News   Apr 19, 2024
 26     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 392     1 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 638     1 

Richard Florida (Rise of the Creative Class) Moving to Toronto

When you analyze them, so-called personal "choices" are largely pre-determined by the socio-economic environment we find ourselves in. For example, few people ultimately make the "choice" to go to university, or start a family, or choose the place they work, or marry someone from the same socio-cultural background. If there are choices available it is between two or three candidates among a small range of possibilities, rather than from an infinite number of diverse possibilities.

It doesn't help to really consider "choice" in this debate. It is a philosophical concept which exists almost entirely in theory. Does a person with a gun to his head have choice? I don't know. It would be far more helpful to look at consumer preference to see how people rank the "small range of possibilities" against each other. Of course there isn't an "infinite number of diverse possibilities", we aren't all single millionaires with no responsibilities, that doesn't negate preferential decisions we all make though. It certainly shouldn't give us an excuse to imply that suburbs exist in spite of rational decision making.

As far as consumer preference is concerned, suburbs tend to be the clear winner. Populations in urban cores have been stagnating or declining with only a few exceptions since the 1950s. Far from an "infinite number" of possibilities, it is almost a binary choice when it comes to housing; suburban or urban? Why have suburbs been the preference for consumers?

In your example of why you preferred to live around Broadview/Danforth, you compared your options against various limiting factors and came to a decision. Whether or not you had "infinite" choice doesn't really matter, you rationally weighed your choices and came to a decision. Kay's article just listed a different set of limiting factors (i.e. need to accomodate larger families, financial concerns, educational options ect...) to come to the conclusion that most people prefer to move to the suburbs. It is easy enough to imagine why a "university-educated, young, single, knowledge economy worker" would have very different requirements and limitations than a lower middle class family with three kids.
 
Wow, what immature arrogance to suggest that no one willingly chooses the suburbs.
 
In your example of why you preferred to live around Broadview/Danforth, you compared your options against various limiting factors and came to a decision. Whether or not you had "infinite" choice doesn't really matter, you rationally weighed your choices and came to a decision. Kay's article just listed a different set of limiting factors (i.e. need to accomodate larger families, financial concerns, educational options ect...) to come to the conclusion that most people prefer to move to the suburbs. It is easy enough to imagine why a "university-educated, young, single, knowledge economy worker" would have very different requirements and limitations than a lower middle class family with three kids.

My admittedly personal anecdote was meant to demonstrate how little choice I had, ultimately, in making my decision. This isn't about a supposed urban-preference - I have lived in suburban areas and even bought a car to drive to my job because of - what else? - a lack of other choices.

Ultimately, it is up to employers like that one to pick a more transit-friendly or walkable spot but it serves them well to be located in a suburban greenfield development close to a (as yet uncongested) highway interchange and intermodal rail yard, and I'm sure that the suburban municipality, new and unencumbered by decaying physical infrastructure or costly social services (at least for now) bent over backwards for them with appetizing tax breaks and other incentives (again, for now, while they can still afford them). Commercial development stories like this, repeated daily throughout the North American continent for the last fifty years gave rise to the suburban phenomenon. The workers had little choice in the matter and had to, for the most part, acquiesce.


It would be far more helpful to look at consumer preference to see how people rank the "small range of possibilities" against each other

"Consumer preference" is itself a very loaded term. Do people desire things because they really like them, or because there are certain societal norms that they feel they need to keep up with.

Besides, since so much of the tax code in North America was designed to subsidize sprawl-based development, is it any wonder that such a frenzy of development activity took place in the suburbs, anyway?
 
Loads of families that I grew up with in a central Scarborough mid-rise and know personally who all moved to the eastern suburbs (mostly Pickering) did exactly that. That is, they purposely moved to the suburbs because to move the other way (towards the central city) would be seen as getting into some shady territory. They either see it as too crime-ridden (patently false, of course), too dirty, "too many crackheads and weirdos" (my own family's sad, sad words), and so on and so on.

Don't look at me, I think they're all mental.

But each one of these families (with the exception of my parents who moved to exurban Pickering to start a farm) WANTED TO...nay, aspired to live the suburban life.

They're out there, don't you worry. They're scary but they're real.

Wow, what immature arrogance to suggest that no one willingly chooses the suburbs.

They're clearly not choosing the suburbs when they already live there, as the vast majority of people do.

And no one no one chooses...we're saying the vast majority do not choose. Even in the 50s, the "choice" was not as clear cut as it's been made out to be.
 
people like the suburbs...
Suburbs Not Most Popular, But Suburbanites Most Content

by Richard Morin and Paul Taylor, Pew Research Center
February 26, 2009

Ever since there have been suburbs there have been harsh critiques of suburbs -- a common one being that they are suffocating places where people live lives of quiet desperation.

