Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Photo by Carnotzet from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
North American cities are undergoing a massive change. And it's not just gentrification, Alan Ehrenhalt writes in The New Republic, it's a wholesale "demographic inversion." In Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, and elsewhere, the poor, minorities, and immigrants are being pushed to the outskirts while the affluent—and, in this context, overwhelmingly white—professional class colonizes the downtown core. The trend reverses the massive migration of the affluent out to suburban enclaves—or, more colloquially, White Flight—that defined urban life for much of the second half of the twentieth century.
So what's bringing them back to the core? Ehrenhalt argues that deindustrialization of the urban centre, and the subsequent decline in noise, grime, and crime, is a big reason. Another is the motivation to escape the long commute from the hinterlands to the central city (not to mention sky-rocketing gas prices). Most important, however, is the rise of a new generation of eager urbanists seeking to escape the "gated-ness" of suburban living and attracted to the vibrant downtown lifestyle. Of course, their arrival forces others—including some of the eclectic and artistic residents that made a neighbourhood attractive in the first place—to find cheaper digs. In the new city, that means moving further away from the centre. And so, Ehrenhalt tells us, immigrants and the urban poor are pushed to the geographic fringes to live "in suburban or exurban territory that, until a decade ago, was almost exclusively English-speaking, middle-class, and white." Nevertheless, Ehrenhalt ends with the bright-eyed conclusion "that the demographic inversion ultimately will do more good than harm." It's too bad Ehrenhalt's article neglects to use Toronto as an example, because our city is a case study of how this trend is no mere geographic reorganization; it is a stark example of growing economic polarization.
Photo by Miles Storey.
That was the conclusion of a landmark study released last Christmas by the University of Toronto's Centre for Urban and Community Studies. The Three Cities within Toronto: Income Polarization among Toronto neighbourhoods, 1970-2000 [PDF] uses thirty years of census data to chart a dramatic (and depressing) image of Toronto. In short, lead author Dr. David Hulchanski, director of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, shows how Toronto has turned into three geographically distinct cities defined by income and socio-economic status.
In 1970, 66 per cent of the city's census tracts were considered "middle" income (defined as having incomes 20 per cent above or below the city average). By 2000, the proportion of middle-income areas shrank to 32 per cent of the city. On the other hand, the proportion of neighbourhoods with "low" incomes (incomes between 20 and 40 per cent below the city average) and "high" incomes (incomes more than 20 per cent above the city average) are increasing. Rather than a "city of neighbourhoods," the report calls present-day Toronto a "city of disparities," where the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking.
Of course, the issue of economic disparity is overlaid with the complexities of ethnic diversity. The majority (84 per cent) in "high" income areas identify themselves as "white" and only 12 per cent in this area were born outside the country. In "middle" income areas, 67 per cent are white and 21 per cent are Black, Chinese, or South Asian. Of the total population in these areas, 48 per cent are immigrants. In contrast, 62 per cent of residents in "low" income areas were born outside the country. In these neighbourhoods, the population is 43 per cent Black, Chinese, or South Asian, and 40 per cent white.
Plot this information on a map—as the Three Cities report has done (with lower income areas in shades of red and higher income areas in blue)—and you get the most evocative accompaniment possible to Ehrenhalt's article. There have always been rich neighbourhoods and poorer neighbourhoods, as the above map shows, but the size and location of the two have fundamentally altered the shape of the city over the last thirty years. As the economic gap grows, the geographic distinctions become more pronounced, with poverty spreading northward and outward from the core towards Toronto's inner suburbs (Scarborough, Rexdale, and the like). The only lower income sections within today's downtown core are clustered around Chinatown, Regent Park, and St. James Town. Is there any clearer picture of the level to which the city is being polarized by income and ethno-cultural characteristics?
Although this trend developed over the course of thirty years, it became pronounced, according to Dr. Hulchanski, with the cuts to social services in the 1990s. For this reason, the report argues that action from all levels of government can turn the economic and cultural segregation around. Income support programs, tax relief for lower income earners, and housing assistance would make housing affordable for everyone. "Inclusionary zoning" policies would promote mixed-income neighbourhoods and ensure that sky-rocketing rent doesn't push lower income earners to the fringes. New immigrants also need to have the full opportunity to use their education and skills in fulfilling—and well-paying—jobs. Writing in the Globe and Mail on December 22, 2007, Richard Florida was optimistic that—if Toronto is willing to address the problem head-on—there is a tremendous opportunity for the city to become a leader for the countless other cities undergoing this demographic inversion.
