45(12) 2594–2625, November 2008

The Factors Inhibiting Gentrification in Areas with Little Non-market Housing: Policy Lessons from the Toronto Experience

Alan Walks and Martine August

[Paper first received, August 2007; in final form, July 2008]

Abstract This paper examines the factors that have limited gentrifi cation in two Toronto neighbourhoods which have below-average proportions of public housing and which have traditionally acted as immigrant reception areas. The fi rst failed to gentrify despite the existence of gentrifi cation nearby, whereas gentrifi cation stalled in the second in the early 1980s. Analysis of the historical reasons behind this suggests ways in which policy could intervene to limit the spread of gentrifi cation in the absence of support for local affordable housing. These include the maintenance of areas of working-class employment, different approaches to nuisance uses and environmental externalities, a housing stock not amenable to gentrifi ers’ tastes and state encouragement of non- market and ethnic sources of housing fi nance. However, the Toronto experience also highlights the importance of policy in a negative way, as changes in municipal policy which run counter to these prescriptions are now resulting in the gentrifi cation of these two neighbourhoods.

There is a sizeable literature concerning the and Hartman, 1986; Smith, 1996). In addition, potentially negative effects of gentrifi cation declining population bases and their effects on inner-city communities. The most pro- on demand for local public services (including minent of these are the displacement of schools), heightened community confl ict and existing low-income residents and the loss crime, increasing segregation levels and ethnic of affordable housing in neighbourhoods or racial discrimination, declining levels of traditionally acting as reception areas for community cohesion, the marginalisation of in-migrants (Hartman et al., 1982; Legates existing community networks and the growth

Alan Walks and Martine August are in the Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, 100 St George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3G3, Canada. E-mails: alan.walks@utoronto. ca and [email protected].

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online © 2008 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098008097102 FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2595 of a ‘tectonic’ social structure all feature as American countries). Is there anything that potential detrimental impacts (Atkinson, can be done to slow or prevent gentrifi cation 2004; Legates and Hartman, 1986; Robson and in neighbourhoods not containing signifi - Butler, 2001; Slater, 2004; Wyly and Hammel, cant concentrations of non-market forms 2004). While in his systematic review of the of housing, apart from new investments in literature, Atkinson (2004) does pinpoint affordable units? This is the question posed some potential benefi ts (such as increased in this article. property values, services and revenues), such This article traces the histories of two neigh- benefi ts mostly accrue to gentrifi ers and not to bourhoods within Toronto, roughly equidis- existing low-income residents. Gentrifi cation tant from the CBD, where gentrification is thus a process in which the needs and rights remained limited (until very recently), despite of existing residents often come second to predictions to the contrary and evidence of those of wealthier in-movers (Hartman, 1984; extensive reinvestment and gentrification Newman and Wyly, 2006) and can be under- in nearby areas. The reasons why these two stood as “the production of urban space for neighbourhoods did not gentrify are inter- progressively more affl uent users” (Hackworth, rogated and the lessons of this history for 2002, p. 815). policy-makers are drawn out. In doing so, Gentrifi cation presents a policy problem this article builds upon the work of Shaw regarding how to maintain low-income (2005a) who has sought to establish a frame- communities in the inner city, where the work for understanding the factors prevent- social services that such communities depend ing gentrification and in turn inform a upon are typically concentrated. Yet, very new urban policy oriented to social justice. little research since Hartman’s early work The policy implications of this research are (1974, 1984; Hartman et al., 1982) has been discussed in the fi nal section and a number concerned with public actions to limit the of potential interventions to restrain the spread of gentrification and “to date the spread of gentrifi cation, complementary to impact of gentrifi cation on urban policy and interventions in the housing market, are of urban policy on gentrification has not offered. Unfortunately, this research also con- been a research priority” (Lees, 2003, p. 571). fi rms the centrality of policy in a negative way, What literature exists on this topic points to as recent trends in these two neighbourhoods the primary role of high levels of non-market reveal that, when policies running counter forms of housing as a key bulwark against to these prescriptions are implemented, gen- displacement and other negative effects of trifi cation once again fl ourishes. gentrifi cation (Shaw, 2005a). As the study reported on by Ley and Dobson in this Special Gentrifi cation and Urban Policy Issue suggests, keeping this housing off the market and controlled by the state allows The process of gentrifi cation has been evident disadvantaged communities to remain in in many cities of the developed world for up the neighbourhood. However, many inner- to 40 years now. Public policy has been an city neighbourhoods are not blessed with important facilitator of the process since its high concentrations of existing non-market inception (Hackworth and Smith, 2001). In housing and, as Ley and Dobson also note, the fi rst wave, which lasted until the late 1970s, substantial new state interventions in the the state actively intervened in the future social housing sector appear unlikely in the of many neighbourhoods by demolishing foreseeable future (at least in most Anglo- structures and funding costly urban renewal 2596 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST schemes with the hope of releasing the under- active re-entry of the state in third-wave gen- lying exchange value of accessible lands near trifi cation, “the problem is no longer whether the CBD. A second wave marked by the to intervene, but in whose interests?”. There ‘roll-back’ of state investment (see Peck and still remain significant concentrations of Tickell, 2002), largely occurred over the 1980s low-income populations within most inner and was implemented in uneven fashion cities, as well as left-leaning middle-class across and within nations, particularly in populations (many of whom are themselves Canada where vastly different approaches gentrifi ers), who can be expected to vote for were adopted among the 10 provincial gov- a political agenda focused on social justice ernments and where municipalities often (Caulfield, 1994; Ley, 1996; Shaw, 2005b; sponsored neighbourhood improvement Walks, 2004, 2006). Many city planners and programmes that enhanced the attractiveness policy-makers remain progressive and well- of the inner city to gentrifi ers (see Caulfi eld, meaning, even though they are forced to 1994; Germain and Rose, 2000; Ley, 1996; operate within the current neo-liberal context. Rose, 1996). The third wave (1990s to the pre- As Larner and Craig (2005) note, many of the sent) is characterised by the neo-liberal state contradictions of the neo-liberal state are felt in its more recent guise. Instead of directly at the local scale. This produces tensions and becoming involved in redevelopment, the requirements for innovation in local modes state instead encouraged the private sector of urban governance and in turn opens up to drive the process through new ‘roll-out’ a space where planners might negotiate regulatory systems and by making selective progressive reforms. Thus, if gentrifi cation investments in key public amenities, often research can produce some concrete pro- in the name of attracting the ‘creative class’ posals and policy recommendations for (see also Peck, 2005). In Canada, while re- maintaining low-income communities and maining uneven across provincial and muni- preventing displacement, the academic com- cipal jurisdictions, this third phase is often munity still has the potential to infl uence associated with increasing municipal ‘man- urban policy agendas (Lees, 2003). agement’ and selective encouragement of Of course, gentrifi cation is a complex pro- gentrifi cation through special district legis- cess and does not touch down the same way lation, the roll-back of tenant protections in each neighbourhood. There is thus nothing and policy shifts in the hopes of attracting inevitable about gentrifi cation. In some neigh- both families and ‘creative class’ profes- bourhoods, gentrifi cation has traversed past sionals and of fostering ‘social mix’ (August, all of the stages in the ‘stage model’ to a point 2008; Slater, 2004; Rose, 2004; Whitzman of ‘super-gentrification’ (Butler and Lees, and Slater, 2006). 2006), while in other places it would seem The effects of roll-out neo-liberalism and never to have progressed past a middle state municipally managed gentrification have of incomplete or ‘marginal gentrification’ been negative for inner-city communities (Rose, 1996; van Criekingen and Decroly, when they have been applied and have often 2003). The position of a city within the global reinvigorated displacement (Hackworth hierarchy and the proportion of the high-end and Smith, 2001; Lees et al., 2007; Slater, 2004; workforce employed downtown are clearly Wyly and Hammel, 2004, 2005). However, factors delimiting the scope for real estate Shaw (2005a, p. 169) argues that it also valuation and demand for gentrifi ed space provides an opening for those wishing to (Butler and Lees, 2006; Rose, 1996; Smith, infl uence public policy at a crucial time in 2002). Yet this would appear to have only the evolution of the inner city. With the minor predictive power for determining FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2597 which neighbourhoods are gentrifi ed in a interventions which encourage the produc- given metropolitan area (however, see Rose, tion of low-cost affordable private housing, 1996, for a discussion of factors producing are the most important policies that might variation in gentrifi cation within Montreal). be implemented in order to reduce wholesale Thus, if the factors that have encouraged or gentrification of the neighbourhood and deterred gentrification in any given place avoid displacement. Shaw argues that such can be delineated, this could be used to infl u- interventions must occur in the early stages, ence public policies in such places to protect as this will retain more progressive middle- low-income communities who remain in the class fractions who will help to produce the inner city. kind of inclusive politics necessary to keep This is the strategy followed by Shaw pressure on the state for equitable policies, (2005a), who demonstrates that neighbour- in turn somewhat insulating the neighbour- hoods able to avoid most, if not all, of the hood against further gentrifi cation. negative effects of gentrifi cation exhibited Shaw is clearly correct in highlighting the at least two of the following attributes: primary role that protection and encourage- security of tenure, either in state-subsidised ment of secure affordable housing provide housing or undesirable high-density market in limiting gentrifi cation. However, many apartments; a housing stock not conducive to inner-city neighbourhoods do not contain gentrifi cation; an embedded local commun- large stocks of social and/or high-density hous- ity, by which she mostly means a community ing to protect and urban advocates for social able to mobilise political capital in the fi ght justice may not want to wait for signifi cant against redevelopment; and, progressive new investments in state-sponsored afford- local government which will intervene on able housing given the current neo-liberal the side of low-income communities. While climate (which of course, is not hegemonic few similar studies exist in the literature, and varies depending on the context). Might there have been attempts to ascertain the there be other strategies or policies that attributes of gentrifying neighbourhoods, planners and governments could utilise to which inadvertently also provide informa- preserve low-income communities and deter tion on areas not experiencing gentrifi cation. gentrifi cation? This question is particularly For example, in Canadian cities, Ley (1986) pertinent as gentrifi cation proceeds through found that early gentrifi cation occurred near many ethnic neighbourhoods that, by virtue universities and hospitals, beaches and of language and lack of integration with the parks, in highly accessible neighbourhoods host community, have diffi culty mobilising with older housing close to downtown and signifi cant levels of political capital to sway near areas of high amenity more generally. mainstream policy-makers. Gentrifi cation Interestingly, Ley also noted that gentrifi cation may displace working-class ethnic residents tended to avoid areas of heavy industry, while leaving ethnic business and retail ports and ‘Chinatowns’, although Ley did strips to be enjoyed by gentrifi ers (Hackworth not apply these fi ndings to any prescriptive and Rekers, 2005). Policies that could be policy recommendations at the time. Rose applied to maintain such ethnic commu- (1996) similarly discusses some of the factors nities might thus complement those already accelerating and slowing gentrifi cation in fashioned to preserve affordable housing. Montreal. This issue is particularly relevant in emerg- For Shaw (and Ley and Dobson in this ing global metropolises with high levels of Special Issue), the protection and expansion immigration (of which Toronto is a good of non-market forms of housing and example). 2598 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