Well, most suburbanites apparently never got that memo.

Suburbanites are significantly more satisfied with their communities than are residents of cities, small towns or rural areas, according to a Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends survey that explores what Americans like -- and don't like -- about the places where they live.

The survey asks respondents to rate their community on eight characteristics: job opportunities; cost of living; a place to raise children; recreational and outdoor activities; shopping; the climate; cultural activities; and opportunities to meet people and make friends. It also asks for an overall rating.

Responses to all nine questions were aggregated into a single scale. Overall, 42% of suburban residents give their community high marks on this combined scale, compared with just 34% of city residents, 29% of rural residents and 25% of small town residents.

So let the critics bray. The suburban life is the good life, right? Well, yes, but ...

The same survey also asks people whether, if they could live anywhere, they would prefer to live in a city, a suburb, a rural area or a small town. On this measure, the suburban "good life" is a bit of a flop. Just 25% of the overall public says the suburb is their ideal community type. In fact, a higher share (30%) of the public says that small towns are their ideal community type -- this despite the fact that the people who live in small towns are much less satisfied with their communities than are residents of suburbs.

The survey did not ask enough questions to explain this "image versus reality" gap in the public's judgments about life in suburbs and small towns. But no observer of American history or culture will have much trouble conjuring up some theories. Americans have always celebrated the values and lifestyle of the small town, even as an ever diminishing share has chosen to live in such communities. Likewise, the popular culture has often embraced the rap on suburbs as sterile and conformist places, even as Americans have migrated there in rising numbers and their populations have become increasingly racially diverse.

It's worth noting that the image vs. reality gap doesn't necessarily reflect inconsistent or paradoxical views on the part of the public. Instead, these attitudes may simply reflect two complementary realities: many people are satisfied with their communities, but at the same time believe that some other type of place may be even more desirable, a finding explored in detail in an earlier Pew Research Center report .

The survey, which was conducted from Oct. 3-19, 2008 among a nationally-representative sample of 2,260 adults, also finds a wide range of demographic characteristics linked to community satisfaction. In particular, whites rate their communities significantly better than do blacks or Hispanics. Also, college graduates and adults earning $100,000 or more are more likely than other adults to be satisfied with their communities. It's hardly surprising that those with higher incomes and more marketable skills are happier with the places they live -- after all, they're more likely to be able to afford to live in communities that provide better services and amenities.

To examine community satisfaction, a scale was created based on the nine survey questions (see Appendix A for details on how the scale was created and question wording.) The sample then was divided into three roughly equal-sized groups: Those who consistently express high levels of satisfaction across the nine questions (about 33% of the sample), those who express the least amount of satisfaction (32%), and a middle third that rate their areas somewhere in-between. One caution: This list did not cover all possible dimensions of community satisfaction. For example, it did not probe for satisfaction with the pace-of-life in a community or opportunities to form deep bonds with friends and neighbors. A broader list might have produced different results.

This analysis focuses on comparisons between the groups that are the most and the least satisfied with their communities.

Why Are Suburbanites So Satisfied?

Suburban residents express the highest levels of satisfaction and the lowest levels of dissatisfaction with the communities in which they lived. More than four-in-ten suburban residents (42%) consistently give high marks to their communities as places to live, compared with 25% of adults living in small-town America. A third of city dwellers and somewhat fewer rural residents also give their communities top grades. (See Appendix B for breakdowns of all nine community satisfaction question by type of place.)

A deeper look at these data suggests the significant role that demography plays in shaping how residents view their communities. And it also highlights the very different lives that America's haves and have-nots are living, down to the stark differences in their perceptions of the quality of the neighborhoods they call home.

Affluent Americans tend to be big boosters of their communities, giving them top marks as places to live, work and raise families. This finding is not surprising: the affluent can afford to live in more desirable communities, and these communities, in turn, can afford to offer more and better services and amenities to their residents. But the degree to which money matters is notable. Fully half (51%) of all adults with family incomes of $100,000 a year or more give their community top ratings, compared with just a quarter of those earning less than $50,000. Similarly, college graduates are twice as likely as those with a high school degree or less education to express high levels of community satisfaction (46% vs. 23%).

Significantly, a larger share of college graduates as well as adults earning $100,000 a year or more live in the suburbs than in cities, small towns or rural areas -- little wonder, then, that community satisfaction is highest in suburban communities.

Other demographic characteristics are closely associated with community satisfaction. Among the most striking findings of the survey are the level of dissatisfaction expressed by blacks toward the communities in which they live. Fully half of all blacks give low levels of approval to their communities, compared with 28% of all whites and 37% of Hispanics. The fact that blacks are less likely than whites to be college graduates (19% vs. 31%) or earn $100,000 or more (7% vs. 18%) largely -- but does not completely -- explain the strong relationship between race and community satisfaction.