Maps are from the University of Toronto's Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Great post, Kevin.
I hope enough people understand and demand the results-oriented and creative approaches that are needed to reverse the trend.
Some roadblocks are not going away anytime soon. I don't think "Canada's New Government" can be counted on to provide that tax relief for lower income earners; Kyle Rae's recent remarks on the Pusateri's lay-by indicate City Hall can't be relied upon to oppose gentrification; and the OMB—having no concept or understanding of urban planning or neighbourhood-building—considers only the profits of developers in its decisions.
The truly concerned are a majority, and we need to make trolls, NIMBYers, sycophants and vote-buyers realize that they must either correct their nonconstructive behaviour or lapse quickly into irrelevance.
The majority (84 per cent) in "high" income areas identify themselves as "white" and only 12 per cent in this area were born outside the country.
Would be interesting to know how many had parents or grandparents born outside of Canada, though. I suspect that achieving a higher-income takes a few generations for 'new' Canadians.
Umm, I doubt the poor are actually getting poorer. The rich are probably getting richer though.
"Kyle Rae's recent remarks on the Pusateri's lay-by indicate City Hall can't be relied upon to oppose gentrification"
Rae's remarks were stupid and you could almost certainly find proof that City Hall can't be relied upon to oppose gentrification but how does that particular quote evidence your argument?
Spacejerk: The rich are getting richer but the poor haven't had their incomes keep pace with inflation so they are actually getting poorer.
For the purposes of brevity, I didn't go into great detail about rising and declining incomes.
But, since it's been raised, according to the Three Cities report, the wealthy neighbourhoods "had a 71% increase in income over the 30 years."
On the other hand, average income in the low income neighbourhoods "declined the most, by -34%".
I saw an article about this 'inversion' a few days ago and debated whether to post about it in the Metrocide series, but let it pass.
In 1970, 66 per cent of the city's census tracts were considered "middle" income (defined as having incomes 20 per cent above or below the city average).
How do these numbers compare/relate to provincial and national income levels? If 20% below Toronto's average is average, or even above average, provincially or nationwide, it's not so scary. But without context it's hard to judge.
wow, I JUST had this conversation with a friend last week. Great article!
It'll be interesting to see in the long-term if this is cyclical, as in, in 20 years will the middle/rich class move BACK to the suburbs.
@Green Sulfur: comments on Thursday's news roundup pointed out how the lay-by is hostile to those (pedestrians, cyclists) without the means to shop at Pusateri's or a vehicle to drive there.
Support for non-car transportation goes hand in hand with being inclusive of those who can't afford a car. The same inclusion underlies the idea of mixed-income neighbourhoods.
City Hall's behaviour regarding the lay-by is a recent example of an obstacle to improvement. My point was that change needs to happen despite these obstacles, not after they are somehow removed.
Good piece. Though it assumes that the declining percentage of "middle income" individuals in the city is as a result of them being driven out by higher income individuals. Its not implausible that that the difference between the 1970 and 2000 numbers is (at least in part) offset by those whose income had increased in that period (which was one of the largest periods of sustained growth in Canadian history). I also echo rek's point - if middle income is defined as Canadian middle income, then what we might be seeing is the growth of Toronto's income as a whole vis a vis the Canadian average.
In any event, these numbers are fluid. If we make the assumption that middle income Canadians have been driven out of the city by higher income Canadians (as the article does), where do these higher income Canadians come from? On its face, the rise in the percentage of higher income Canadians in the city should be celebrated - it demonstrates the success of the economy.
That 2nd map is real handy. It immediately shows me which which few places downtown I'm likely to afford to go live in!
On a similar note, shame how the rest of the city is so inaccessible to public transit. At least the poor of 20 years ago could build the walkable ethnic neighborhoods that we now find so quirky and nice.
It would be interesting to consider the population change in the outlying areas between 1970 and 2000. If a neighborhood grew from 500 to 50,000 people I'd expect to see incomes drop.
I'm beginning to see more of these poorer immigrant types invade my beloved Innisfil. I've never asked them where they're from but I bet they're from Toronto. While I have no problem with immigrants I don't want the poor and the crime they bring to make my property value drop. Therefore, I kindly ask the city to take their lower echelons back.