Research Design and Case Studies immigrant-reception area housing a low- income community. Brockton shares with its A case study approach is adopted here. Two neighbour, Palmerston-Little Italy, a legacy neighbourhoods where gentrification was of similar housing and was part of the same either absent or where it had stalled are iden- planning district. However, unlike Brockton, tifi ed. In order to be able to say something Little Italy began (and continued) gentrifying. about the factors that might deter gentrifi - South Riverdale, the other neighbourhood cation even in the absence of signifi cant non- under study, witnessed incipient gentrifi cation market housing, neighbourhoods were early on (in the 1970s), but this momentum chosen that have below-average proportions stalled in subsequent years, leaving the of social housing compared with both the old neighbourhood only partially gentrified inner city and the larger post-amalgamation and still a site of affordable rental housing. City of Toronto (Table 1). As well, we selected As suggested by its name, South Riverdale neighbourhoods containing large ethnic lies directly south of its (now almost fully) and immigrant communities, allowing us to gentrified comparator, North Riverdale. comment on the factors that might prevent Figure 1 maps Brockton and South Riverdale gentrifi cation in immigrant-reception neigh- within the context of the gentrifying inner- bourhoods. Data come from an extensive city landscape in Toronto. search of archival records, newspaper articles Each neighbourhood’s historical experience and City of Toronto planning documents, as with urban and social development is inter- well as from the Census of Canada. rogated, and contrasted with its adjoining The two case studies selected are the Brockton comparator, which in both cases gentrifi ed and South Riverdale neighbourhoods. steadily (to a much more gentrifi ed state in Brockton failed to gentrify over the 30-year North Riverdale and to an signifi cant but study period, even though large areas to still incomplete state in Palmerston-Little the east and west have been transformed by Italy).1 From this analysis, a number of the process, and it has largely remained an factors affecting gentrifi cation in each area

Table 1. Social housing units as a proportion of the total, selected Toronto neighbourhoods, 1999 Total dwellings Social housinga

