Toronto the Divided City presentation August-08 Hulchanski...• City #1 = 28% • City #2 = 45% •...

Toronto’s Future: One City or Three?

Neighbourhood Trendsand Policy Optionsand Policy Options for addressing Inequality, Polarization and Segregation

David Hulchanski

Centre for Urban and Community Studies,

Cities Centre, University of Toronto

August 2008

AverageAverage Individual Income, 1970 & 2005

a

1970

All cities change:

b t lik thi ?but like this?

... three city destroying trends

Page 2

2005

destroying trends at work

Toronto's Future: One City or Three?

J.D. Hulchanski of 14 University of Toronto

Three City Destroying Trendsy y g

Income INEQUALITY

• the size of the gap between rich and poor in the distribution of income and wealth

Social POLARIZATION

• the decline of the middle; the movement towards the poles (a bimodal distribution) in income and wealth distribution

• the relative residential separation of population categories from

Spatial SEGREGATION

the relative residential separation of population categories from each other; the formation of ‘outcast ghettos’ & ‘elite ghettos’

Income INEQUALITY: Canada’s “Growing Gap”

www.GrowingGap.ca

Th G i NOT• The Gap is NOT new, but continues to widen;

• producing a geographic p g g g pnon-random sorting of people in Toronto;

• money buys choice ofmoney buys choice of neighbourhoods;

• more money, more h i i th bchoice – in the absence

of policies reducing the gap and maintaining inclusive communities

Page 4

inclusive communities.



Income INEQUALITY

Page 5

Social POLARIZATION

Collapse of theCity

MIDDLE INCOME

group in both theCity & “905”City & 905

1970 to 2005 decline of middle income earners

“905”

middle income earners

City = ‐37%

905 = 25%905 = ‐25%

Page 6



Social POLARIZATION

Projection to 2025

City

“905”% of census tracts,

average individual income in five categories,

people 15 years and older,

compared to the Toronto CMA average income forCMA average income for each year.

Spatial SEGREGATION

2000 to 2005

City #1 = 20% +1%

City #2 = 40% -4%

City #3 = 40% +3%

Page 8



5 years, 2000 to 2005: 5% of neighbourhoods move from City #2 to City #3

Spatial SEGREGATION

Page 9

Spatial SEGREGATION

25 years: 128 neighbourhoods,

25% of the City,

Page 10

PERSISTENT INCOME DECREASE

relative to the average



www.gtuo.ca

Spatial SEGREGATION

Page 11

FOREIGN BORN• City #1 = 28% • City #2 = 45%• City #3 = 61%

City = 50%

Spatial SEGREGATION

The uneven distribution of Toronto’s

l b d di i

2006

Page 12

celebrated diversity



RECENT IMMIGRANTS

l • City #1 = 4% • City #2 = 8%• City #3 = 15%

City = 11%

Spatial SEGREGATION

a

450,000 newcomers between 2001 and 2006.

Page 13

aIn which neighbourhoods do they live?

Spatial SEGREGATION

aa% WHITE POP.• City #1 = 82% • City #2 = 65%• City #3 = 34%

2006

• City #3 = 34%City = 53%

Page 14



Spatial SEGREGATION

aaCHANGE, 10 years: 1996-2006

CHANGE IN WHITE POPULATION

Some neighbourhoods more

Page 15

Some neighbourhoods more White in 2006 than 1996; especially gentrifying areas

Spatial SEGREGATION

BLACKPOPULATION

NeighbourhoodNeighbourhoodConcentrations2006



T t ’ D iToronto’s Dynamic Growth: Immigrationg

5 years, 2001‐06: 450,000 newcomers to GTA

40% of all immigrants to Canada

What quality job housingWhat quality job, housing,

education, childcare, … options?

Adequate Fed. & Prov. support

for City & School Board & socialfor City & School Board & social

agencies, to assist with successful settlement?

Canada’s Urban Policy: Urban Growth Nodes

Page 18



SUMMARY: 35 Year Trend in Toronto

A new social polarization & spatial segregation

on the basis of

– income / wealth &

– socio‐economic status &

– ethno‐cultural origin / skin colour

In the context of growing income inequality

3 trends & 3 increasingly distinct “cities”within Toronto

Page 19

20% / 40% / 40%

What is a “Divided City”What is a Divided City

“A preliminary definition of the divided citymight be:A preliminary definition of the divided citymight be:

‘a city in which spatial segregation is manifest in

such a way that at least some of the residing

population categories involved, and possibly apopulation categories involved, and possibly a

broader range of people, consider this a

problem’” S k M t d & R ld Kproblem . – Sako Musterd & Ronald van Kempen,

Towards Undivided Cities, Housing Studies, 1999

Page 20



“The plain truth is that our inner city is now a virtual ghetto dominated by a single ethnic group - one that is increasingly cut off and isolated from the rainbow-hued paradise we allthe rainbow hued paradise we all hoped to build in the new century.”

Page 21

Questions

The “Dis‐integration” of Toronto?

Questions

Socio‐economic and ethno‐cultural (1) inequality, (2) polarization & (3) segregation

1. What are the IMPLICATIONS for Toronto & Toronto’s neighbourhoods ?Toronto s neighbourhoods ?

2. What POLICY OPTIONS will help address income

inequality – the growing gap ?– federal, provincial & municipal governments

it i l h it & b i t– community, social agency, charity & business sectors

Page 22



Implications of the Divided CityImplications of the Divided City

• Widening gap & spatial separation of rich and poorWidening gap & spatial separation of rich and poor

• Guarded enclaves of the well off & well educated

• Highrise condo citadels of the rich

• Highrise rental slums of the poor

• Sprawling suburbs of a declining middle‐income group

• High crime in lower income immigrant neighbourhoods• High crime in lower income immigrant neighbourhoods

• Neighbourhoods of the excluded, often

h l i l l i l d h i lioverwhelmingly along racial and ethnic lines

Page 23

Essential Federal & Provincial Policy Action

National Housing

Income Support

StrategyLabour Market

ESSENTIAL

ppPrograms

Market Strategy

Federal & Provincial Policy ActionsActions



Policy Options for the Divided CityPolicy Options for the Divided City

• INCOME STRATEGY (Poverty Reduction) – federal, provincial

• HOUSING STRATEGY – federal, provincial, municipal

• LABOUR MARKET STRATEGY – federal, provincial____________________________________________________

1. Inclusionary Zoning

2 R t l H i R h bilit ti2. Rental Housing Rehabilitation

3. Eliminate vacancy decontrol

4. Maintain existing rental buildings with 6 or fewer units

5. “Tower Renewal” initiative

Page 25

Policy Options for the Divided City

6. Second suite incentive program

Policy Options for the Divided City

7. Encourage rooming houses, SROs, supportive housing

7. Reduce parking requirements & related reg. reforms

8. Prov. share of land transfer tax to municipalities

9. Energy program for low‐income households

10. Support small independent neighbourhood businesses

11. Active social / community development planning

12. __________________________________

13. __________________________________

Page 26



“In existing and f ffuture areas of urban concern, the fate of Metro’sthe fate of Metro s post‐war suburbs and the central urban area are linked closely together.”1979

www.gtuo.ca www.TNRN.ca

www.NeighbourhoodChange.cawww.NeighbourhoodChange.ca



Toronto the Divided City presentation August-08 Hulchanski...• City #1 = 28% • City #2 = 45% •...

Documents

Transcript of Toronto the Divided City presentation August-08 Hulchanski...• City #1 = 28% • City #2 = 45% •...