WORKING PAPER SERIES - Toronto South LIP · making suburbs new multicultural places where...

WORKING PAPER

SERIES

Delineating Ethnoburbs in Metropolitan Toronto

Shuguang Wang

Jason Zhong

CERIS Working Paper No. 100

April 2013

Series Editor

Kenise Murphy Kilbride

Graduate Programs of

Early Childhood Studies and

Immigration and Settlement Studies

Ryerson University

350 Victoria Street

Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3

[email protected]

CERIS – The Ontario Metropolis Centre

The CERIS Working Paper Series

Manuscripts on topics related to immigration, settlement, and cultural diversity in

urban centres are welcome. Preference may be given to the publication of

manuscripts that are the result of research projects funded through CERIS - The

Ontario Metropolis Centre.

All manuscripts must be submitted in both digital and hard-copy form, and should

include an Abstract of 100-200 words and a list of keywords.

If you have comments or proposals regarding the CERIS Working Paper

Series please contact the Editor at:

(416) 736-5223 or e-mail at <[email protected]>.

Copyright of the papers in the CERIS Working Paper Series is retained by the

author(s).

The views expressed in these Working Papers are those of the author(s), and

opinions on the content of the Working Papers should be communicated directly to

the author(s) themselves.

CERIS – The Ontario Metropolis Centre

8th

Floor, York Research Tower, 4700 Keele St.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3

Telephone (416) 736-5223 Facsimile: (416) 736-5688

mailto:[email protected]

Delineating Ethnoburbs in Metropolitan Toronto

Shuguang Wang

Department of Geography

Ryerson University

Jason Zhong

Faculty of Law

University of Alberta

Abstract

In this contemporary age of global migration, immigrants and ethnic minorities have

become new catalysts for societal change in many North American cities. A transition has taken

place from suburban homogeneity (composed of middle-class whites) to suburban diversity,

making suburbs new multicultural places where immigrants’ place-making is forming new social

spaces. Since the term ethnoburb (meaning ethnic suburb) was coined by Wei Li in 1998 to

describe a new pattern of ethnic settlement, it has garnered considerable popularity. While an

innovative concept, it has three limitations. This study develops it further into an operational

model, so that it can be applied to different metropolitan cities for comparison. In this study, we

first propose a methodology and experiment with it to delineate ethnoburbs using the Toronto

Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) as a laboratory. We then interpret the ethnoburbs and

highlight their social and economic characteristics. This study found that ethnoburbs are real

geographical entities and do exist in the Toronto CMA. They add a new layer of social space to

the existing multicultural mosaic of the metropolitan region. In importance, ethnoburbs provide a

spatial context for significant changes not only in the social and cultural domains, but also in the

economic and political realms. Broadly speaking, ethnoburbs, with heavy concentrations of

ethnic minority people along with a wide array of ethnic-oriented institutions, are changing the

“whiteness” landscape of the Canadian cities (Kobayashi & Peake, 2000)

Key words: ethnoburb; social space; ethnic geography; Toronto; Canada

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

From Ghettoes and Enclaves to Ethnoburbs – A Theoretical Discourse and the Research Context ........ 2

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Defining factors .................................................................................................................................... 5

Critical mass .......................................................................................................................................... 7

Level of geography ............................................................................................................................... 8

Delineating Ethnoburbs .......................................................................................................................... 12

Interpreting Ethnoburbs .......................................................................................................................... 18

Ethnic commercial activity ................................................................................................................. 19

Cultural institutions ............................................................................................................................. 23

Political participation .......................................................................................................................... 24

Economic integration .......................................................................................................................... 28

Concluding Discussions .......................................................................................................................... 29

References ............................................................................................................................................... 32

1

Introduction

Since the term ethnoburb (meaning ethnic suburb) was coined by Wei Li in a case study

of the San Gabriel Valley of Los Angelis County to describe a new pattern of ethnic settlement

(Li 1997 &1998), it has garnered considerable popularity and been referenced in many scholarly

works as a conceptual framework for studying the changing social geography in North American

cities. While an innovative concept, it is not in a form that can be operationalized in a systematic

way due to three limitations. First, it does not explain precisely what social, demographic or

economic variables should be used as operational definitions of an ethnoburb. Second, it does not

specify the critical mass of the ethnic population, at which point an ethnoburb should be defined.

Third, it does not state at what level of geography ethnoburbs should be delineated. Her seminal

study of the San Gabriel Valley began by designating the “valley” as an ethnoburb, where

(according to the 1990 US census) non-Hispanic white people account for 33 per cent of the total

population, Hispanic for 25 per cent, Asian and Pacific Islanders for 10 per cent, African

Americans for 5 per cent, and Chinese for 10 per cent (Li, 1997).

Despite the limitations of the concept, ethnoburbs do exist in North American cities, and

they constitute an important social phenomenon and spatial entity for study because a variety of

ethnic-oriented institutions evolve there. These ethnic concentrations together with the various

institutions lead to significant changes in the social, economic, and even political landscapes of

the North American metropolitan regions. This study attempts to develop this concept further

into an operational model by overcoming the limitations, so that it can be applied to different

metropolitan cities for comparison as well as for examination of temporal changes. In this paper,

we not only propose a methodology and experiment with it to delineate ethnoburbs using the

Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) as a laboratory, but also interpret the ethnoburbs to

highlight their social and economic characteristics and to illustrate that in importance,

ethnoburbs are incubators for societal changes. We do not claim what we propose in this paper is

the only, or the best, method to delineate ethnoburbs; rather, we hope to stimulate discussions

among interested social geographers in search for alternative methods.

2

From Ghettoes and Enclaves to Ethnoburbs – A Theoretical Discourse and the Research

Context

Ethnic geographies in North American cities have evolved over the last 100 years in both

contents and spatial dimensions. So has the study of ethnic geography in both theoretical

approaches and methodology.

As a branch of urban social geography, ethnic geography is concerned with social spaces

occupied by people of ethnic or racial minorities. The formation of such social spaces was

closely associated with immigrants, who form the bulk of the ethnic populations in metropolitan

cities in both the US and Canada, and have been profound influences shaping social spaces

(Yeates 1998).

The earliest conceptualization of spatial differentiations in North American cities was

perhaps the Burgess Concentric Zone Model. In a practical application of the model in Chicago

in the 1920s, such social spaces as Little Sicily Slum, Chinatown, and Black Belt were identified

and outlined (Park et al., 1925).

In an important study of factorial ecology, Murdie (1969, 8) developed a model of urban

ecological structure, in which three classic dimensions were superimposed on the physical space

of the city to identify social spaces. These dimensions were: socioeconomic status, family status,

and ethnicity. Since social spaces vary a great deal by region, the original model of urban

ecological structure was modified with additional dimensions, such as immigration, housing sub-

standardness, pre-family, late/established family, and urban fringe (see Davis, 1984; Davis &

Murdie, 1991).

Most models suggest a number of important regularities in the formation of social spaces

occupied by ethnic/racial minorities. In the early years of city growth and expansion, most

immigrants were low-status movers. With limited resources, and often with language barriers as

well, these ethnic minorities (as opposed to the charter group, namely the white people who

constituted the majority) commonly concentrated in small pocket areas in the inner city and

formed ghettoes – a term referring to any residential area that is largely occupied by one ethic or

cultural minority group. The emergence of a ghetto represents a degree of segregation (Witherick

et al., 2001, 109). In the Burgess Concentric Zone Model, these ghettos were located in the zone

of transition, peripheral to the central business district. Over time, the ethnic minorities

3

developed their own businesses (primitive forms of ethnic institutions) in these ghettoes, and

turned the ghettoes into ethnic enclaves. As distinguished by Qadeer (2004), while ghetto is a

term applied to an ethnically and/or racially segregated area of poor living, the term ethnic

enclave is used for areas with a concentration of a particular ethnic group, together with a cluster

of commercial/institutional activities associated with the members of that ethnic group. As such,

ethnic enclaves are not necessarily poor living areas.

Another important difference between a ghetto and an ethnic enclave is that the former is

formed through exclusion on behalf of the host society against the interests of its residents and

from which they cannot easily escape; while the latter is an area in which residency appears

voluntary and members have the option of leaving (Marcuse, 1997). Logan et al., (2002)

distinguish further between the old immigrant enclaves and the emerging new ethnic

communities. An immigrant enclave is typically seen as a temporary neighborhood of

convenience containing ethnic resources to be drawn upon until immigrants assimilate into the

host society and relocate. The ethnic community is often viewed by the local ethnic and cultural

groups as the desired residential endpoint – a neighborhood with a single group dominant and at

the same time relatively prosperous.