Neighbourhood (Number) (Number) (Percentage) Brockton 4 815 236 4.9 Palmerston-Little Italy (comparator) 6 680 264 4.0 South Riverdale 5 740 609 10.6 North Riverdale (comparator) 5 045 113 2.2 All inner-city municipalitiesb 402 625 47 763 11.9 Inner city south of Bloor/ Danforthc 164 505 29 257 17.8 a Social housing units include those paying market rates in rent-geared-to-income projects. b Inner-city municipalities include the old cities of Toronto and York, and the old Borough of East York. c The area south of Bloor-Danforth is the oldest portion of Toronto’s inner city and is the district in which the case study neighbourhoods are located. Source: Data provided by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC). Data are as of 1999 (few very units have been added since this date). FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2599 or cation. cation. ed here as an instance of as an instance ed here cation and produce this classifi cation and produce ly, either areas that always housed middle-class populations, housed middle-class populations, that always either areas ly, ome below the metropolitan-wide average in 2001, it is classifi in 2001, the metropolitan-wide average ome below ed’ if their average individual income rose to a position above the metropolitan average by 2001. If, on If, 2001. by average the metropolitan a position above to rose if individual income their average ed’ cation. Census tracts without other trends—name cation. shading indicate Case study neighbourhoods in the context of the gentrifying inner-city landscape of Toronto landscape of neighbourhoods in the context of gentrifying inner-city Case study : Created by the authors (summarised from nine-category base maps published in Walks and Maaranen, 2008a). and Maaranen, Walks nine-category the authors (summarised by from base maps published in Created : : See Walks and Maaranen (2008a) for details regarding the multivariate methods used to detect gentrifi detect methods used to the multivariate (2008a) for details regarding and Maaranen Walks See : lower-income neighbourhoods that remained stable or witnessed decline. neighbourhoods stable or witnessed that remained decline. lower-income Sources Gentrifying census tracts are considered ‘gentrifi Gentrifying tracts considered census are inc a gentrifying an average the other hand, tract still revealed gentrifi ‘incomplete’ Figure 1. Figure Notes 2600 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST are distilled from the historical record and began entering Canada in large numbers at evaluated against the four factors identifi ed the same time that the Portuguese community by Shaw (2005a) as relevant to potentially started moving west from the fi rst settlement slowing gentrifi cation. An additional three area in Kensington market. By the 1970s, factors pertinent to deterring gentrifi cation the Portuguese had established a residential in our two case studies are then identifi ed concentration and ‘core community’ encom- and discussed. The policy implications of this passing the entire Brockton study area as well research, and the policy recommendations as parts of Trinity-Bellwoods to the south-east that fl ow from this, are discussed in the fi nal and Little Italy to the east (Teixeira, 2000, section. p. 210). Little Portugal, as the larger area came to be called, developed into an ‘institution- Brockton—Overlooked by ally complete’ community (see Breton, 1964), Gentrifi cation offering an integrated range of Portuguese language services and amenities “from Brockton became an incorporated village grocery stores, bakeries, travel agencies, and in 1880 with a population of over 750 and real estate agencies, to furniture stores and an early economic base founded on rope restaurants”, with the Catholic Church as the factories and two abattoirs attracted by the “pole of attraction” shaping Portuguese settle- early laying of rail spurs during the 1850s and ment in the area (Teixeira, 2000, p. 216). The 1860s (Patterson et al., 1986, p. 8). Brockton Portuguese living here remained dispropor- amalgamated with the City of Toronto in tionately in manufacturing and other blue- 1884 and by 1910 a series of new factories collar occupations, and with low levels of had been attracted to the area.2 Much of the university education. They supplemented housing in Brockton was built for the blue- their income by sub-dividing their properties collar workers taking up jobs in Brockton’s for multifamily use, often renting out their emerging industrial core near the Dufferin main fl oors. Riding and Driving Park race track, much Despite its reputation for housing a low- of it self-built (Patterson et al., 1986, pp. 15 income immigrant population, Brockton and 19; Goad’s Atlas, 1910). At the end of the managed to avoid the destabilising effects 1920s, the area was completely built up, with of slum clearance and urban renewal that houses lining every street (City of Toronto affected or were planned for similar nearby Planning Board, 1971, p. 5). neighbourhoods. For instance, a number Brockton was infl uenced by the signifi cant of blocks directly to the east in Little Italy were demographic changes stemming from rapid designated as a ‘high-density residential area’ immigration after the Second World War. and planned for urban renewal in the 1968 West-central Toronto became known as the City of Toronto Offi cial Plan. Subsequent bat- predominant immigrant-receiving area within tles were waged between developers, the city proximity of the downtown core. In the 1950s and local residents in these areas over high- and 1960s, Italians replaced the British as the rise developments, many of which were built, largest immigrant group in Toronto and be- until the 1972 election of the reform council came concentrated in the west end where they led by Mayor David Crombie put a stop to the made up approximately 15 per cent of the total urban renewal programme in the city (see population, establishing ‘Little Italy’ districts Magnusson, 1983, for an overview of reform centred fi rst at College and Grace and later at politics in Toronto at this time). Brockton, St Clair and Dufferin (Lemon, 1985, p. 115). however, fl ew under the radar, avoiding both In the mid 1960s, Portuguese immigrants speculation and redevelopment, while city FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2601 planners supported maintaining its trad- and 2001, with both measures ending the itional form.3 period at the same below-average level Brockton was not only overlooked by (approximately 80 per cent of the average urban renewal, but also by gentrifi cation. for the entire Toronto CMA) as in 1971 (they Unlike Palmerston-Little Italy to its east, or dipped even further in the 1970s, as did most the Roncesvalles/High Park area to the west, of the inner city, but returned to historical Brockton continued as a stable working- levels by 1991). This is in stark contrast to the class community. Even as incipient gentrifi - adjoining Palmerston-Little Italy neigh- cation gained a toe-hold in what appeared then bourhood that makes up the other half of (in the 1980s) to be much less likely locales the Bloor-Dufferin planning district. In the such as Parkdale to the south (where a large latter area (an example of persistent, although rooming-house population, higher crime still incomplete, gentrifi cation), both rents rates and concentrations of declining high- and house prices took off in the 1980s and density rental apartments kept gentrifi cation revealed levels far above the average by 2001. at bay until recently; see Slater, 2004), local A similar pattern is evident when the average commentators marvelled at how Brockton personal income of residents is examined continued to be left alone by speculative activity (Figure 4). From virtually identical starting (Varangu, 1984). Data from the census con- positions, the two neighbourhoods diverge fi rm such observations. Both average rent starting in the 1980s, at about the same time levels (Figure 2) and dwelling values (Figure 3) that levels of manufacturing employment remained remarkably stable between 1971 start to diverge (discussed later).

Figure 2. Ratio of average monthly rent to metropolitan average, Brockton and Palmerston- Little Italy, 1971–2001 Source: Calculated by the authors from Census of Canada (various years). 2602 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

Figure 3. Ratio of average dwelling value to metropolitan average, Brockton and Palmerston- Little Italy, 1971–2001 Source: Calculated by the authors from Census of Canada (various years).

Figure 4. Ratio of average personal income to the metropolitan average, Brockton and Palmerston-Little Italy, 1971–2001 Source: Calculated by the authors from Census of Canada (various years). FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2603

That gentrification was largely absent being the “latest trendy neighbourhood” from Brockton as late as 2001 is all the more (Ring, 1993), constantly verging on “re-birth” surprising considering its similarities with to a better future of “upsale boutiques and Palmerston-Little Italy to its east. They both restaurants” (Todd, 1986). Premonitions of emerged as the cores of ethnic communities the neighbourhood’s transformation were originating from southern Europe, their accompanied by the insistence that the re- housing is mostly of similar vintage (although maining working-class residents were mere mostly smaller in Brockton), they both con- ‘vestiges’, the ‘last remnants’ of the old neigh- tain quaint walkable retail districts and they bourhood. Importantly, the working-class are located right next to one another and residents of the area were rarely considered with good access to public transit. However, a part of South Riverdale’s future in this dis- as we will see, there are key differences that course, except in relation to the inevitable did make a difference in Brockton’s neigh- social confl icts that were predicted to trans- bourhood trajectory. pire, and most media accounts referred to the still-numerically dominant working-class 5 South Riverdale—Gentrifi cation population with condescension. In the mid Stalled 1980s, signifi cant house price infl ation put pressure on North Riverdale’s housing stock In 1974 and 1975, a ‘renovator speculator’ and South Riverdale businesses promoted bought up 40 houses on three streets in the the latter as an alternative. Business owners centre of the South Riverdale neighbourhood, on Queen Street created the Queen Broadview then upgraded and sold them for a sizeable Village strip, installing new cobblestone and profi t, igniting a process of incipient gentrifi - inlaid brick sidewalks, and planters on the cation (City of Toronto Planning Board, 1977, curbs (Todd, 1986). Assisted with federal and p. 22).4 Spillover from escalating house prices municipal grants, the improvements included just across the bridge in the rapidly gentrify- the chemical cleansing of 40 historical facades ing Don Vale (Cabbagetown) neighbourhood on Queen Street (Todd, 1986). was causing speculative house-price infl ation Yet, as the census data reveal, gentrifi cation across the Don River in Riverdale, which by largely stalled in South Riverdale between the late 1970s was being called ‘Cabbagetown 1981 and 2001. The 1970s saw average rents II’ in the local press due to its similar stocks grow in equal measure in both North and South of gabled Victorian houses (City of Toronto Riverdale, suggesting a similarity to their Planning Board, 1977, p. 22; see also Dantas, respective trajectories and the potential for 1988). Yet, despite the gentrifi cation of a small traversing the various stages of gentrifi cation number of South Riverdale’s streets during in subsequent years. However, on this measure the 1970s, the area as a whole did not witness they have clearly diverged since 1981, with the kind of continued gentrifi cation that en- South Riverdale actually becoming a more gulfed North Riverdale. affordable place to rent with each passing de- This lack of subsequent gentrifi cation ran cade (Figure 5). As a result, there was virtually counter to the wisdom of real estate analysts, zero house-price infl ation in South Riverdale local businesses and journalists alike, who in the 30 years preceding the 2001 census, would continue to predict that South Riverdale which contrasts sharply with housing market would soon join its neighbour (Dimanno, trends in North Riverdale (Figure 6). Likewise, 1986; Foster, 1986; Varangu, 1984). Boosterist while residents’ average incomes in both prophesies produced a remarkably consist- areas grew in tandem during the 1970s, they ent media discourse about South Riverdale diverged in later years, with those in South 2604 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

