scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Most post-war neighbourhoods are relatively new and are still going through their first cycle...there's been no opportunity for something like gentrification to occur.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the notion of income as a general indicator. I realize that there may be no other way but ultimately wealth is what matters not income.
A good third of Scarborough was still farms back in 1970. Also, the article seems to define "northern" Toronto as anything north of Bloor. I wonder how large or small the 'neighbourhoods' they're measuring are...I'd like to see a map. Ward 42 (Malvern), for instance, has a median household income almost 20% greater than the 416 at large, but if they're measuring at the census tract level, they'll certainly find some tracts - "neighbourhoods" - with quite low average incomes.
I was wondering: Can that demographic change be observed in Toronto and which streets can be considered "boundary lines" ? Again-interesting stuff! LI MIKE
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the notion of income as a general indicator. I realize that there may be no other way but ultimately wealth is what matters not income. A person with a high income but no wealth is actually in a position of weakness not strength. It is my experience for instance that immigrants or visible minorities own the majority of property and businesses in the city. This wealth is not necessarily reflected in income statistics.
While wealth is not equal to income, there's zero doubt that those with higher incomes will have more wealth.
There's always ways to compare things, but using income here made for more dramatic maps.
There's plenty of regular middle class households who have been relegated to the scary 'city' of poverty only because a) no millionaires live in these middle class areas, so there's no one who can drive up average income and b) the neighbourhoods are too new and gentrification and its associated explosion in income growth would not have occurred.
The author's main conclusions are being lost in dramatics/hysterics about the income change maps (it is clearly not intended to be a rich/poor map).
If the rich/poor divide becomes as geographically polarized as they conclude, then we're in for a lot of upheaval in how the city operates and how and to whom services are delivered.