The formation of ghettos and ethnic enclaves was a consequence of the interplay of two

broad categories of factors: external and internal (Knox & Pinch, 2000). The external factors

include charter group attitude, institutional discrimination, and structural effects. For example,

minority groups were often perceived by the members of the charter group to be socially

undesirable, so they were “blocked” by the existing occupants of some neighborhoods. Real

estate agents also played a role in this by “redlining” ethnic minorities and “directing” them to

undesirable areas with poor and rundown housing (Dunn et al., 2003). As a result, they became

socially isolated, economically marginalized, and spatially segregated. The internal factors refer

to group cohesiveness, which include self defense, mutual support, and preservation of culture.

Group cohesiveness congregates people into “spaces of resistance”.

According to the classic theories of assimilation and upward mobility, ghettos and

enclaves were likely to be “temporary stages” in the assimilation process, which Know and

Pinch (2000) see as consisting of two phases: behavioral assimilation and structural

assimilation. The former refers to the acquisition by the minority group of a cultural life in

common with the charter group; whereas the latter refers to the diffusion of the members of a

4

minority group through the social and occupational strata of the charter group-dominated society

(Knox & Pinch 2000, 231). As members of a minority group achieved higher socioeconomic

status and accumulated more financial resources, they spread to areas of better housing

conditions outside ghettos and ethnic enclaves. The persistence of ghettos and enclaves over time

is dependent upon the continuing inflow of new immigrants.

The classic theories, however, no longer apply well to the new immigrants who arrived in

the North American cities in the recent two to three decades. Many of them settled directly in

suburbs upon landing, bypassing completely the traditional ghettos and enclaves in the inner city.

While they still form ethnic concentrations, the residential decisions are voluntary with minimal

to no external pressure. They are attracted to the suburbs by better living environment (e.g.,

bigger houses and more open spaces), better schools, and access to jobs in suburban industrial

and business parks (Yeates, 2000; Kumar & Leung, 2005); and many of them have the financial

resources to purchase a suburban home. The growth of the new ethnic communities in the

suburbs eases further the transitional challenges for the newcomers.

In an attempt to define and interpret the recently formed social spaces in suburbs, Li

(1997 & 1998) proposed a new concept termed “ethnoburb”. By definition, ethnoburbs are

suburban clusters of ethnic residential areas and businesses in large metropolitan regions. They

differ from the traditional ghettos and (the old type of) enclaves in many ways. While they may

extend across several municipalities, their boundaries are fuzzy and largely arbitrary. They are

also multi-ethnic communities, in which one ethnic minority group may have a significant

concentration, but does not necessarily comprise a majority. As new ports of entry for

immigrants of all backgrounds, ethnoburbs exhibit greater polarization of socioeconomic status

and greater differentiation in occupational structure. In ethnoburbs, ethnic minorities own a good

portion, or key components, of local businesses, and are more actively involved in mainstream

politics. While both ghetto and enclave conjure up images of involuntary segregation with

deteriorating living environment, ethnoburb connotes voluntary congregation, where there is no

urban decay. It should be noted that Li’s understanding and interpretation of enclave is different

from those of Qadeer (2004), Marcuse (1997), and Logan et al., (2002); she treated enclaves and

ghettos as similar social spaces.

On the methodology front, Johnston et al. (2007) proposed a six-type classification of

urban social space, based on ethnic minority and host society shares of the local population. The

5

first two types are areas where the charter group predominates, forming more than 50 per cent of

the total population. The remaining four types are areas where members of ethnic groups form 50

percent or more of the local population. For convenience, most studies of ethnic geography

delineate social spaces and examine segregation using census tract as the basic areal unit (for

example, Johnston et al., 2007; Darden et al., 2010; Walks & Bourne, 2006; Bauder & Sharpe,

2002). Often, researchers loosely call census tracts neighborhoods (such as ethnic

neighborhood). As to the level of ethnic dominance, various criteria have been employed. For

example, Qadeer (2004) distinguishes two types of dominance: primary concentration and

secondary concentration. The former refers to the census tracts where an ethnic group forms a

majority (50% or more) of the local population. The latter refers to census tracts where an ethnic

group is the largest group in the local population, but without being the majority. The Qadeer

distinction between primary concentration and secondary concentration is along the similar lines

in the Johnston et al. classification scheme for Types 3-6. In neither types of demographic

dominance did Qadeer include ethnic commercial and institutional activities as part of the

definitions, though he acknowledged that in areas where an ethnic group numerically dominates,

stores and services catering to that group may appear.

Methodology

Li’s definition of ethnoburb seems to suggest two critical defining factors: the size of

ethnic population, and the level of ethnic business concentration. In practice, the size of an ethnic

population can be measured relatively easily using census data, but the data of ethnic businesses

are hard to collect. While it is possible to collect limited data for some ethnic businesses, it is

extremely difficult to compile a comprehensive list for an entire metropolitan city, mainly

because no government agency in Canada keeps and disseminates business records by ethnicity.

This section describes the methodology that we propose to delineate ethnoburbs in the Toronto

CMA.

Defining factors

Two variables in the Canadian census are relevant to defining ethnoburbs: “ethnic origin”

and “visible minority”. Ideally, ethnic origin (hereafter ethnicity), which refers to a person’s

ancestral and/or cultural background, is preferred to “visible minority”, simply because it is

6

closer in meaning to the definition of ethnoburb. However, since “ethnicity” is applicable to both

immigrants and the Canadian born, it includes virtually every group of the Canadian population.

In addition to English and French – the two “founding cultures” or the cultural mainstream, this

variable includes such Caucasian groups as Scottish, Irish, German, Italian, Dutch, Polish, and

Portuguese. It is therefore operationally difficult to decide which groups should be included or

excluded when defining factors are chosen. The difficulty of using ethnicity as a defining factor

for social space is acknowledged by other researchers. For example, the census data on ethnicity

are found not only complex but unclear, particularly in light of the growing proclivity of

respondents to self-identify as “Canadian” (Boyd & Norris, 2001). As such, data on ethnicity do

not allow for easy aggregation of the non-white population (Walks & Bourne, 2006). Due to this

difficulty, “visible minority” is considered a better defining indicator for this study. The

Canadian Employment Equity Act defines members of visible minorities as “persons, other than

aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in color” (Department of Justice

Canada, 2000). Within this variable, 11 groups are designated by Statistics Canada as visible

minorities (see Table 1). Everyone else is not a visible minority.

Table 1 Designation and size of visible minorities in the Toronto CMA, 2006

Visible minority Number of

people

% of total

CMA

population

% of total

visible

minorities in the

CMA

No. of CTs

where the

group is the

largest

vismin*

No. of

neighborhoods

where the group

is the largest

vismin*

Chinese 485,295 9.6 22.4 303 (129) 93 (36)

South Asian 682,985 13.5 31.5 409 (233) 148 (89)

Black 350,535 6.9 16.2 167 (54) 61 (18)

Filipino 171,370 3.4 7.9 54 (10) 10 (0)

Latin American (Hispanic) 98,635 1.9 4.5 25 (1) 3 (0)

Southeast Asian 69,625 1.4 3.2 6 (2) 0 (0)

Arab 52,950 1.0 2.4 4 (0) 0 (0)

West Asian 75,040 1.5 3.5 11 (4) 2 (0)

Korean 54,845 1.1 2.5 7 (1) 0 (0)

Japanese 18,590 0.4 0.9 4 (0) 0 (0)

Multiple visible minority 106,070 2.1 4.8 1 (0) 0 (0)

Total visible minority 2,169,785 42.8 100.0

Non-visible minority 2,894,440 57.2

CMA total 5,064,485 100.0

1003

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census.

*numbers in brackets are those in the three areas of ethnoburb.