There you go rek, my first trolling post.
Uh, kids (hate to sound belittling, but we're missing a huge segment of the picture here), Ray Suarez wrote on this very subject a decade ago in his 1999 tome, The Old Neighborhood: What We Lost in the Great Suburban Migration, 1966–1999 (New York: The Free Press/Simon & Schuster). He also went all over North America on speaking tours about this demographic shift which he largely foretold would happen within the next decade and accelerate into the 2010s. Aside from those who went to hear him speak, few else (e.g., developers, journalists, urban planning activists, spacing advocates, etc.) paid much notice. Nevertheless, it was probably his compelling observations which ultimately steered my interest to join the UofT urban studies programme.
The CUCS report was presented to us in lecture a few months ago, and I offered the same observations in our class then. But what neither the lecture nor this article discussed in earnest was what Suarez did: the migration inversion, as it's referred to here, is triggered by age demographics on an unprecedented scale.
Specifically, baby boomers, the largest generational cohort above the age of 30, are moving into the city centres, now that they've been empty nesters and no longer have as urgent a need for large housing in third- or fourth-tier suburbs (or exurbs, or "bedroom communities").
Moreover, and largely speaking, the post-WWII boomer cohort has always, in aggregate, been the most prosperous generation experienced in North American history -- Canada or the U.S. With plenty of discretionary income (now that retirement nears and lifelong investments are maturing), a need for less space and the push away from being stuck in a car on an expressway (though discussed above, it's not very Easy Rider, now is it?), the logical move is to voluntarily populate the very places from which people fled between the 1950s to the 1980s.
Toronto and Vancouver weren't hit as hard as other places, but what's happening now is the remaining places for lower-income urban housing -- Regent Park excluded -- are being converted into high-income, high-yield real estate options. The city of Toronto have, in the case of Parkdale, tried to municipally manage gentrification with extremely shaky results and frayed nerves. And I'm sure people have noticed how much Queen West changed since the 1980s, as well as the tremendous changes in the "Kings" regions (King-Parliament and King-Spadina) following the city's 1996 Secondary Plan on revitalizing these districts.
The question I asked previously in discussion, and the one I'll leave with you all here within this Floridian buzz (whoever said that caste systems are down and out?): if all the lower-income "service class" (as Richard calls them) are pushed into these now-vacant houses emerging where empty-nesters are selling -- even if these large houses built in the 80s, 90s and early part of this decade are converted into multi-family units -- then how is our regional transit system going to rapidly, reliably, and affordably move them to service jobs within the city centre each and every day if driving cars with $1.50/L fuel and $25-40/day parking costs are out of the question, while the TTC can't get federal or provincial funding to make their infrastructure more robust -- much less co-ordinate with the fledgling Metrolinx to bridge transit schedules and inter-zonal fares seamlessly with our outer population ring, the 905?
In other words, who's gonna make the donuts at Timmies, or clean your office tower at Bay and Adelaide? How will the service class be able to ambulate without burying themselves in disproportionate transportation costs? Who's going to pay for transportation solutions to assure that the labour force doesn't get stuck grinding their gears in neutral?
Re PickleToes' "my beloved Innisfil" troll comment: funny thing is, places like Innisfil, Keswick, etc have had a downmarket "white trash exurbia" reputation for decades--so, if that's the destiny for them poor imgorants with their crime problems, then, maybe, it's poetic justice...
There you go rek, my first trolling post in this comment section.
Fix'd.
Adam: Are you sure that by "white trash" you don't just mean conservative or traditionalist? Please stop trolling my town.
Toronto is often reputed to be filled with elitist ultra-liberal, bicycle riding yuppies whose urban lifestyle couldn't be maintained without pillaging the rest of the province's tax base. From what I've read on this site, the generalization appears to be true.
The PickleToes decoder ring:
"elitist ultra-liberal": "hipster"
"bicycle riding yuppies": an oxymoron. They're in at least sport-luxury vehicles, pecking on Blackberries whilst behind the wheel. Or on the elevator. Or crossing Bay at 1:00p without looking up or both ways. Yuppies on bikes, maybe in 1990? You're on, but god that must have looked funny.
"yuppie": under-40 educated professionals filling the yuppie ranks aren't yuppies, they're hipsters; yuppies tend to be their parents.