Figure 5. Ratio of average monthly rent to metropolitan average, South and North Riverdale, 1971–2001 Source: Calculated by the authors from Census of Canada (various years).

Figure 6. Ratio of average dwelling value to metropolitan average, South and North Riverdale, 1971–2001 Source: Calculated by the authors from Census of Canada (various years). FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2605

Riverdale remaining unchanged since 1981 the late 1920s), industrial areas became inter- (Figure 7). The misplaced media prophesies spersed with new houses.6 While residential of inevitable gentrifi cation are all the more development in North Riverdale catered more surprising, considering South Riverdale’s to middle- and upper-income families, South peculiar history over the study period. Riverdale largely housed a working-class population tied to the new industries. By 1923, South Riverdale—An Uneven History South Riverdale was virtually built-out with a Before it was annexed to the City of Toronto mix of Victorian-era housing and signifi cant in 1884, the entire Riverdale area east of the amounts of light and heavy industry. Don River had seen very limited investment. Contrary to many other areas in Toronto, The only signifi cant building at the time was the industrial districts of South Riverdale the infamous Don Jail, which was completed continued to attract industry in the post-war in the 1860s and has given Riverdale a reput- era, but very little new residential or com- ation for criminality ever since. A classic mercial investment. The result is that South ‘streetcar suburb’ tied to the extension of the Riverdale from 1945 to 1970 remained very rail system, most of South Riverdale was much the same as it had been in the early days developed by 1903 (City of Toronto Planning of its development. According to the City of Board, 1977, p. 7). Heavy industry became Toronto Development Department (1976, concentrated in the eastern- and southern- p. 4) South Riverdale was then still charac- most areas close to the river—areas with proxi- terised by “small, low rise detached and mity to the port facilities. In the absence of semi-detached houses and non-conforming land use controls (which did not follow until industrial uses”. The houses were mostly

Figure 7. Ratio of personal income to the metropolitan average, South and North Riverdale, 1971–2001 Source: Calculated by the authors from Census of Canada (various years). 2606 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

“small and of low-cost construction, and based planning. Residents in South Riverdale intended for industrial workers” (p. 4). Resid- formed the East Don Urban Coalition, which ents of South Riverdale had lower incomes later morphed into the Riverdale Community and a higher unemployment rate, and a Organisation (RCO), to fi ght further ‘slum majority of workers (54 per cent in 1971) clearance’ in their neighbourhood. Although were employed in skilled or semi-skilled these organisations eventually disbanded, occupations (City of Toronto Development they left a legacy of about 200 neighbourhood Department, 1976, p. 4; City of Toronto improvements and provided a new sense of Planning Board 1977, p. 18). It continued to empowerment to the working-class people house a stable, low-income, working-class in South Riverdale (Keating, 1975, p. 235). This population and, unlike other low-income allowed the momentum of this early political neighbourhoods elsewhere in the city (such organising to continue through the 1970s and as Brockton and Palmerston-Little Italy), 1980s as new challenges arose and gave local the population was mostly of Anglo-Saxon resident organisations the political capital to ethnicity (those tracing their origins to the infl uence city policy toward neighbourhood British Isles). For an area with such a strong protection, particularly after the reform maj- working-class character, South Riverdale had ority took over council in 1972. disproportionately high levels of home- In turn, the city identified the “White- ownership (City of Toronto Planning Board painters”8 who had been arriving over the 1977, p. 21). The City’s Development Depart- previous four years as one of the “pressures” ment (1976, p. 4) noted that people in the area threatening the ability of the working class to “have tended to own the home they live in and remain in the neighbourhood (Keating, 1975, live at the same address for a long time”. p. 41). Of course, the City of Toronto had an South Riverdale did not completely escape extra incentive to retain the working-class slum clearance and urban renewal in the population, outside purely moral consider- 1960s. Cast as a ‘slum’, the area was an early ations, as the neighbourhood contained and frequent subject of planning reports and one of the largest concentrations of heavy studies, and a number of urban renewal industry left in the City. Two main goals iden- projects were proposed.7 The fi rst to be built tifi ed for South Riverdale in a subsequent was the Don Mount Court housing project, report were to “strengthen the residential begun in 1965 and isolated at the most west- character of the area” and “to protect the erly portion of the neighbourhood, near the industrial function of the area” (City of exit of a well-used lowered freeway. In 1968 Toronto Planning Board, 1977, p. 1). Retain- a similar future was envisioned for the rest of ing the working-class population in South Riverdale, with plans to demolish 800 homes, Riverdale, and slowing gentrifi cation, was build 10 000 high-rise units and expand the thus very much in line with the city’s goal (elevated) Gardiner expressway under the to preserve the industrial character of South city’s “20-year facelifting program” (Toronto Riverdale, since a group of middle-class in- Telegraph, 1968). The late timing of these movers would have been likely to oppose plans ensured that they did not happen, as vocally the environmental externalities and the federal government terminated its com- hazards associated with adjacent industries mitments to the urban renewal programme and threaten their main labour shed (this in 1969, while the reform council elected in is part of the ‘dialectic’ relationship between 1972 cancelled the City’s own programme. a city’s gentrifi cation and the transforma- South Riverdale became an early focal tion of its urban and industrial form; see point for the politics of neighbourhood- Filion, 1991). FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2607