7

In fact, in the Canadian census, visible minority can be considered as an aggregated

subset of the ethnicity variable, and is often used as a surrogate for ethnicity (see, for examples,

Bauder & Sharpe, 2002; Walks & Bourne, 2006; Johnston et al., 2007). In Li’s conceptualization,

ethnoburb refers to the social spaces occupied by visible minorities. Since ethnoburbs are, by

definition, multi-ethnic communities, all the 11 groups are included as defining elements of an

ethnoburb, though we are well aware that visible minority groups differ by language, place of

origin, incomes, education, and circumstance of immigration (Bauder & Sharpe, 2002, 206). It

should be stressed that this study of an ethnoburb includes both immigrants and the Canadian-

born members of visible minorities. Other census variables that reflect socioeconomic status and

family status are not included because, unlike the studies of factorial ecology by Murdie (1969),

Davis (1984), and Davis and Murdie (1991), this current study concerns only the ethnicity

dimension of urban social spaces conceptualized by Li (1997 & 1998).

According to the 2006 census, 43 per cent of Toronto CMA’s total population (5.1

million) is visible minorities (Table 1). The largest visible minority groups are South Asian (32%)

and Chinese (22%). Together, these two groups constitute 54 per cent of the total visible

minorities in the CMA. The only other group that accounted for more than 10 per cent of the

total visible minorities was the Blacks (16%). South Asians constitute the large group of visible

minorities in 409 census tracts (out of the total of 1003); Chinese are the largest group of visible

minorities in 303 census tracts; and the Blacks in 167.

Critical mass

The second limitation of the ethnoburb concept is that it does not specify the critical mass

of the ethnic population at which an area can be defined an ethnoburb. It only states that

“Although there may be more ethnic people in ethnoburbs than in traditional ethnic nt

neighborhoods, the proportion of a particular ethnic group is not [so] high as in the latter. The

percentage of ethnic people in ethnoburbs may be as low as 10-15 per cent in some places, and

they seldom become the majority of the community” (Li, 1997, 4). It is the lack of a critical mass

statement that has led to “fuzzy and arbitrary” boundaries of ethnoburbs.

In the current study, it is decided that the percentage of visible minorities must be 50 per

cent or more for an area to be defined as a part of an ethnoburb, as 50 per cent is the threshold

8

for majority in numerical terms. This conforms to the classification scheme developed by

Johnston et al. (2007). It is also similar to what Qadeer (2004) used to define primary ethnic

concentrations, except that he applied this threshold to an individual ethnic group, while we use

it for all visible minority groups combined. We believe that the critical mass of 50 per cent is an

important threshold for ethnic minorities to achieve significant changes in an area. We will also

make reference to the areas where visible minorities account for 40-49 percent of the local

population, as these areas may soon (or when the 2011 census are released) reach the critical

mass, but we will not treat them as parts of ethnoburbs.

Level of geography

In this Toronto case study, we experiment with three types of geography: census tract

(CT), neighborhood, and census subdivision (CSD). CT and CSD are standard census

geographies defined by Statistics Canada. In total, there are 1003 CTs and 22 CSDs in the

Toronto CMA. In the case of the Toronto CMA, CSDs are the same as municipalities and towns.

In the study of ethnic geography (or social geography in general), neighborhood should be a

much more meaningful areal unit than census tract, as it joins both the social and physical

objectives in residential area design. People choose a neighborhood, not a census tract, when

making a residential location decision, because in planning terms, a neighborhood contains such

social and institutional elements as schools, play areas, locally oriented open space, worship

places, local shops, and an internally focused street system (Chapin & Kaiser, 1986, 396). As a

physical unit in city/town planning, the neighborhood originated in the mid 1920s, when it was

conceived of by Clarence Perry (an American architect) as a new formula for the spatial

organization of residential subdivisions.1 Later, when the Committee on the Hygiene of Housing

of the American Public Association (1948) converted the concept to an operational form, it

became widely adopted in the post-war residential developments in North American cities. With

1 According to Perry, each neighborhood should be built as a functionally self-contained unit with

distinctive boundaries. Specifically, a neighborhood unit should be centered around an elementary school

and bounded by traffic arteries or other physical barriers (such as ravines, railways, and industrial

districts). Its spatial dimensions should be determined by the service area of the elementary school and the

criterion that all dwellings in the neighborhood unit ought to be within walking distance of the centrally

located school. In addition to the elementary school, Perry considered that each neighborhood unit should

include such service facilities as a community meeting hall, convenience shops, and churches; and at least

10 per cent of its total area should be in open space for play and recreation.

9

the rapid progress of suburbanization and the increasing demand for public services, it was

realized that the traditional neighborhood unit was too small to provide for all needs of modern

suburban life. As well, with the declining birth rate, it became unfeasible for each suburban

neighborhood to have an elementary school. While sharing of service facilities (such as schools

and shops) by adjacent neighborhoods became necessary, the other principles of the

neighborhood unit remained in suburban development, and neighborhoods are still distinctive

both on maps and on the ground. Many North American cities have an officially delineated

“neighborhood mosaic”, using names and boundaries that both reflect rich local perceptions and

follow neighborhood unit principles. Examples are St. Louis in the U.S. (Wilson & Mueller,

2004) and Edmonton in Canada (Wang, 1994). It is believed that such perceptual units inform

actions and activities of people, institutions, and government (Filstead, 1970; Yin, 1994).

Similarly, the City of Toronto’s Community and Neighborhood Services Department

divided the entire city into 140 neighborhoods. The boundaries for these neighborhoods were

developed using a set of agreed-upon (?) criteria. No neighborhood is comprised of a single

census tract. Each neighborhood population is between 7,000 and 10,000. Where multiple census

tracts were combined to form a neighborhood, they were joined with the most similar adjacent

area in terms of household income. Existing boundaries such as service boundaries of

community agencies, natural boundaries (rivers), and man-made boundaries (streets, highways,

etc.) are respected. The delineation exercise in the City of Toronto was complicated because

much of the city (especially the inner city) was subdivided and developed in a grid fashion

before the neighborhood unit principles were applied.

The suburban municipalities in the Toronto CMA do not have officially delineated

neighborhoods, though they have much larger “planning districts”. We therefore painstakingly

defined neighborhoods ourselves. Following the conventional planning principles, as established

in the neighborhood unit concept, we divided the CSDs that are immediately outside the City of

Toronto into 178 neighborhoods. Census tract boundaries are respected as much as possible. In

only a few cases, in which a census tract is very large in area but only a small part of it is

subdivided and developed, the census tract is split and the undeveloped portion is excluded from

the neighborhood. The census data were then aggregated from census tract geography to

neighborhood. We did not extend this exercise to the other suburban CSDs because no census

tracts in them meet the critical mass that we have chosen to define an ethnoburb.

10

To facilitate the examination and interpretation of ethnoburbs, the Toronto CMA is

divided into four zones (see Figure 1). The first zone is the inner city, which consists of the

former municipalities of Toronto, York, and East York. The second zone is the inner suburb

consisting of the former municipalities of North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke. (The above

six former municipalities were amalgamated into the current City of Toronto in 1998, which now

forms the central city in the CMA.) The third zone is the fringe comprising the municipalities (or

CSDs) immediately outside the current City of Toronto. The municipalities in this zone are

known as “edge cities” in the literature of urban geography. The edge cities involve activities

that cater more directly to the needs of the metropolitan consumer market and tap into the

suburbanized labor force (Garreau, 1991; Beauregard, 1995). These activities occur in large

shopping malls and office buildings. The edge cities cannot exist isolated from the central city

(Yeates, 1998). In the case of the Toronto CMA, they are the bedroom communities of the City

of Toronto. The fourth and the last zone (i.e., the rest of the CMA) constitutes the outer suburbs.

(See Figure 1)

11

Figure 1 The Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)

12

Delineating Ethnoburbs

Using the above chosen criteria and principles, ethnoburbs in the Toronto CMA are

delineated. The same criteria and principles are applied to both the 2001 and 2006 censuses to

look at changes.

According to the 2001 census, the Toronto CMA had 247 census tracts (or 27% of the

total) where visible minorities accounted for 50 per cent or more of the local populations (see

Table 2).