"bicycle riding": James Brown say "bad bad BAD, that real BAD"
"urban lifestyle": Sneaky Dee's, PBR, K-Mart, Value Village, and anywhere on West Queen West.
:)
"whose urban lifestyle couldn't be maintained without pillaging the rest of the province's tax base"
Now that's inverted (....from the truth)
--------------
Getting back to the post, is this an argument for an optimum spatial layout of neighbourhoods? If cities will always have poor areas and rich areas, I'm not so sure there is anything wrong with the graphic above. Yes, the quality of life is lower without public transit and dense shopping options for the poor stuck in the old inner suburbs, but on the plus side there is more room (larger apartments) and access to parks/recreation in these areas. We just spent about 50 years mocking American cities for concentrating their poor downtown, and now we're going to beat ourselves up for concentrating the rich downtown?
The goal of trying to have moderate disparities in income to avoid these stark differences altogether is laudable, but I'm glad that on the whole Toronto's most valuable property is still in Toronto.
"Adam: Are you sure that by "white trash" you don't just mean conservative or traditionalist? Please stop trolling my town."
======================
No, I actually mean "downmarket"; as in, a poor man's version of Aurora, Newmarket etc. (Perhaps related to cheap land, lax zoning, an abundance of cottage property + subdivision that could be cheaply upgraded into permanent accomodation, etc.)
In that sense, Innisfil, Keswick, etc actually have operated, long before this "demographic inversion" thing came into play, as auto-age exurban versions of the European suburban model (or even a certain parallel Toronto model which led to the ad hoc settlement of places like York Township by the "suburban poor" in the early c20).
I thought Chicago was the city of neighborhoods, among others.
Is it just me or does Toronto cherry pick colloquialisms from other cities?
Yes, the quality of life is lower without public transit and dense shopping options for the poor stuck in the old inner suburbs, but on the plus side there is more room (larger apartments) and access to parks/recreation in these areas.
This point is quite relevant and should not be glossed over so quickly. accozzaglia hit the transit problem on the head and the problem is bigger than merely finding people to sweep up after downtown yuppies
In a review of uTOpia Michael Bryson, the editor of the Danforth Review, nicely laid this out regarding the "new poor areas of toronto" (as he calls them):
Most of the poor used to live downtown. Now, most of the poor live in the band of Toronto's inner-suburbs -- areas of Scarborough, North York and East York.
Why is this significant? ... Because those areas were initally developed for the middle class. Those neighbourhoods were developed with the assumption that each family would have a car. Public transit has not been built up in those areas, recreation centres are not as common as they are downtown, programs for addictions and food banks are not as common, or not easily accessible. In other words, the infrastructure that had been built up in the city to address the needs of the poor is inadequate to meeting the needs of the poor in Toronto in the 21st century, because the poor have moved; the poor have changed
And growing up in Scarborough, I know how frustrating public transit is outside of the city core; and that's just one problem people with lower incomes are facing out in the fringes of the city. Without the city's infrastructure matching the needs of this demographic shift I have to agree with Bryson when he says that even though "Downtown is the symbolic heart of the city ... the future of the city will be bleak indeed if its visionaries don't have place in their imaginations for any one north of Davenport."
I find it telling how more focus in this conversation so far has been directed on the whining of "white trash" (in America, there's a politically correct way to refer to those folks: Appalachian-Americans) than on the research, Plummer's article, or comments related thereto.
Another thought I forgot to add related to the Suarez findings was that of the inherent design problem of suburban housing as it relates to the elderly who do stay. He noted, even stressed that those baby boomers who remain in their suburban houses (and I'd go further here: any grandparent of any cohort, including first-generation immigrants who make part of a larger family living regionally together, even if not in the same house) have another barrier to face.
When seniors find themselves due to health reasons unable to drive the way they once took for granted, suddenly these masterplanned subdivisions (with houses surrounded by virtual moats of green) make it too difficult to walk to the corner grocery store, to walk to the town centre to visit the doctor, or to meet with friends. What once was the freedom of living in a suburb (made possible by one de facto transportation mode choice) will become a kind of prison.