Age is modestly related to overall community satisfaction, and in an intriguing way. There are no significant differences in the proportion of those in each age group that are very satisfied with their communities as places to live. For example, 31% of those age 65 and older fall into the high satisfaction group, compared with 35% of those under the age of 30, 33% of those 30-49 and 31% of those 50-64. But at the same time, 39% of older adults fall into the group of those most dissatisfied with their communities, compared with about three-in-ten of young and middle-aged Americans.

Residents of communities in the South or West are more satisfied than those living in the Northeast or Midwest. And the suburbs of the West and South are among the most satisfied places in America. Nearly half of residents living in western suburbs (48%) and southern suburbs (46%) are highly satisfied with their communities. In contrast, just 33% of suburban residents in the East and 40% of those in the Midwest give high marks to the places where they live.

Are these demographic characteristics independently associated with community satisfaction? The answer appears to be yes. We used a statistical technique knows as linear regression to analyze the independent impact of each of a number of variables on the likelihood that someone is satisfied with his or her community. The analysis found that income, education, race, age, type of place and region of the country are each statistically significant indicators of community satisfaction, holding all other variables constant.

Other Correlates of Community Satisfaction

As an earlier Pew Research Center study documents, Republicans are generally happier than Democrats in most areas of life. So it may not be surprising that they also are more satisfied with their communities. Four-in-ten Republicans express high levels of satisfaction with their communities, compared with three-in-ten Democrats and a third of all independents.

Ideology matters, but just a little: 36% of political conservatives but 32% of liberals give their communities top marks. Similarly, conservatives are less likely to be dissatisfied with their communities.

People who are most satisfied with their communities also tend to be generally happier, the new survey finds. Among those who say they are "very happy," nearly half (47%) also are highly satisfied with their communities. But among those who report they are "not too happy," only 15% are highly satisfied with their communities as places to live.

These findings raise a question that the data cannot answer: Does community satisfaction improve an individual's overall sense of happiness, or does being happy have a "halo" effect that improves attitudes toward many aspects of life, including satisfaction with one's community?
 
Yeah, an important point there is that just because suburbanites are "dissatisfied" doesn't mean they'd inflect to the big cities, they could just as well inflect t/w small towns and the country. (Explains the whole culture of NASCAR and country music--and remember: a lot of North American hipstervilles would probably react to an invasion by Lee Greenwood-loving NASCAR families like they were, uh, "coloureds" or something. And the feeling is mutual.)
 
It's pretty obvious Florida (hilarious name btw--what a suburban bore at heart: look where he lives in Toronto) has no idea what exists outside urban areas across N.A.

Suburbs have lasted for thousands of years, and will continue....:)

If anything scary happens, I predict the wealthy will flee the inner city and head for the countryside. (Which eventually becomes suburban.)
 
Ultimately, it is up to employers like that one to pick a more transit-friendly or walkable spot but it serves them well to be located in a suburban greenfield development close to a (as yet uncongested) highway interchange and intermodal rail yard, and I'm sure that the suburban municipality, new and unencumbered by decaying physical infrastructure or costly social services (at least for now) bent over backwards for them with appetizing tax breaks and other incentives (again, for now, while they can still afford them). Commercial development stories like this, repeated daily throughout the North American continent for the last fifty years gave rise to the suburban phenomenon. The workers had little choice in the matter and had to, for the most part, acquiesce.

That is preference though. Maybe its not your preference, but the owners of the company you are describing clearly do prefer low cost suburban developments to the alternative. Since markets don't distinguish between people and corporations (just consumers and producers). It is one thing to remark that employees may have little choice in where their employer is located, that doesn't imply a lack of preference. There is a clear preference for suburban office space.

"Consumer preference" is itself a very loaded term. Do people desire things because they really like them, or because there are certain societal norms that they feel they need to keep up with.

Its best not to make that distinction. From the perspective of those who provide relevant products, in this case suburban housing developments, nobody cares why people want suburban McMansions, just that they are willing to pay fat margins for them.

Besides, since so much of the tax code in North America was designed to subsidize sprawl-based development, is it any wonder that such a frenzy of development activity took place in the suburbs, anyway?.

That certainly is true. Insofar as there are structural determinants in urban developments, it is mainly government in nature. Free highways, tax deductible mortgages are prominent examples which have the clear result of promoting sprawl. Another, less discussed, support to sprawl is over regulation in urban areas. Avoiding any value judgments on the appropriateness of the Leslieville SmartCentre proposal, it clearly shows that developing anything in an urban setting carries a much more rigorous approval process than in the suburbs. Ultimately, that just gets passed onto the consumer making suburban developments more attractive. Thats not to say we should have no regulation, but making even modest proposals (like the recent 3 unit townhouse complex in the Beaches -rejected) go through regulatory hell is illogical.
 