Table 2 Distribution of census tracts and neighborhoods with 50% or more of their

population being visible minorities, Toronto CMA

Zone CSD Census tract neighborhood

2001 2006 2001 2006

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Inner

city

Toronto 20 13 19 12 5 11 5 11

East York 5 21 7 29 2 25 2 25

York 7 22 11 34 1 10 3 30

Sub total 32 15 37 17 8 13 10 16

Inner

suburb

North York 50 40 66 53 15 45 17 52

Etobicoke 16 22 18 24 3 15 5 25

Scarborough 72 62 93 79 17 68 19 76

Sub total 138 44 177 56 35 45 41 53

Fringe

Pickering 0 0 2 11 2 11 2 11

Richmond

Hill 8 36 11 38 5 36 5 36

Markham 16 41 26 55 10 48 12 57

Vaughan 1 4 2 5 0 0 0 0

Ajax 0 0 3 16 0 0 6 30

Brampton 12 22 36 52 8 22 18 49

Mississauga 40 35 57 46 14 27 18 35

Sub total 77 27 137 40 39 22 61 34

Outer

suburb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CMA

total 247 27 351 35 82 26 112 35

By 2006, the number of such census tracts increased to 351 (or 35% of the total). This translates

into an increase of 104 census tracts in five years. Most of the 351 CTs (namely 89%) are located

in the suburbs, with only 37 of them in the inner city. This is the first sign of the existence of

ethnoburbs. In the inner suburbs, both Scarborough and North York have more than half of their

census tracts with 50 per cent or more of their local populations being visible minorities (79% for

the former and 53% for the latter). In the fringe, Brampton and Markham also have more than

half of their census tracts with 50% or more of their local population being visible minorities (52%

13

and 55% respectively); Mississauga has 46 per cent of its census tracts meeting that criterion,

and Richmond Hill has 38 per cent. Such census tracts also began to occur in Vaughan, Pickering

and Ajax, but no census tract in any of the outer suburban municipalities has 30 per cent or more

of their local populations being visible minorities (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Distribution of visible minorities in the Toronto CMA.

The map on the left is by census tract; the map on the right is by neighborhood

At the neighborhood level, geographical concentrations of visible minorities seem more

pronounced and solid (Figure 2), though the number of qualified neighborhoods is smaller than

that of the census tracts due to their larger physical size (112 vs 351; see Table 2). Overall, the

proportion of neighborhoods where visible minorities account for 50 per cent or more of the

14

local populations increased from 26 per cent in 2001 to 35 per cent in 2006 (see Table 3). In the

inner suburbs, both Scarborough and North York have more than half of their neighborhoods

with 50 per cent of the local populations being visible minorities (76% and 52% respectively). In

the fringe, only Markham has more than half of its neighborhoods with 50% or more of their

local population being visible minority (57%); Brampton is very close, with 49 per cent.

Richmond and Mississauga have 36 per cent and 35 per cent of their neighborhoods meeting the

criterion. Vaughan still does not have any such neighborhood, though it has two census tracts

that meet the criterion.

At the CSD level, only two municipalities have 50 per cent or more of their populations

being visible minorities: Markham (65%) and Brampton (57%). However, Mississauga (49%)

and Richmond Hill (46%), even the City of Toronto (47%), are not far behind (see Figure 3).

None of the outer suburban municipalities has 20 per cent or more of their populations being

visible minorities.

15

Figure 3 Distribution of visible minorities in the Toronto CMA by Census Sub-Division (CSD)

Apparently, not all census tracts and neighborhoods in Markham and Brampton meet the

criteria of ethnoburbs, and many other municipalities contain census tracts and neighborhoods

that do. It is therefore useful to delineate areas of ethnoburbs composed of adjacent census tracts

or neighborhoods that have 50% or more of their populations being visible minority. The

16

usefulness of delineating such areas is twofold. First, it reveals that ethnoburbs do not follow

administrative boundaries; instead, they extend across municipal borders. Second, these “areas of

ethnoburbs” better capture the locations of ethnic institutions than do neighborhoods and census

tracts, because large ethnic institutions (such as shopping centers and temples) tend to be located

in specially designated areas outside residential neighborhoods or census tracts. Spatial

autocorrelation coefficients indicate that both census tracts and neighborhoods with similar

proportions of visible minorities tend to cluster spatially. For example, when spatial

autocorrelation is examined for the entire CMA, the Moran Coefficients are insignificant

(ranging from 0.1 to 0.2); however, when spatial autocorrelation is re-examined for the central

city and the fringe only (i.e., excluding the outer suburbs), the Moran Coefficients increase

significantly, ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 (Table 3).

Table 3 Spatial autocorrelation (Moran Coefficient) of visible minorities in the Toronto

CMA, 2001 and 2006

Note: Moran Coefficients are calculated using percentage of visible minorities with significance

level α = 0.01.

To delineate areas of ethnoburbs, we take an approach similar to the CBD index

developed by Murphy and Vance (1954). In operation, the quantifiable CBD index is applied to

each city block; all blocks that meet the threshold of the index are included as part of the CBD. If

a block does not meet the threshold but is surrounded by other blocks that do, that block is also

included for continuity. In the current study, the index of 50 per cent of visible minority is

applied to both census tracts and neighborhoods to identify areas of ethnoburbs.

Figure 4 show the three areas of ethnoburbs in the Toronto CMA. It also shows the

differences in the areas of ethnoburb defined using CT and neighborhood respectively, but the

differences are not significant. In total, the three areas are composed of 436 census tracts, of

which, 123 (28%) have less than 50 per cent of their populations being visible minority. Or, they

Census Tract Neighborhood

2001 2006 2001 2006

For entire

CMA

total visible minority 0.13 0.12

Chinese 0.20 0.19

South Asian 0.13 0.11

For inner-

city, inner

suburb, and

fringe only

total visible minority 0.62 0.53 0.48 0.44

Chinese 0.73 0.49 0.68 0.53

South Asian 0.59 0.47 0.47 0.45

17

contain a total of 143 neighborhoods, of which, 41 (also 28%) have less than 50 per cent of their

populations being visible minority. These unqualified CTs and neighborhoods are included in the

areas of ethnoburb for continuity because they are surrounded by others that meet the criteria of

ethnoburb.

The first area includes most of Brampton, most of Mississauga, the northern part of

Etobicoke, and the western part of North York (with a total of 241 CTs or 76 neighborhoods).

The second are includes most of Markham, most of Scarborough, eastern part of North York, and

part of Richmond Hill (with 223 CTs or 61 neighborhoods). The third, which is emerging and is

much smaller, is located in Pickering and Ajax (with 10 CTs or 13 neighborhoods).2 In addition,

there is a small cluster of neighborhoods in downtown Toronto (see Figure 2), where visible

minorities also exceed 50 per cent of the local populations. However, because this inner-city

cluster, which largely coincides with the central Chinatown (centered on Dundas Street West and

Spadina Avenue), does not fit the definition of ethnoburb (i.e., ethnic suburb), it is excluded from

our subsequent analyses.

It is also interesting to note that the two largest ethnic groups in the CMA –the South

Asians and the Chinese – seem to concentrate in different areas of ethnoburbs. In 2006, 28 CTs

and 10 neighborhoods had 50% or more of their populations being South Asians (Table 4). Most

of the South Asian concentrations were in Brampton and Mississauga. In the community of

Brampton-Springdale, the concentration of South Asians is so large that it is nick-named

“Brampton-Singhdale”. Also in 2006, there were 35 census tracts and 11 neighborhoods with 50

per cent or more of their populations being Chinese. In contrast, most of the Chinese

concentrations were in Scarborough and Markham. As a result, two distinctive areas of

ethnoburbs have evolved in the Toronto CMA: the South Asian-dominated ethnoburb in the west,

and the Chinese-dominated ethnoburb in the east. These two areas of ethnoburb are the study

focus in the next section.

2 In Ajax, the three census tracts with 50% or more of their local populations being visible minorities were

split into 6 neighborhoods because they were divided by physical barriers.