Another example of car-oriented design from the onset being a problem for other mode choices (like walking) are street-crossing signals. While civil engineers design a certain number of seconds into a crossing cycle, this may not be enough for people who no longer can ambulate as quickly. This excludes the additional hazard of drivers increasingly ignoring street crossing traffic from the use of mobile devices, which leads into another debate for some other time. But then fewer people are encouraged to use street crosswalks if they feel they have to stress their bodies to make it across in time. This gives more incentive to remain at home in the relative "safety" of not being hit, but this aggravates the isolation further. Without fundamental design changes to transportation planning, this is not liable to improve much.
Already this is the case for some, but it will only escalate as more reach post-retirement age; when spouses either pass away or must move to assisted care living (leaving the other partner completely alone); and their adult children move elsewhere to raise their own families.
In short, it's not just so-called "service class" groups who are being squeezed by the current situation of migration shifts. Incidentally, while there are more options for assisted care living being made available in the city of Toronto (check out the Annex, 2008, versus the Annex, 1988 or even 1998), these do not necessarily make it easier for our elderly to afford living there. It assumes there's someone or some fund to pay for ongoing care, and only the wealthiest families (e.g., only a few) will have this option at their disposal. Less affluent families (e.g., most) do not necessarily have this option, placing a greater likelihood on isolated elders in places where they cannot remain independent.
Getting old might be an unhipstery thing to talk about, but ageing happens. The funny thing (not "ha-ha" funny) is the more myopia in others I see when it relates to generational population shifts, the more I think fewer people are prepared to discuss and consider viable planning decisions from a holistic angle as it will eventually relate to them or their parents.
It's something one does not see (or is in denial of seeing) in the uTOpia trilogy. The closest which any contributor to the series even dared to suggest a need for planning factoring in mind all accessibility was Adam Vaughan's piece on page 250 of Towards a New Toronto. Everything else reeks of the now, of the up-and-coming generation's turn to shape the city in their image (hardly with precedent, see Dennis Lee's "Civil Elegies" from 1972 or how a generation of yuppies reshaped Cabbagetown in the 1980s), with little consideration towards the big picture of others beyond their little group.
While there's a continental trend toward revitalizing our cities with a renewed vigour of civic pride, I'm hard-pressed to find a pattern of examples where this extends to the whole city -- urban, suburban, and regional. The focus is on the urban (which is most glamorous), at the expense of the rest. Turning our backs on the rest doesn't do jack. In fact, it ultimately hurts the city.
So rather than dwell on ethnic makeup and immigration as a reason behind population shifts (to do so with such intense focus is a red herring, folks), try to look a little deeper at what else is actually happening, why there's a demand for immigrants with the specific experiences they're bringing (e.g., what workforce knowledges are being lost as a huge chunk of the population retires), and why new arrivals to the city -- immigrants or citizens from other areas of the country -- are moving into the parts of the city they are.
At least those transit upgrades planned for the inner suburbs like Transit City, and the urbanization and intensification plans in the various avenue studies the City commissions can offset the suburban transportation issues for lower income individuals.
Yes, however, transit planning and transportation deployment are two completely different kettles of fish. Transit City, while a forward-directed effort to deploy dedicated light rail to parts of the city under-served by bus-only routes, is as you noted a project to remedy public transit issues for inner suburbs, not mid- and outer-ring suburbs.
A couple of things: intensification within the city and inner suburbs will not likely help lower-income residents to live within these areas. Paradoxically, developers are favourable to fixed-rail deployment for transit, because this assures that high-rise developments, located within a five-minute distance from a fixed rail line (subway or light rail), will yield a better return on investment than those developments situated well outside these zones. The so-named "five-minute rule" -- the time it takes for a resident to walk, ride a bike, or drive to a transit station -- is also referred to as the "Urban Growth Boundary" [see Gaffron, et al. 2002. "ECTL Working Paper: Public Private Partnerships around Urban Rail Transit", pp. 156-7. Hamburg: Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg]. The UGB is what real estate developers use as a measuring basis for their possible development catchment radii. There's no reason why the OMB would not be familiar with this concept, but clearly it has not demonstrated an interest (or adhered to a mandate) to regulate what kind of housing stock intensification occurs within the UGB.