However, it is doubtful that city policies mortgage (purchases were most likely to be for protecting the character of South Riverdale fi nanced privately via family networks and would have been successful on their own, community brokers; see Murdie, 1986, 1991) were it not for a number of transitions and and thus were less sensitive to the presence of destabilising events that together would termites and the diffi culties in attaining in- leave their mark on the neighbourhood. surance. As in Brockton, a number of houses First among these is a termite infestation were converted to multifamily use over this which affected the local housing market from time, with the additional units rented to other the mid 1970s until at least the early 1990s. Chinese residents. The arrival of this new Located directly north of the Port of Toronto, ethnic population did not go unnoticed in South Riverdale was one of the fi rst resid- South Riverdale, an area described as “a very ential neighbourhoods to become infested Anglo-Saxon place” at least until 1971 (City of with colonies of the Eastern Subterranean Toronto Development Department, 1976, p. 4). Termite (Reticulitermes fl avipes), but the ex- By the mid 1970s, an intercultural committee tent of infestation was not fully ascertained had been formed to aid “the integration” until the late 1960s (Grady, 1997; Jaffri, 1983). of new arrivals into the community (City of The termite problem was not signifi cantly Toronto Planning Board, 1977, p. 12), partly controlled in South Riverdale until the early in response to reports of “increasing racial 1990s, after the soil had been repeatedly incidents in the neighbourhood” (Serge, treated with pesticides. As might be expected, 1980). The Chinese community continued mortgage fi nanciers were wary of lending to grow to the point that it represented over for the purchase of termite-infested property one-quarter of South Riverdale’s population and it became more diffi cult to attain house (according to the Census of Canada, 2001). insurance, deterring speculators and risk- As the Chinese community established its averse gentrifi ers from moving into the neigh- dominance in sections of South Riverdale, bourhood and reducing the pressure on dwell- it became embedded in the social fabric of ing values (although South Riverdale was not the neighbourhood, controlling a signifi cant alone in this; by the 1980s, termites had spread proportion of the local housing stock and across a number of neighbourhoods within setting up Chinese-language institutions. the inner city). The third event affecting South Riverdale’s Secondly, around the same time that the development trajectory throughout the 1980s fi rst gentrifi ers started to arrive, a new popula- and beyond concerns air pollution from tion of Chinese residents also began to settle heavy industry and the discovery of lead soil in the area (Monsebraaten, 1984). In 1968, a contamination. Pollution was the primary few Chinese businesses were established in issue in media reporting on South Riverdale the north-west corner of the neighbourhood over the 1980s and had a large impact on and, over the next few decades, this district the perceived desirability of the neighbour- grew briskly as a lower-priced alternative to hood, particularly as a place to raise a family.9 the original Chinatown in downtown Toronto. The issue turned serious with the publication Early immigrants from Hong Kong were of a study finding that the Canada Metal followed by ethnic Chinese leaving Vietnam Company, one of the factories located at the (in the late 1970s and early 1980s) and then southern edge of the district, had exceeded immigrants from the Chinese mainland (Chan, provincial lead limits by 29 times (Dineen, 2006). According to the news media, many of 1980). In 1982, the City began testing almost the new Chinese residents purchased their 2000 people living in the southern portion homes without recourse to an institutional and in 1984 found abnormally high or unsafe 2608 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST levels in children (Pigg, 1984; Ferguson, 1985). by the policy implications that fl ow from this Between 1985 and 1988, a large series of analysis. newspaper articles dealt with various aspects of “the lead menace” and it became common Security of Tenure to hear that “South Riverdale ... is probably Both Shaw (2005a) and Ley and Dobson (in the most contaminated in the city because of this Special Issue) confi rm the presence of sig- industry” (Kerr, 1986). As might be expected, nifi cant levels of state-supported non-market a number of community organisations were forms of housing as providing security of formed to push for soil remediation and, in tenure and acting as a signifi cant deterrent to June 1988, the provincial government fi nally the spread of gentrifi cation. However, as we agreed to clean up the contaminated soil. Yet, have seen, our two case study neighbourhoods the good news was partly overshadowed by a have low levels of such housing (Table 1). public battle against a new garbage incinerator Furthermore, almost half (232 units) of South that the city then announced it would build Riverdale’s stock of social housing is located in the district. A second incinerator was also in a single project (Don Mount Court), iso- proposed in late 1988, which would burn lated in the far western portion of the neigh- infectious hospital waste (Sarick, 1988). The bourhood and separated from the rest of new incinerator plans were fi nally quashed in the neighbourhood by a major arterial, thus 1989, welcoming the 1990s with a big victory having minimal impact on the rest of the for residents over industry in South Riverdale. district. However, the lingering effects of such events Shaw (2005a) also suggests that high levels would continue through the 1990s until many of homeownership can provide security of of the remaining industrial plants had been tenure. Homeownership allows the work- decommissioned. ing class to establish themselves within the community, resist overtures from real estate The Factors Inhibiting speculators and remain in the neighbour- Gentrifi cation hood. However, although homeownership at the beginning of the study period was relatively A number of factors can be identifi ed as playing high considering that both Brockton and a role in inhibiting gentrifi cation in Brockton South Riverdale are primarily working-class and South Riverdale. First to be considered neighbourhoods, they were within range of here are those four originally established by the City-wide average and not dissimilar to Shaw (2005a): security of tenure; community their comparators that began gentrifying embeddedness; unappealing housing stock; during this time (Figures 8 and 9). Indeed, and, progressive local government. However, both of these neighbourhoods have shifted these four cannot fully explain the limited towards increasing rental tenure over the or stalled gentrifi cation evident in our two study period and, in 2001, contained a tenure case studies. Thus, in addition to these four mix virtually identical to their neighbours explanations, we propose the following: the that did gentrify. Security of tenure, at least in maintenance of signifi cant industrial employ- the conventional sense, would not appear to ment lands; neglect on behalf of city offi cials have put a signifi cant brake on gentrifi cation towards nuisance uses and environmental in Brockton and South Riverdale. externalities; and, reliance on alternative/ ethnic forms of housing fi nance capital. Each Community Activism and Embeddedness of these is detailed next with respect to their The degree to which an embedded community importance to our two case studies, followed functions to deter gentrifi cation depends on FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2609

Figure 8. Percentage of dwellings rented, Brockton and Palmerston-Little Italy, 1971–2001 Source: Census of Canada (various years).

Figure 9. Percentage of dwellings rented, South and North Riverdale, 1971–2001 Source: Census of Canada (various years). 2610 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST two very different factors. Shaw (2005a, over and out-migration. Teixeira (2007, p. 7) pp. 177–179) highlights the effi cacy of local demonstrates that many Portuguese wish to political capital and “a culture of resistance” remain in the neighbourhood for these rea- as among the main factors impeding gen- sons, even in the face of high house prices that trifi cation. While there is little evidence of would let them sell at augmented prices. The activism or political struggle in Brockton, Portuguese clearly dominated the Brockton the history of South Riverdale does suggest neighbourhood since 1981 when they be- the ability to summon long-standing forms came the majority, although their share has of political capital in face of a series of threats dipped lately as their children have sub- to the neighbourhood. This is displayed in urbanised (Teixeira, 2007), while in South its battles against the City’s urban renewal Riverdale the Chinese community grew to programme in the late 1960s, community one-quarter of the population by 1991 from organising and fundraising in the early 1970s, a very small base (Figures 10 and 11). participation in the planning process through There are a number of reasons why the pre- the late 1970s and successful struggles against sence of these distinct ethnic communities the siting of two incinerators and in favour of deterred gentrifi cation in these neighbour- soil remediation and government action on hoods. First of all, both of these communities lead pollution in the 1980s. Yet, while this may developed only limited profi ciency in English have galvanised the community to protect and thus conducted the majority of their its interests, in the case of South Riverdale, business in their mother tongue. Secondly, much of this effort was targeted against state institutional completeness meant that both actions that should have reduced, rather than ethnic communities were able to continue increased, local pressures for gentrifi cation traditional commercial and cultural practices, (such as the siting of large amounts of including those that challenged the tastes social housing and continued soil contamin- of incoming gentrifi ers. The result is that the ation). NIMBY-like activism can be present retail strips along Dundas in Brockton and in working-class communities, even when it along Gerrard and Broadview in South would appear in retrospect to work against Riverdale, and many of the local institutions working-class interests (Milbourne, 1997). It (churches, real estate agencies, restaurants, etc.) is thus unclear whether the culture of resist- remained less accessible to English speakers ance displayed in South Riverdale had a large than in other neighbourhoods across the effect in slowing the spread of gentrifi cation city. For instance, in Brockton, the wealthier, through the neighbourhood. non-Portuguese residents reportedly were However, community embeddedness would offended by smoke from local sausage houses appear to have signifi cantly reduced the ability and bakeries, and by the noise of Portuguese of gentrifi cation to spread through our two processions and parades (Teixeira, 2007). case study areas in a different way. This involves In South Riverdale, the Chinese presence is not so much the political but the social capital said to have led to “racial friction between contained within the emerging presence of Chinese merchants and the White commun- institutionally complete ethnic communities ity” (McInnes, 1993). While ostensibly about in both Brockton (Portuguese) and South rodents, traffi c, commercial development and Riverdale (Chinese). These are communities the “smell of old garbage”, local councillor for whom the neighbourhood was not merely Peter Tabuns was told that “the reason we a stepping-stone to a better future elsewhere. have diffi culty with Chinatown is because Instead, they sought to put down roots and, of the Chinese community” (McInnes, 1993), in turn, reveal below-average levels of turn- which, it was felt, did not make suffi cient FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2611