18

Table 4 Growth of ethnoburbs in the Toronto CMA between 2001 and 2006

Ethnoburb

No. of Census Tracts No. of neighborhood

2001 2006 2001-06

change 2001 2006

2001-06

change

Total visible minority (50% and above) 247 351 +104 82 112 30

South Asians (50% and above) 6 28 +22 2 10 +8

East York 2 3 +1 0 0 0

Etobicoke 1 4 +3 0 0 0

Scarborough 0 3 +3 0 0 0

Brampton 2 10 +8 2 7 +5

Markham 0 2 +2 0 1 +1

Mississauga 1 6 +5 0 2 +2

Chinese (50% and above) 19 35 +16 9 11 +2

North York 0 2 +2 0 0 0

Scarborough 13 19 +9 3 3 0

Markham 3 11 +8 3 6 +3

Richmond Hill 3 3 0 3 2 -1

The areas of ethnoburb in the Toronto CMA are expected to continue expanding. More

census tracts and neighborhoods will experience changes from ethnic penetration to ethnic

consolidation. According to the 2006 census, 84 census tracts and 39 neighborhoods in the inner

suburbs and the fringe have 40-49 per cent of their populations being visible minorities. Many of

these so-called “multi-cultural popcorns” (Bain, 2009) will “pop up” in the near future to exceed

the 50 per cent threshold and become new ethnoburbs. Further, it seems that future expansion of

the areas of ethnoburbs will occur mainly in the fringe. Between 2001 and 2006, there was no

increase in the number of census tracts and neighborhoods with 40-49 per cent of their local

population being visible minorities in the inner suburbs; however, the number of such census

tracts and neighborhoods in the fringe increased by 18 and 12 respectively.

Interpreting Ethnoburbs

In this section, we interpret the ethnoburbs delineated in the Toronto CMA to illustrate

that they are indeed incubators for societal changes. Specifically, we demonstrate that they are

areas of concentrations of not only visible minority people but also ethnic institutions. It is in

these areas where strong ethnic solidarities are shown, and people of visible minorities are more

actively involved in main stream politics. The examples are drawn from the two dominant ethnic

groups: the Chinese and South Asians. Since the two sets of areas of ethnoburbs defined using

CT and neighborhoods respectively are similar in location and slightly different in spatial

19

dimension, the analysis (?) focuses on the areas of ethnoburbs defined with neighborhoods,

which are believed to be more meaningful socio-spatial units.

Ethnic commercial activity

Spatial proximity to geographical concentration of ethnic populations is an important

consideration in locating ethnic businesses, (Kaplan, 1998). The first example shows the new

development patterns of ethnic retailing. Until the mid 1980s, Chinese grocery stores and

supermarkets were small in size and concentrated in the inner-city Chinatowns (Wang, 1999).

Since the 1990s, many large stores have opened in the suburbs. As of July 2011, 57 Chinese

supermarkets of various size (excluding small, convenience-style grocery stores) exist in the

Toronto CMA to serve the half million ethnic Chinese. Most of the modern and large-scale

supermarkets were newly developed after 2000. As Table 5 shows, 43 (or 75%) of them are

located in the areas of ethnoburbs. Two important characteristics are noted with regard to the

Chinese supermarket development. First, many of the new stores have been opened in succession

to mainstream supermarkets or to other types of mainstream retail outlets (such as junior

department stores and hardware stores).

Table 5 Distribution of ethnic institutions in the ethnoburbs in the Toronto CMA

Zone CSD Chinese

association

Chinese

supermarket

Chinese

shopping

centers

South Asian

temples

Inner city

Toronto 66 (50) 9 (5) 2 (2) 1 (1)

East York 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

York 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (0)

Sub total 66 (50) 10 (6) 2 (2) 2 (1)

Inner suburb

North York 9 (7) 9 (8) 1 (1) 8 (8)

Etobicoke 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (6)

Scarborough 26 (26) 14 (14) 33 (33) 17 (17)

Sub total 36 (33) 23 (22) 34 (34) 32 (31)

Fringe

Pickering 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Richmond Hill 3 (2) 4 (4) 3 (3) 2 (0)

Markham 13 (11) 7 (6) 14 (12) 4 (3)

Vaughan 2 (0) 1 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0)

Ajax 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Brampton 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0) 5 (5)

Mississauga 2 (2) 7 (4) 8 (6) 14 (12)

Sub total 20 (15) 20 (15) 30 (21) 25 (20)

Outer suburb 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0)

CMA total 122 (98) 53 (43) 66 (57) 61 (52)

20

Notes: (1) number in brackets represents the number of institutions within areas of ethnoburb; (2) areas

of ethnoburbs are defined using neighborhood.

This pattern of succession has resulted in some very large Chinese supermarkets – in the

same class of full-line, mainstream supermarkets. Second, and related to the first, a number of

the Chinese supermarkets have taken the position of anchors in mainstream shopping plazas,

serving none-Chinese as well as Chinese, consumers living in the vicinities (Wang et al., 2011).

During the last two decades, 66 Chinese shopping centers were developed in the Toronto

CMA, with 57 (or 86%) of them being located in the areas of ethnoburbs, mostly in the Chinese-

dominated ethnoburb (see Figure 5). Large Chinese shopping centers have 200-300 retail/service

outlets. Most of the Chinese malls are condominium shopping centers, where the merchants own

their store space. In the condominium shopping centers, store units were divided and tailored to

the various investors. As a result, most units are small, with some as small as 150 square feet.

This resulted in high GLA-to-GFA ratios3, and caused some opponents to call the condominium

shopping centers “flea markets” (Wang 1999). While this fine partition had the effect of creating

more self-employed jobs than the conventional shopping centers, it also generated high shopping

traffic and therefore high parking demand from both employees and customers. Because the

ability to sell small units at significant levels of profit encouraged developers to increase both

building coverage and floor space index, surface parking was often reduced. Due to insufficient

surface parking, some local residents and adjacent merchants complained that parked vehicles of

owners destined to Chinese malls spilled onto nearby residential streets.

3 GLA stands for gross leasable area; GFA stands for gross floor area.

21

Figure 5 Geographical distribution of South Asian temples and Chinese shopping centers

in the Toronto CMA, 2011 (Shaded areas are areas of ethnoburb)

Such developments have led to conflicts involving not only local residents but also city

councils. At the intersection of Steeles Avenue East and Kennedy Road between Toronto and

Markham, there are three large Chinese shopping centers. Two of them (Pacific Mall and Market

Village) were developed in the mid-1990s on the side of Markham. The third (Splendid China

Tower) opened in 2006 on the side of Toronto. (Interestingly, none of the three developers is

Chinese; they all sold or are leasing store units to Chinese retailers.) The third shopping center

used to be a mainstream hardware store, which was closed and relocated elsewhere. A private

(Jewish) developer purchased the property and converted it to a Chinese shopping mall. The

22

developer applied to the City of Toronto for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval

to expand the mall by adding another 246,000 sq ft. If this materializes, that area will have nearly

1 million sq ft of ethnic retail space. This application met strong opposition from the developers

of the other two malls. The issue is competition, but both opponents complained that the

expansion of Splendid China Tower will make traffic congestion much worse and clog the streets.

Both developers applied to the Town of Markham for expansion with each adding another

300,000 sq. ft. Because these developments are at the border of two cities, their plans must be

presented to the neighboring city council for information, and the neighboring council has the

right to express concerns over the plans. As a result, both city councils were dragged into the

battle, which had to be taken to a provincial arbitration board – the Ontario Municipal Board –

for resolution.

Because the new development of ethnic businesses has posed challenges to the long-

established municipal planning system, some cities responded with changes to their municipal

zoning bylaws. For example, Richmond Hill made changes to its existing bylaws, which imposed

a maximum size on restaurants in the city (with the effect of disallowing large Chinese

restaurants from being built); introduced a cap on the number of stores in any given mall and a

minimum size for stores (to reduce the number of stores and increase store size); and required a

larger number of parking spaces against the square footage used for stores (encouraging vertical

intensification) (Wang, 1999; Preston & Lo, 2000).

South Asians are also engaged in commercial activity, but in much less significant scales

than are the Chinese. Still, the South Asians are running fruitful businesses in the Toronto CMA,

and a trend of suburbanization can also be observed. The traditional Little India (also known as

the India Bazaar) in the City of Toronto is losing customers to suburban competitions (Vukets,

2011). In response to the flood of South Asian immigrants into Scarborough, Brampton, and

Mississauga, South Asian theme malls began to be built or planned in ethnoburbs (Hertz, 2007;

Radhika, 2008). The first indoor South Asian-oriented shopping mall – the GTA Square –

opened in Scarborough in 2008 in a two-story structure with 40,000 sq. ft. of floor space. Soon

after, another shopping center – Greater Punjab – opened in Mississauga in the form of a plaza.

Greater Punjab is four times as large as GTA Square, with 160,000 sq ft. of floor space. Three

more are planned: Tah Center in Brampton (220,000 sq ft), and Sitara (240,000 sq ft) and T.