I don't see where I grew up as being suburban, scarberiankhatru, but I suppose that could be up for debate. So, I don't see how they chose suburbs because that's where they already were.

This is not the case. They purposely chose a move in the opposite direction of the central city. They didn't move into detached houses in our Scarborough neighbourhood. Which I really don't understand seeing as their backyards in Durham are smaller than they would have been in Scarborough and the petty crime rate in Pickering-Ajax is similar to that of Scarborough (at least anecdotally).

There's just this odd mentality out there that I really, really, really, really don't understand. These people, family friends, baffle me.
 
I don't see where I grew up as being suburban, scarberiankhatru, but I suppose that could be up for debate. So, I don't see how they chose suburbs because that's where they already were.

This is not the case. They purposely chose a move in the opposite direction of the central city. They didn't move into detached houses in our Scarborough neighbourhood. Which I really don't understand seeing as their backyards in Durham are smaller than they would have been in Scarborough and the petty crime rate in Pickering-Ajax is similar to that of Scarborough (at least anecdotally).

There's just this odd mentality out there that I really, really, really, really don't understand. These people, family friends, baffle me.

No, it's not up for debate...central Scarborough is about as close to suburbia as you get in Toronto.
 
No, it's not up for debate...central Scarborough is about as close to suburbia as you get in Toronto.

Alright, but need you be so rigid? Geeze.

And are you even sure? I suppose you've never been east of West Hill then?

I suppose there are all sorts of academic and expert definitions of what constitutes suburbia but, as with all things, I have my own little defining metrics that put it in the context of my own subjective experience.

but this isn't about me.....it's about the families I know who wouldn't agree with you. The ones who found central Scarborough to be anything but suburban heaven.
 
If people don't know what suburban/a suburb is, well, that's conclusive proof that they're not "choosing the suburbs."

Wait, what? It is I who, presumably, doesn't know what suburbia is and I'm not the one in question here as having moved to the suburbs by choice.

The people I mentioned saw the Scarborough they first lived in as too urban an environment in which to live. Where you want to draw the lines is up to you, I suppose but it doesn't change the choice they made to move from a place they considered too urban to a place they considered lovely suburbia (maybe by comparison?). Except they all went from being able to walk to the grocery store etc to having to drive everywhere so it's a bit more stark of a comparison than you'd give it credit.
 
Wait, what? It is I who, presumably, doesn't know what suburbia is and I'm not the one in question here as having moved to the suburbs by choice.

The people I mentioned saw the Scarborough they first lived in as too urban an environment in which to live. Where you want to draw the lines is up to you, I suppose but it doesn't change the choice they made to move from a place they considered too urban to a place they considered lovely suburbia (maybe by comparison?). Except they all went from being able to walk to the grocery store etc to having to drive everywhere so it's a bit more stark of a comparison than you'd give it credit.

There's plenty of places in Scarborough where nothing is within walking distance, and there's places in Pickering where lots of stuff is within walking distance. This has little to do with whether or not the area is suburban (both places are suburbs) and more to do with where in the subdivision one's house is located.

Note that you're mentioning multiple relatives...if you're talking about multiple households, one or more of these households are moving because birds of a feather flock together. The location of one's relatives is probably the main factor one uses to decide where to live. People also follow friends...entire crescents full of neighbours can collectively pack up and move further out, but are they moving to a more suburban place or are they moving because their neighbourhood is no longer 90+% white? Lots of people want to live in new dwellings, and most new houses are built on the suburban fringe, but the desire to live in new dwellings exists right downtown as much as it does in the suburbs. The reality, if anything, is that people choose to live in urban/downtown areas and end up in the suburbs by default. Of course, most housing is in the suburbs, so most people have no real choice, unless they want to leave Toronto completely.
 
The reality, if anything, is that people choose to live in urban/downtown areas and end up in the suburbs by default. Of course, most housing is in the suburbs, so most people have no real choice, unless they want to leave Toronto completely.

I don't see that as being true, plenty of people decide to live in the suburbs in the same way that plenty of people decide to live downtown. Saying that most people end up in suburbs "by default" is actually ridiculous. To begin with, the statement is illogical. You can't "choose to live in urban/downtown areas" and then claim that suburbs win by default, default implies lack of choice and you have clearly laid out the choice between suburbs and cities. If people choose not to live downtown, they are implicitly choosing to live in the suburbs (or possibly small towns & rural areas).

EDIT: This is always controversial, what exactly is our definition of "suburbs" here?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top