Figure 10. Percentage having Portuguese ethnicity, Brockton and Palmerston-Little Italy, 1971–2001 Notes: 1971 data are for the percentage with Portuguese as their mother tongue. Source: Census of Canada (various years).

Figure 11. Percentage having Chinese ethnicity, South and North Riverdale, 1971–2001 Source: Census of Canada (various years). 2612 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST effort to communicate with local non-Chinese still holds signifi cant amounts of the three- residents. storey gabled Victorian houses that appeal to Perhaps the most important reason why gentrifi ers (Caulfi eld, 1994). South Riverdale’s the embeddedness of the Portuguese and offerings are and were less consistent and Chinese communities factors large in inhi- sizeable than those in Cabbagetown or North biting gentrifi cation is their control over a Riverdale, with more semi-detached houses signifi cant proportion of the housing stock (Figure 12). South Riverdale also saw a small and dominance in the local real estate sector. but significant amount of self-building In both cases, houses purchased within the and the resulting cottages, unadorned infi ll community tended to stay in the community houses and poorly built homes fragment the and were often converted for multifamily neighbourhood to a degree. In South River- use using their own or bartered labour.10 In dale, it is likely that the presence of less attract- most cases, tenants were sought from within ive housing did play some role in reducing the community, as proficiency in English the number of potential dwellings available remained marginal at best (Teixeira, 1998, for gentrifi cation, although the overall effect 2000; Chan, 2006). Also, as discussed in the would have been minor. next section, many in this community effect- In contrast, the qualities of the housing ively kept this housing from being offered on stock in Brockton have clearly had a signifi cant the market outside the community. This is one impact in containing the neighbourhood’s of the ways that “entrenched” communities, appeal for gentrifi cation. First of all, many such as the Chinese and Portuguese, are houses in the area are modestly built, often able effectively to deter “rapid middle class close together on small lots, with some even resettlement” in their neighbourhoods lacking foundations. With the proximity (Caulfi eld, 1994, p. 30). of the railway and industry, the local stock has always housed working-class popula- Housing Stock not Conducive to tions and would not have been meant to Gentrifi cation be ostentatious. The style of housing in the This is a factor that clearly distinguishes area is mostly not the type that appeals to Brockton and South Riverdale, and helps middle-class gentrifiers. While the area is to explain why South Riverdale began gen- dotted with occasional three-storey gabled trifying while Brockton was overlooked Victorian houses that many gentrifi ers pre- in the 1970s. Built at roughly the same time as fer, there are many more houses with fl at its counterpart to the north, South Riverdale (rather than peaked) roofs and limited

Figure 12. Gentrifi ed and/or gentrifi able housing in South Riverdale Source: Photos by Martine August. FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2613 architectural embellishments; and many only does this form of renovation alter the cheaply constructed unadorned infi ll houses original historical details and thus offend disrupt continuity in the streetscape. Thus, the artistic gaze of those looking to revalue although the housing stock remained in very the old (Ley, 2003), but it instantly marks good shape since the Great Depression (City an area as both ethnic and working-class of Toronto Planning Board, 1971, p. 5), it (Caulfi eld, 1994). In the Brockton area, the did not have the same architectural appeal large number of houses that have been ex- as in other neighbourhoods of the same ternally ‘mediterraneanised’ in this fashion vintage. Also, largely absent in Brockton provided a strong deterrent to gentrifi cation were the “grander old houses” which were (Figure 13). However, as Little Italy also con- often converted into rooming-houses and tained a signifi cant (although proportionately blamed for creating a “sense of instability fewer) concentration of mediterraneanised [which] made the community” in places like properties, this remains only part of the Palmerston-Little Italy on the other side of explanation. the Bloor-Dufferin planning district “recept- ive to the offers of developers” (Patterson Progressive Local Government et al., 1986, p. 32). Perhaps even more important was the way The presence of progressive local government, that a signifi cant proportion of the housing particularly one that is willing to intervene stock was renovated by the incoming south- to protect low-income housing, is identifi ed ern European communities in west-central as the fourth factor that contributes to the Toronto. The ‘mediterraneanised’ restyling slowing of gentrifi cation (Shaw, 2005a). As of the facades that accompanied Portuguese we have seen, city planning policies adopted customisation has already been noted as in the 1970s, and largely remaining in place affronting the aesthetic preferences of the until the mid 1990s, sought to preserve the English-heritage middle-class gentrifiers working-class character and, in the case of in Toronto.11 The extent of dislike for such Brockton, immigrant-reception function, mediterraneanised facades is revealed by of our study neighbourhoods. While in gentrifi ers’ attempts to ban the use of ‘angel Brockton this did not much change the way brick’ under the rubric of heritage preser- the city had approached the neighbourhood vation (Caulfi eld, 1994, pp. 204–207). Not (although it did mean Palmerston-Little Italy