Junction (80,000 sq ft) in Scarborough, all within the areas of ethnoburb. Two of the completed

23

South Asian shopping centers also have a temple nearby, so they serve as cultural hubs as well as

business centers, combining retail, professional services, and religious institutions.

Cultural institutions

Both the Chinese and the South Asians have achieved high degrees of institutional

completeness. Within the Toronto CMA, there are 61 South Asian temples (Table 5 and Figure

5), of which 52 (or 85%) are located in the areas of ethnoburbs. The grandest is the BAPS Shri

Swanminarayan Temple located in the South Asian-dominated ethnoburb (near Highway 27 and

Finch Avenue). The $40 million temple, which opened in the summer of 2007, was built with

24,000 pieces of carved limestone and marble transported from India, Italy, and Turkey. It has

the capacity of holding 2,000 worshippers simultaneously. The most recent South Asian temple,

The Sri Krishna Brundavana, opened on April 13, 2011 in Scarborough (also within the area of

ethnoburb, at 781 Warden Ave). It is a spacious facility sprawling across more than 20,000

square feet. "It is important particularly for our younger generations to stay engaged with the

time-tested philosophies of our Sanatana Dharma", said the founder of the temple (Porter 2007).

These temples are not just places of worship for the South Asian immigrants, but are symbols of

their new home in Canada.

Our research using the Internet and Chinese Yellow Pages identified 122 Chinese

associations of a diverse array (Table 5), of which 46 (or 38%) are located in the Chinese-

dominated ethnoburb alone (Figure 5). Many of them are new forms of social, cultural, and

political networks fundamentally different from the old-day clansmen organizations. They

consist of broad memberships, and range from business and entrepreneurship associations to

associations of artists and Chinese acupuncture, immigrant settlement services, and even political

action committees. Unlike the clansmen organizations that maintain vertical bonds of kinship,

the new associations develop horizontal bonds of friendship, mutual assistance, and solidarity.

Many of them provide not-for-profit services to help new immigrants integrate into their adopted

society and community. The largest is the Chinese Professionals Association of Canada (CPAC)

headquartered in Scarborough with 26,000 members. Its objectives are defined as

to provide opportunities for interaction and networking among Chinese Canadian

professionals;

to help members integrate and contribute to Canadian society;

24

to facilitate members' career and professional development;

to provide training, employment, settlement, education, cultural and recreational

services to internationally trained professionals and families;

to be a national voice and representative of the Chinese Canadian community

(Chinese Professional Association of Canada 2011)

The Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto (CCC) is another non-profit organization,

and was the main force for building the Chinese Cultural Centre. Located at the southeast corner

of Sheppard Avenue East and Progress Avenue in Scarborough (in the Chinese-dominated

ethnoburb), the 23,000-square-foot multi-purpose complex is the largest Chinese cultural centre

in North America, consisting of an art gallery, a computerized resource centre, a boardroom, a

number of studios for arts and crafts, a 600-seat state-of-the-art theatre, and a 8,500-square-foot

multi-purpose hall for sports and recreational activities, conventions, trade shows, and banquets.

Its objectives include: (1) to help Canadians of Chinese heritage appreciate all facets of their own

culture; (2) to help nurture a mutual respect and understanding between Chinese Canadians and

Canadians of other heritage, with the ultimate goal of unity and prosperity; and (3) to promote

Canada and its opportunities to other Chinese communities globally (The Chinese Cultural

Centre of Greater Toronto, 2011)

Political participation

Spatial concentrations of ethnic minorities represent considerable electoral power and

often enable them to gain official representation within the institutional framework of urban

politics (Knox & Pinch, 2000, 237). In the Toronto CMA, increased political participation and

representation in mainstream politics have been observed in the areas of ethnoburbs, where the

usually silent minorities have become more vocal and ethnic votes are growing in size. More

Asian candidates (including immigrants) are running for elections, beginning to change the

political landscapes. The first turbaned Member of Parliament in the western world (Gurbax

Mahli) was elected in 1993 in the area of South Asian-dominated ethnoburbs in the Toronto

CMA (Crawford, 2011). As is found in a study by Siemiatycki and Matheson (2005), the most

significant electoral gains by immigrant and visible minority candidates are now occurring not in

http://www.cccgt.org/F.cgi/(en)/contact.html

http://www.cccgt.org/F.cgi/(en)/contact.html

25

the central city, but in suburban constituencies. They therefore conclude that the suburbs may

lead the way in promoting greater electoral equity in Canada.

In the 2006 provincial election, Michael Chan (a Chinese immigrant) won in Markham-

Unionville; and Amrita Mangat (a South Asian) won in Mississauga-Brampton South. Alex

Yuan (a Chinese) ran in Richmond Hill, and another Chinese Max Wang ran in Scarborough-

Agincourt, though both lost. In the 2008 federal election, three South Asians won seats in the

Brampton –Mississauga ethnoburb area; two Chinese ran in the Markham-Richmond Hill-

Scarborough ethnoburb, though both lost. During the 2011 federal election, five candidates

competed for the seat of the Scarborough-Rouge River riding; three of them were South Asians.

As a result, a Tamil immigrant – Rthika Sitsabaiesan – was elected (Monsebraaten, 2011).

Similarly, each of the Bramalea-Gore-Malton and the Brampton-Springdale ridings had five

candidates running, and three of the five candidates in each riding were South Asians (see Figure

6). Both winners were South Asians; and their immediate predecessors who were replaced were

also South Asians (Crawford, 2011).

26

Figure 6 South Asian candidates in the Toronto CMA running for office in the 2011

federal election. (The numbers after riding names show the number of South Asians running for

election; the double stars show one of them was elected.)

It should be pointed out that the decision to run for election is not just out of personal

interest; the candidates are nominated and endorsed by their respective parties. Politicians now

see the areas of ethnic concentration as important sources of political capital, and party leaders

often take time to attend ethnic festivals and grand openings of cultural institutions to court

ethnic votes and solicit “block votes” strategically in certain ethnoburbs. Before the 2011 federal

election, the staff of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, were caught

using his Member of Parliament letterhead to solicit funds for a “Conservative [Party] Ethnic

Paid-Media Strategy”, making “capturing of ethnic votes” a priority (Cheadle, 2011). As to why

27

the Conservative Party was highly expected to take over the Brampton-Springdale riding from

the Liberal Party in the 2011 federal election, Puneet Kohli, a partner with one of Brampton’s

largest law firms, explained that “While there is a general perception that Sikhs were taken for

granted by the Liberals for their ‘notes and votes’ and ignored thereafter, the Conservatives have

spoken to some issues that they’re more in line with Sikhs on” (Grewal, 2011). Shelley Carroll, a

Toronto City councilor representing Ward 3 (in the North York ethnoburb) distributes her annual

newsletter to her constituents consistently in two languages: English and Chinese. She even gave

herself a Chinese name 高雪莉. In this exact area, the Conservative candidate Chungsen Leung –

a Chinese immigrant – took over the riding from the Liberal incumbent Martha Hall Findley in

the 2011 federal election (Cross 2011). As to why South Asian candidates have been more

successful than the Chinese candidates in being elected, Siemiatycki and Matheson (2005)

explain that South Asians come from countries of multiple political parties and regular elections;

they are also more likely to arrive in Canada with facility in English.

As well, it is observed that in ethnoburbs, concerted political actions are taken to obtain

culturally sensitive services. In 2007, a new hospital was developed and opened in the City of

Brampton (within the South Asian-dominated ethnoburb) for a total of $790 million. The

hospital aimed to raise $10 million donations from private donors. The South Asian community

responded enthusiastically and raised $7 million (Yelaja, 2007a). For their significant

contributions, the new emergency department was named Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of

Sikhism. In return, the community wanted assurance that the new hospital is sensitive to their

cultural and religious needs. They recommended that the new hospital offer Indian vegetarian

meals, Punjabi and Hindi language translations and signage, large family waiting rooms, as well

as expanded treatment areas for cardiac care, nephrology, and diabetes, as these diseases are

more prevalent among South Asians. Unfortunately, two patients died shortly after the hospital

opened, and both happened to be of South Asian origin. This prompted a huge protest with 1,500

demonstrators, virtually all of them being South Asians. The protestors were carrying signs that

read: “We demand full capacity”, “Reduce waiting time”, “Treat us with smile”, and “Patients

need sensitivity”. As the organizer of the protest, Rajinder Saini (who is also the editor of

Parvasi Weekly newspaper and the host of Parvasi Radio), remarked, “We came here from India

for the best health care in the world and now we’re scared to go to that hospital” (Yelaja, 2007b).

