having any understanding of the local context at all?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Uh dude, if there is no displacement then there is no gentrification. I think you are confused by the word.

When someone moves out and someone different moves in, it is not displacement. This is how gentrification functions, not evictions. Of course, if even one eviction occurs in the course of a thousand occupancy changes over the multi-year period in which gentrification's demographic shifts occur (many of these occupancy changes would occur no matter what), you'll no doubt claim there's a whole lot of 'class based displacement' going on causing irreparable harm.

edit - a dozen people in this thread have tried to help you inderstand what's going on...instead of scanning journal abstracts, why not start fresh with wikipedia or something?

 

[adma]

Corso Italia is a more authentic Italian place than Little Italy. Gentrification however might not be in there in full force. Prices have remained stable at the time that the article was written. There are some early signs of gentrification, but it does not seem destined in the short term, as the article says. The neighborhood remains more isolated than traditional gentrified neighborhoods closer to the city. It has a different feel to it.

From a heritage/urban design standpoint, what's "better"? A gentrifier in Little Italy restoring a 1920s commercial building, or an "authentic Italian" on Corso Italia suffocating a 1920s commercial building in EIFS stucco?

 

[kEiThZ]

...a dozen people in this thread have tried to help you inderstand what's going on...instead of scanning journal abstracts, why not start fresh with wikipedia or something?

He's not here to learn. He's here to lecture us cause we're ignorant Torontonians who need some learned undergrad from Chicago to tell us (without local context) all about the evils of gentrification.

He has zero nuance in his views....which should make anyone wonder whether he's a true academic with an open mind or a partisan anti-development advocate. The oracle of Chicago has also failed to offer any alternative vision of what this city should do beyond crafting policies to prevent gentrification. He offers no ideas whatsoever about how we would tackle the huge challenges of sustainability that we have today and the multiplier of those challenges that is population growth.

He is truly an example of what happens when one only has book learning....exactly the reason why regular folks wonder about the leadership merits of the ivory tower crowd. Anybody who decries development along a subway line because it's 'gentrification' clearly lacks the common sense that can only come from real world experience.

 

[Eug]

BTW, my neighbourhood is being slowly gentrified through death and rezoning.

85 year olds living in old bungalows are dying off and developers are buying the houses and updating them to flip. Meanwhile a few of the old commercial sites are being rezoned to support higher densities, including residential. Ie. There is residential starting to appear where it never existed before. Let's just say there is very little resistance from the residents of the neighbourhood for this type of change.

I've been told the one group that has been "displaced" are the drunks who used to hang out outside the Beer Store. They're gone now cuz that Beer Store closed. Needless to say, everyone else save the 8 drunks is quite happy about that.