Figure 13. ‘Mediterraneanised’ houses in Brockton Source: Photos by Martine August. 2614 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST directly to its east was spared further inten- when juxtaposed against recent shifts in sifi cation), in South Riverdale it represented policy, which are largely intended to draw a signifi cant change from the major urban new investment and jump-start redevelop- renewal that had been proposed in the early ment, they appear in retrospect as proactive post-war period. By opening up the plann- in protecting local residents. Recent changes ing process to local participation during the include the removal of zoning on many indus- 1970s—that is, before gentrifi cation could trial employment lands within the inner city make much of a dent in the local social in the mid 1990s, which has made those sites fabric—city government provided existing ripe for high-end residential redevelopment, residents with some (small) measure of self- the (provincial) removal of rent controls determination in fashioning the neigh- on vacated properties, which encourages bourhood in their own interests (which landlords to evict long-range low-income obviously included preventing their own tenants, and a series of limits on the ability displacement). to convert houses into rooming houses, sec- It is instructive that in South Riverdale the ondary suites, ‘bachelourettes’ (single-room city council specifi cally adopted policies to occupancy with kitchenettes) and tenanted prevent ‘white-painting’ in the neighbour- rentals that in turn have reduced the stock hood and protect affordable housing. While of affordable market-rate housing and have short-lived (from 1974 until 1977), a muni- partly contributed to growing homeless- cipal ‘speculation tax’ was implemented ness in Toronto (Keil, 2002; Slater, 2004). The across the city and the City’s non-profi t hous- implications of these recent policy shifts are ing corporation (City Home) was instructed dealt with in the next sections. to acquire selected apartment units and houses as a complement to its stock of pro- Other Factors—The Maintenance of jects and limited equity co-operatives Industrial Employment Lands (City of Toronto Planning Board, 1977, The analysis of our two case studies highlights pp. 22, 50). Although the number of houses three additional important factors responsible acquired in this way in South Riverdale was for slowing the spread of gentrifi cation in our small (55 units), it was a disproportionately case study neighbourhoods. First among these high share compared with the rest of the is the maintenance of industrial lands within inner city and sent an important signal to the the neighbourhood. Brockton and South development industry that the city intended Riverdale are both located along the main east to protect low-income housing in the area. and west spurs of the Grand Trunk Railway While neighbourhood preservation policies lines that at the turn of the century provided implemented during the 1970s usually had transport services to most industries in the the effect of stimulating gentrifi cation and city. It is here that many of Toronto’s medium- displacement (Caulfi eld, 1994; Ley, 1996), to-heavy industries were located and, despite the city’s policies seemed sincerely devoted their delayed deindustrialisation over the to protecting low-income residents from 1990s, a number of sites were still operating displacement and tenants in particular were in the year 2000. Sustained local demand identifi ed in planning reports as a population for blue-collar labour was clearly a factor in that was “most vulnerable” (City of Toronto maintaining a core working-class population Planning Board, 1977, p. 42). in such neighbourhoods. Indeed, while the It is likely that the direct impact of such proportion of the labour force employed in policies was marginal, particularly as they manufacturing declined steadily throughout were only in place for a short time. However, the inner city over the study period, and FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2615 drastically in gentrifying neighbourhoods, speculation within the older housing stock it actually increased during the 1970s in both (and not necessarily the other way around). Brockton and South Riverdale (Table 2). The implication is that, had these properties Delayed deindustrialisation, and the con- been maintained as employment lands, there tinued presence of industries such as abat- would have been little space available for the toirs, meant more truck traffi c, night-time new wealthy in-movers who prefer “more loadings and noise, smoke and soot, and luxurious surroundings” than traditionally unpleasant fumes. These attributes of South available in the neighbourhood (Fantauzzi, Riverdale’s industrial district, it was claimed, 2004; see also Lind, 2004; van der Ven, 2003). were important for “giving potential buyers Tellingly, now that gentrifi cation has picked of real estate second thoughts” (Slinger, 1992). up again in South Riverdale, a collection of The importance of these employment lands residents has applied (in 2005) to the City to in slowing gentrifi cation can be further ap- protect with heritage legislation those same preciated when contrasted with the recent three streets fi rst touched by gentrifi cation history (mostly post-2001) of renewed gen- in 1974 (City of Toronto, 2005). A similar con- trifi cation in South Riverdale as many older version of decommissioned factories and factories, encouraged by recent City policies, warehouses into lofts has also recently started are closed and renovated into ‘authentic’ in Brockton, and the area is now seeing its fi rst residential lofts. By 2006, there were at least signs of gentrifi cation (Teixeira, 2007). The seven new loft developments completed or residentialisation of employment lands in under construction, representing upwards these two areas is an example of ‘new-build’ of 500 new housing units.12 As well, the gentrifi cation (see Davidson and Lees, 2005; Don Mount Court social housing project Davidson, 2007; Lees et al., 2007, p. 141). is being redeveloped into a mixed-income ‘new urbanist’ neighbourhood which will Nuisance Uses and Environmental intersperse subsidised tenants with house- Externalities holds paying market rates (including home- Related to this discussion are the actions taken owners). News media accounts of such devel- by government offi cials and the local media opments suggest that it is the infusion of capital towards local nuisances and environmental and new residents in such developments externalities created by employment lands. that are now starting to affect turnover and While termite infestation, soil contamination