28

Economic integration

Although ethnoburbs are much more multicultural than ghettos and enclaves, there are

still concerns among some Canadians that these areas of ethnic concentration may have the

effects of segregating visible minorities and new immigrants and inhibiting their integration in

the Canadian society (Qadeer & Kumar, 2003; Reitz et al., 2009; Persichilli, 2010 & 2011).

Table 6 Comparison of ethnoburb with non-ethnoburb for indicators of integration

CSD Indicators Ethnoburb Part Not-Ethnoburb

Part Difference

Etobicoke

household income $65,824 $92,918 -$27,095

% of pop. 25-64 with university certificate

or degree bachelor level and above 23% 38% -15%

% of pop. with knowledge of English 89% 88% 1%

North York





Scarborough




% of pop. with knowledge of English 88% 90% -2%

Ajax

household income $99,293 $86,743 $12,550


or degree bachelor level and above 24% 20% 4%


Brampton





Markham





Mississauga





Pickering





Richmond

Hill

household income $101,916 $95,794 $6,122




Vaughan

household income - $108,917 -


or degree bachelor level and above - 31% -

% of pop. with knowledge of English - 90% -

29

One aspect of integration is reflected by the level of income (dis)parity, which we have

data to examine.

As Table 6 shows, in seven of the ten CSDs in the inner suburb and the fringe, the

ethnoburb portion has lower average household income than the non-ethnoburb portion in the

same CSD. The differences range from $3,000 in Markham to as high as $50,000 in North York.

The other two CSDs where the differences are also significant are Etobicoke and Brampton, with

disparities over $20,000. The only CSDs where the ethnoburb portion has higher average

household income than the non-ethnoburb portion are Richmond Hill and Ajax.

It is also important to note from Table 6 that there seems to be a clear association

between level of household income and the proportion of adults (between 24 and 64 years of age)

with university certificates or degrees. For example, in the five municipalities where the

ethnoburb portions have lower household income than the non-ethnoburb portions (Etobicoke,

North York, Scarborough, Markham, and Pickering),4 the same areas have lower proportions of

adults with university certificates and degrees. In Ajax and Richmond Hill where the portions of

ethnoburb have higher household income, the same areas also have higher proportions of adults

with university certificates and degrees. The relationship between levels of household income

and the proportion of adults with knowledge of English is not clear. This may be attributed to the

lack of reliability of the “official language ability” variable in the Canadian census, because

language ability is self-reported with no formal testing and many people overstate their language

ability. In sum, ethnoburbs reflect a certain degree of segregation in the Toronto CMA, though

these concentrations of visible minorities are formed by a voluntary process.

Concluding Discussions

This study shows that ethnoburbs are real geographical entities and do exist in the Toronto

CMA. They add a new layer of social space to the existing multicultural mosaic of the

metropolitan region. In importance, ethnoburbs provide a social context for significant changes

not only in the social and cultural realms, but also in the economic and political landscapes.

A set of criteria are needed to delineate ethnoburbs in a systematic fashion, in order for cross-

region comparisons and to track changes over time. After all, the difference between a concept

4 North York and Scarborough were former municipalities before amalgamation in 1998.

30

and a model is that the latter can be operationalized in a systematic way; and no geographical

model is considered scientific until it can be replicated elsewhere.

We suggest that the census variable “visible minority” be used as a defining attribute for

ethnoburb, as it has been widely used in many other studies to examine ethnic segregation and to

identify social spaces in both Canadian and U.S. cities. In the meantime, we are cognizant that

the classification “visible minority” has attracted controversy. For example, the United

Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in March 2007,

described the term as racist (Canwest News Services 2007). It is not clear what Statistics

Canada’s official response to this criticism is, and we are not sure if future census reports will

continue to use this definition in their population classification.

In general, neighborhood should be the preferred geographical unit rather than census tract

for delineating ethnoburbs, because neighborhood is conceptualized and designed to contain not

only housing but also an array of institutions associated with the daily life of the local residents.

Many North American cities do have a system of officially defined neighborhoods for ready use.

However, if identification of areas of ethnoburbs is the study focus, census tract is more

convenient to use and should be equally useful. Although the formation and evolution of

ethnoburbs link to processes that operate across municipal borders, areas of ethnoburbs

delineated using either neighborhood or census should have clearly and objectively defined,

instead of fuzzy and arbitrary, boundaries.

Ethnoburbs are also dynamic, rather than static, geographical entities, and they change over

time – mostly expanding. As in the Toronto CMA, there are many “multicultural popcorns” –

census tracts or neighborhoods where the proportion of visible minorities in the total population

has reached 40 to 50 per cent. They may become new ethnoburbs in the very near future. At the

current rate of population changes, the majority of the edge cities in the fringe will become

ethno-cities in less than 10 years.

The virtue of the ethnoburb concept is still being debated among scholars, even though

without reference to the specific term. Multiculturalism is a cornerstone of Canada’s national

policy. The underlying theory is that preserving the cultural mosaic and resisting the melting pot

helps build Canadian cohesion and national unity. According to Jeff Reitz et al. (2009), however,

this theory is only partially valid: preserving the ethnic and cultural diversity of Canada poses

challenges because it tends to isolate Canadians from one another. Knox and Pinch (2000, 231)

31

stress the importance of assimilation, but to them, assimilation is not simply the process of one

culture being absorbed into another. Instead, both mainstream and minority cultures are changed

by assimilation through the creation of new hybrid forms of spatial identity. Ethnoburbs should

be developed and built as such hybrid form of spatial identity.

The ethnoburb has important policy implications and the growth of ethnoburbs needs to be

managed carefully. In cities with ethnoburbs, changes in the existing planning regime (in both

the physical and social planning systems) are necessary to provide, or accommodate, culturally

sensitive facilities and services. Policies are also needed for development of positive relations not

only between the mainstream and the minority cultures but also among different groups of

visible minorities. Creating welcoming cities with healthy and intercultural relations is vitally

important for the increasingly multicultural/plural societies.

In a final note, we acknowledge that for planning and policy purposes, it is more useful to

analyze ethnoburbs one layer deeper: that is, to segment areas of ethnoburbs dominated by

different groups of visible minorities and examine them separately. As some critics have noted,

the groups comprising “visible minorities” may be vastly different from one another in types of

economic activities and levels of political participation. We plan to undertake this kind of

analysis as the next phase of our study of ethnoburbs.

32

References

Bain, A.L. 2009. Creative suburbs: Cultural 'popcorn' pioneering in Etobicoke. In Spaces of

Vernacular Creativity: Rethinking the Cultural Economy, Eds. T. Edensor, D. Leslie, S.

Millington, and N. Rantisi, 63-74. London & New York: Routledge.

Bauder, H. and B. Sharper. 2002. Residential segregation of visible minorities in Canada’s

gateway cities. The Canadian Geographer 46 (3): 204-222.

Beauregard, R. A. 1995. Edge cities: Peripheralizing the center. Urban Geography 19 (8): 708-

721.

Boyd., M. and D. Norris. 2001. Who are the “Canadians”?: Changing census responses, 1986-

1996. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 33 (1): 1-26.

Canwest News Service. 2007. UN calls Canada racist for ”visible minorities” tag.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-

3aa50a371318&k=23802

Chapin, F.. S. and E. J. Kaiser. 1986. Urban land use planning (3rd edition). Urbana and

Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Cheadle, B. 2011. Kenny accused of “shakedown”. Toronto Star 4 March: A2.

Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto. 2011. http://www.cccgt.org/F.cgi/(en)/accueil.cgi.

Chinese Professional Associations of Canada. 2011.

http://www.chineseprofessionals.ca/mission.php)

Committee on the Hygiene of Housing of the American Public Association. 1948. Planning the

Neighborhood. Chicago: Public Administration Service.

Crawford, T. 2011. Bramalea-Gore-Malton: Gosal defeats Liberal incumbent. Toronto Star 3

May: U9

Cross, A. 2011. Willowdale: Tory leading in very tight race. Toronto Star 3 May: U5.