Returning to an earlier point, real estate developers in Toronto (as with other places) are predominantly interested in high-yield projects best filled by unrestricted pricing of their properties (e.g., as high as they estimate the immediate market can absorb over a designate period of time). If using what's been built as a track performance record, most of these places are not mixed-income, because mixed-income projects tend to be regulated affairs by a city or province to install properties in "challenged" areas (see One Cole now being built in Regent Park west, near Dundas and Parliament). Even when these projects are deployed with mixed-income units, how often are these high-rise units designed with bona fide families in mind -- rather than single empty nesters, couples, and couples with only one child?
In short, Transit City is a blueprint -- not just for the future of mass-transit in Toronto's inner-ring suburbs, but also for developers to assess where next to stake claims on new high-rise developments so as to attract those with the means to afford living in their new investments (which at the minimum must break even, of course). Unfortunately, this long-term visioning by the TTC, Metrolinx, and the regions municipalities alone is not going to curtail the limited housing stock options for lower-income and family-tailored households (that is, except for households where the income levels are unusually high versus StatsCan median levels). There is no check-and-balance system to assure that the OMB fulfil a public mandate to balance the needs of the municipalities with the planned projects of real estate developers. In effect, the OMB is a runaway train more often than not.
Transit City is also not exactly moving along as a hare's clip, either, so this process of curtailing the population inversion -- by assuring that "service class"/"non-creative class" Torontonians have both a place to live and a way to accessibly reach the workplaces where they make their income -- is not being addressed head-on. It goes back to that myopia of looking too closely at the red herring of merely income levels and not the demographics of age cohort shifts and family statuses behind those income numbers.
Excellent article Kevin. This echoes what I have been saying to friends the last couple of years. With the condo boom and the renewed public interest in walkable, sustainable neighbourhoods (a la The Death and Life of Great American Cities), we are seeing downtown Toronto being turned into a white liberal theme park. Not only are the few remaining private affordable housing units disappearing, but so are the jobs.
I think the best example of this is the battle over the Wal-Mart in Leslieville. In their haste to keep their quaint, urban, boutique-served neighbourhood aesthetic, the loud opponents of the development are pushing out what little affordability is left in that part of town. Not everyone can afford to shop at EQ3 or even Ikea for furniture, or can afford to buy their clothes from Holts, or even The Bay. Some people have to shop at Zellers or Wal-mart. Never mind the increase in jobs that will come with it.
Look - I don't like power centres any more than the next person, they are ugly and blight the landscape. But the Leslieville design is nothing like the average RioCan monstrosity. But urban Toronto is not just for copyright lawyers and gallery owners. It is also for single parents who earn minimum wage at Tim Horton's or Loblaws.
The problem with the Leslieville has been rather multifaceted. That developer has shown great looking rendering with pedestrian spaces and decent landscaping in past projects, and the end result was another generic suburban power centre. They haven't shown any leadership in urban design. Do we have to accept mediocrity like that on employment lands (more on the land issue in a moment). Any store can build a compact and urban store. I'm sure the lower income people in downtown could be equally accommodated with stores like the Canadian Tire, the upcoming Home Depot or hardware big box on Queen. Why not set a precedent for compact development in the city?
BossTweed notes the jobs, but retail is about minimum wage or extremely low paying jobs. Why would anyone promote that? Let's keep working with tax incentives to attract better paying jobs.
The Leslieville big box project is probably the worst proposal to come for this site.
accozzaglia: Thanks for taking the time to put that detailed response together. I'm inclined to agree. Do you post on Urban Toronto?
That's just it AR... some people have no choice in the job they have, minimum wage is it. And when you take them away (or the possibility) you are further eroding the social diversity of a neighbourhood.
The power centre in Leslieville hasn't been built yet, so I don't know how you can claim the renderings are not matched by the reality.
Again, this is real city where people live and work. That includes the working poor and new Canadians. And it should be noted these folks were in Leslieville long before the boutique shops and expensive brunch joints moved it.
After finally watching Monkey Warfare (Torontoist gave it a horrible review, but I have to disagree,) I've been thinking about the idea that certain people have a 'right' to live in certain neighbourhoods because they've been there longer, or because they're poor enough to, or the combination of those two factors. Is that really how it should work?
Sure, poor people have to live somewhere, but so do lower middle class families and creative class yuppies.
BossTweed: I've seen comparisons on what Smart Centres promised and what they delivered before, here on Torontoist. They're not interested in urban principles, rather the laziest way to make money by using vaguely modified suburban formats.
Sorry, it might have not been Torontoist. This Eye article is informative, though:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=163643