Darden, J., M. Rahbar, L. Jezierski, M. Li, and E. Velie. 2010. The measurement of

neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics and Black and White residential segregation

in Metropolitan Detroit: Implications for the study of social disparities in health. Annals

of the Association of American Geographers 100 (1): 137-158.

Davis, W. K. D. 1984. Factorial Ecology. Gower: Aldershot.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802

http://www.cccgt.org/F.cgi/(en)/accueil.cgi

http://www.chineseprofessionals.ca/mission.php

33

_____ and R. A. Murdie. 1991. Consistency and differential impact in urban social

dimensionality: Intra-urban variations in the 24 metropolitan areas of Canada. Urban

Geography 12: 55-79.

Department of Justice Canada, 2000. Employment Equity Act 1995. Ottawa.

Dunn, K., V. Ghandi, I. Burnley, and J. Forrest. 2003. Racism in Australia: Cultural imperialism,

disempowerment and violence. In Proceedings of the 22nd

New Zealand Geographical

Society Conference, Eds. J. Gao, R. Le Heron, and J. Logia, 175-79. Auckland: New

Zealand Geographical Society Conference Series No. 22.

Filstead, H. 1970. Quantitative Methodology. Chicago: Markham.

Garreau, J. 1991. The Edge City: Life of the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday.

Grewal, S. 2011.Brampton-Springdale: a shift among Sikhs from red to blue. Toronto Star 8,

April: GT2.

Hertz, B. 2007. $60M South Asian-themed mall to be built in Markham. The National Post 2

November. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/02/60m-

south-asian-themed-mall-to-be-built-in-markham.aspx

Johnston, R., M. Poulsen, and J. Forrest. 2007. The geography of ethnic residential segregation:

A comparative study of five countries. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 97 (4): 713-738.

Kaplan, D. 1998. The spatial structure of urban ethnic economies. Urban Geography 19 (6): 489-

501.

Knox, P. and S. Pinch. 2000. Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. Essex (England):

Prentice Hall.

Kobayashi, A., and L. Peake. 2000. Racism out of place: Thoughts on whiteness and an anti-

racist geography in the new millennium. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 90 (2): 392-403.

Kumar, S. and B. Leung, 2005. Formation of an ethnic enclave: Process and motivations. Plan

Canada, Summer: 43-45.

Li, W. 1997. Ethnoburb versus Chinatown: Two types of urban ethnic communities in Los

Angeles. (Paper presented at the conference of “Cultural Problems of Large Cities” held

in Paris on December 8-11. (http://cybergeo.revues.org/1018?lang=en)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/02/60m-south-asian-themed-mall-to-be-built-in-markham.aspx

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/02/60m-south-asian-themed-mall-to-be-built-in-markham.aspx

http://cybergeo.revues.org/1018?lang=en

34

_____. 1998. Anatomy of a new ethnic settlement: The Chinese ethnoburb in Los Angeles.

Urban Studies 35 (3): 479-501.

Logan, J., R. Alba, and W. Zhang. 2002. Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New

York and Los Angeles. Urban Affairs Review 34 (2): 313-339.

Marcuse, P. 1997. The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the post-Fordist

U.S. city? Urban Affairs Review 33 (2), 228-264.

Monsebraaten, L. 2011. Scarborough-Rouge River: NDP poised to win in diverse riding. Toronto

Star 3 May: U4.

Murdie, R. A. 1969. Factorial Ecology of Metropolitan Toronto, 1951-1961. (Research Paper No.

116.) Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago.

Murphy, R. E. and J. E. Vance. 1954. Delimiting the CBD. Economic Geography 30: 189-222.

Park, R. E., E. W. Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie. 1925. The City. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Porter, C. 2007. Thousands drawn to temple’s dazzle. Toronto Star 23 July: A3.

Preston, V. and L. Lo. 2000. Asian theme malls in suburban Toronto: Land use conflict in

Richmond Hill. The Canadian Geographer 44: 182-191.

Persichilli, A. 2010. Patronizing policy keeps immigrants in ethnic ghettos while deceiving

them that they have been fully accepted. Toronto Star 25 April: A15.

_____. 2011. Multiculturalism may be ailing but it’s not dead. Toronto Star 13 February: A15.

Qadeer, M. 2004. Planning approaches to ethnic enclaves. The Ontario Planning Journal 19 (6):

_____ and S. Kumar. 2003. Toronto’s residential mosaic. The Ontario Planning Journal 18 (5):

7-9.

Radhika, V. 2008. Step aside, Pacific Mall, there’s a new Haj in town. The Globe and Mail 1

November. http://www.vradhika.com/articles/TAJ.htm

Reitz, J., R. Breton, and K. Dion. 2009. Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and

Challenges of Diversity. Secaucus, NJ: Springer.

Siemiatycki, M. and A. M. Matheson. 2005. Suburban success: Immigrant and minority

electoral gains in suburban Toronto. Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens (Summer):

69-72.

Vukets, C. 2011. The changing face of Little India. Toronto Star 22 February: GT5.

http://www.vradhika.com/articles/TAJ.htm

35

Wang, S. 1994. Residential planning for pedestrian safety. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

Edmonton: The University of Alberta.

_____. 1999. Chinese commercial activity in the Toronto CMA: New development patterns and

impacts. The Canadian Geographer 43 (1): 19-35.

_____, R. Hii, J. Zhong, and P. Du. 2013. Recent trends in ethnic Chinese retailing in

Metropolitan Toronto. International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research. 4 (1): 49-

66.

Walks, R. A. and L. Bourne. 2006. Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic

enclaves, and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. The Canadian Geographer

50 (3): 273-279.

Wilson, D. and T. Mueller. 2004. Representing neighborhood: Growth coalitions, newspaper

reporting, and gentrification in St. Louis. The Professional Geographer 56 (2): 282-294.

Witherick, M., S. Ross, and J. Small. 2001. A Modern Dictionary of Geography (4th

edition).

London and New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Yeates, M. 1998. The North American City (5th

edition). New York: Longman.

Yelaja, P. 2007a. South Asians raise millions for hospital. Toronto Star 3 February: B5.

_____. 2007b. New hospital under fire. Toronto Star 10 December: A3.

Yin, R. 1994. Qualitative Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

CERIS – THE ONTARIO METROPOLIS CENTRE

Creating and sharing knowledge on the lives of immigrants and the policies that affect them

Who we are

Established in 1996, CERIS – The Ontario Metropolis Centre is a research network focusing on

the resettlement and integration of immigrants and refugees in Ontario. We engage in

comparative research, knowledge transfer, and policy development, and we work in a

collaborative partnership that includes universities, community organisations and different levels

of government. For our first sixteen years, we were funded by the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and a consortium of 14 federal departments

and agencies.

What we do

RESEARCH

CERIS has funded over 120 research projects selected by panels of academic and community

researchers and policy makers who evaluate each project’s academic and policy merit.

Collaborative and interdisciplinary, our research projects are designed to create new knowledge

to inform current immigration policy and practice, train graduate students, support community

research, and promote knowledge exchange between researchers and all of our partners.

CAPACITY-BUILDING

CERIS trains a new generation of immigration scholars and researchers. Each year, graduate

students receive funding to undertake their own research. We also provide support for students

to present their work at annual conferences, local seminars, and graduate student workshops and

conferences. We collaborate with our partners in the community and in government providing

opportunities for them to participate in research projects and to learn more about research design

and methods.

KNOWLEDGE MOBILISATION

CERIS supports making relevant research more widely available to policy-makers, service

providers, researchers, and diverse communities. We hold frequent conferences and seminars to

share our research. We also publish materials for a wide range of users and reach out to those

who can use our research to effect evidence-based change.

Why we do it Research has shown that immigrants and refugees coming to Ontario face increasing challenges.

CERIS affiliates believe that good policy decisions flow from evidence-based research. We also

believe that research must translate into action and we work to mobilise knowledge by getting it

in the right hands at the right time.

Where we work Our office is located at York University in Toronto, but our network extends across Ontario. Our

research examines immigration issues in large and small cities as well as in rural areas across the

province.

WORKING PAPER SERIES - Toronto South LIP · making suburbs new multicultural places where...

Documents

Transcript of WORKING PAPER SERIES - Toronto South LIP · making suburbs new multicultural places where...