Table 2. Percentage of the labour force employed in manufacturing occupations, 1971–2001 1971 1981 1991 2001 Manufacturing Brockton 21.5 26.2 14.2 13.2 Palmerston-Little Italy 20.8 20.6 10.6 2.7 South Riverdale 16.5 16.8 12.4 10.4 North Riverdale 15.9 11.1 4.8 3.6 All inner city municipalitiesa 14.2 13.1 7.7 5.5 Inner city south of Bloor/ Danforth 15.2 14.2 8.0 5.5 aInner-city municipalities include the old cities of Toronto and York, and the old Borough of East York. Source: Census of Canada (various years). 2616 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST and air pollution would and should never in the 1988 municipal election by Marilyn be wished on any community, and the City Churley of the New Democratic Party (NDP, and provincial governments were clearly Canada’s social democratic party), who negligent in delaying the environmental shortly later moved to provincial politics. clean-up, South Riverdale’s experiences in Churley’s role was to be central in having the these areas still offer a number of lessons two proposed incinerators cancelled, con- with implications for policy with wider ap- vincing city council not to renew the lease plicability. Importantly, negative press and of the Darling meat packing plant in 1990 off-putting odours appear to have played a and forcing costly odour control equipment signifi cant role in highlighting health con- to be installed on the East End sewage plant cerns and keeping real estate speculation in 1992 (Simpson, 1990; Swainson, 1991). at bay. The effect of bad press on local real Hailing from the ‘new left’ fraction of the estate in South Riverdale was addressed in a NDP, Churley primarily advocated for the number of news articles about local pollution environment, a position then as now aligned and contaminated properties.13 Similarly, with the notion of progressive local govern- the smell of “rotting dog food” from the ance. The unintended effect of environmental Darling rendering and meat packing plant action in South Riverdale, however, was to on Commissioner’s Street, as well as sewer hasten the deindustrialisation of the district gases from the East End sewage plant, were that began at the end of the 1980s, and thus cited as deterring those with choice from help to set the stage for the loft conversions selecting the neighbourhood through the that would follow after 2001 when many 1980s (Simpson, 1990; Swainson, 1991). of the factories had closed for good. This is The response of city offi cials is also impli- the sort of political dynamic predicted by cated in this story. Throughout the 1970s and Filion (1991). 1980s, South Riverdale was represented by councillor Beavis, who had gained “virtual Reliance on Ethnic Housing Finance icon status of how the development industry Capital controls city hall” (Valpy, 1988). Both Beavis A fi nal factor responsible for slowing gen- and offi cial city policy during this time fav- trifi cation in both of our study neighbour- oured retaining the industrial character of hoods is directly related to the institutional South Riverdale and were thus less inclined and cultural practices of the embedded to listen to resident complaints and proposals ethnic communities, as well as to security of that would restrict industrial activities and tenure, discussed earlier. However, it is singled practices. The initial city response to the ter- out here as it has wider policy signifi cance mite infestation was minimal, and mostly beyond those related to ethnic institutional inaccessible to the residents of places like completeness or conventional sources of South Riverdale, while many demands for tenure security. As already noted, many immi- restrictions on unpleasant odours were grant communities, like the Portuguese in ignored or met with minimal action. While Brockton and the Chinese in South Riverdale, neglectful of health and quality of life in finance their housing purchases through the neighbourhood, city actions at this time family connections and their renovations ensured that industrial employment re- via sweat equity (Murdie, 1986, 1991). This mained available and viable nearby, and meant that the ethnic communities were able worked to make prospective gentrifi ers look to raise capital during a period in which inner- elsewhere. All of this changed, however, city housing as a whole, and these neighbour- after the incumbent Beavis was defeated hoods in particular, were devalued (and/or FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2617 considered too risky to insure) by institution- housing, although the latter clearly would alised fi nance capital. The infl ux of ethnic be highly effi cacious. In both Brockton and capital, and the conversion of many prop- South Riverdale, conventional sources of erties to multifamily use, had the positive security of tenure, while real for working- effect of limiting devaluation and thus the class homeowners, were not a significant rent gap in the face of de facto redlining, factor in restraining gentrifi cation’s effects. therefore reducing incentives for demolition A housing stock not amenable to middle- and redevelopment (Smith, 1996). Much of class tastes was signifi cant in Brockton, but the increase in rental in both neighbour- hardly in South Riverdale where, to the hoods can be attributed to the conversion of contrary, gentrifiers were drawn early to properties to multifamily by ethnic owners the Victorian houses resembling those in and much of this housing was rented to ten- nearby gentrifi ed areas. On the other hand, ants from within the community as many the existence of institutionally complete and were uncomfortable having to deal with embedded ethnic communities is a factor in tenants in English (Teixeira, 2007; Chan, both case study areas, particularly as these 2006). Likewise, ethnic contacts are often communities continued to function in their sought out fi rst when properties are put up mother tongues and were able to control a for sale (Murdie, 1991) and, considering that signifi cant proportion of the housing stock. demand for housing from within both the This is further related to the reliance on ethnic communities remained strong well ethnic sources of housing finance, which into the 1990s, this would have meant that effectively removed key housing from the a signifi cant portion of the housing stock market open to gentrifi ers. The presence of was effectively removed from the capitalist significant industrial employment lands, property market available to gentrifiers and the environmental externalities (and (although it would still have been available bad press) that fl owed from this, also played to ethnic speculators). While the number of an important role in inhibiting the pace of housing units affected, and the extent to gentrification. While the maintenance of which this hindered opportunities for gen- these manufacturing districts was official trifi cation in our two study areas, remain city policy during the 1970s and 1980s, it was unknown, it is likely that in combination not so much progressive local government, with other factors discussed earlier it played but benign (and potentially not so benign) a role in reducing speculative real estate neglect on behalf of both city and provincial activity and potential in-migration of the government offi cials towards dirty industries Anglo middle class. Obviously, this question and air pollution that gave the industrial remains ripe for future academic study, but areas a bad press and, in turn, a reputation it cannot be overlooked and it has policy among real estate speculators and would-be implications. gentrifi ers. These stories regarding the development Discussion and Implications for trajectories of Brockton and South Riverdale Policy offer insight for those policy-makers poten- tially searching for ways to prevent further This analysis shows that gentrifi cation has gentrifi cation in the current context of re- been slowed, if not completely halted, in stricted funding for social housing in cities the two case study neighbourhoods, even like Toronto. First of all, urban policy can sup- without recourse to housing programmes or port the establishment and maintenance of legislation protecting existing low-income institutionally complete ethnic communities 2618 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST that conduct their business in their mother can match vacant properties to new residents, tongue. Such policies could include support thus largely bypassing the traditional housing for cultural organisations, job placement, market and in turn reducing, if not preventing, retraining and housing search services, speculative real estate activity and gentrifi ers’ as well as food banks, shelters and school access to key properties. Such a policy need not programmes offered in the home language. be targeted at ethnic communities—embattled In doing so, it is important to ensure that working-class communities could also benefi t resources and democratic spaces are pro- from such a system. Of course, it would be vided to facilitate a measure of political important to build into such programmes capital and control on behalf of ethnic com- measures to avoid dispossession through munities over planning decisions based in non-market means and to prevent intra- their neighbourhoods. This will allow ethnic ethnic class exploitation through usurious communities to work with governments in interest rates and patron–client relation- fashioning local policies in their own best ships. There would not yet appear to be an interests and thus in turn will help to reinforce exemplary model for this (although related the political environment against incursions community development models based on of gentrifi cation and allow the community community currencies and non-market to remain in the neighbourhood if they so networks are starting to show some prom- choose.14 Secondly, policy-makers can re- ise, see for example, Richey, 2007). Of visit heritage legislation and aesthetic con- course, the extent of the phenomenon (of trols on inner-city housing and encourage ethnic housing fi nance) and its precise ef- working-class ethnic communities to custom- fects in obstructing gentrifi cation in our two ise their living environments to their own case studies remains somewhat of an un- tastes and to renovate properties they own known. This is an area that clearly warrants for multifamily use. Of course, care should further empirical exploration by gentrifi cation be taken that such policies do not exacerbate researchers. intraethnic class exploitation through un- Fourthly, public policy could support the regulated landlord–tenant relations. maintenance of areas of working-class em- While the establishment of institution- ployment and manufacturing industries ally complete ethnic communities is not within the inner city. While urban policy has suffi cient in and of itself to act as a barrier to been moving in the opposite direction in an gentrifi cation (the experiences of the Greek attempt to attract and appease the ‘creative and Italian communities in Toronto attest class’ (Peck, 2005), it could be reoriented to- to this), it appears to have been a necessary wards the protection and promotion of in- condition within both Brockton and South dustrial lands. As Scott (1982) demonstrated, Riverdale. In both cases, the reliance on ethnic under capitalism industries are likely to sources of housing fi nance capital and labour remain in the inner city if their productive appears to have played a distinct role in processes remain necessarily labour-intensive, maintaining a measure of ethnic control over which provides the added benefi t of main- a section of the housing stock, which acted taining signifi cant numbers of secure jobs as a complementary stabilising force for the for nearby low-skilled workers. This of course community at a key time in its evolution. runs counter to globalisation trends which Thus, a third policy recommendation would see labour-intensive industries moving to be to support the usage of ethnic and/or non- developing nations and so would require co- market or non-profit sources of housing ordinated policy support at national/federal fi nance and/or non-market programmes that as well as local levels of government. Benign FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2619 neglect of minor environmental externalities as long as part of the building façade is related to industrial lands that are relatively maintained. Initially applied in two older harmless (including unpleasant odours) can warehouse districts near the CBD, its success make the area less attractive to potential in- in attracting significant redevelopment movers whose employment base is elsewhere capital influenced the decision to expand in the city, and in turn reduce localised specu- such zoning to all inner-city employment lative real estate activity. Decisions regarding lands in the new Offi cial Plan (adopted by the appropriate trade-off between the level council in 2002) under the rubric of ‘smart of such externalities and local quality of life growth’ (Bunce, 2004). This occurred just should be made by and in consultation with after the provincial government led then local working-class populations, who have the by premier Mike Harris radically restruc- greatest interest in simultaneously improving tured rent control legislation, allowing land- both public health outcomes and local lords to charge whatever the market would employment opportunities while minimising bear once a unit was vacated. This encouraged their displacement. landlords to evict long-term tenants right at Above all, it is important to limit the ret- the time that new ‘authentic’ lofts and con- rofi tting and redevelopment of employment dominiums were being built in/on the old lands into residential spaces that are offered factory sites. Signifi cant real estate speculation, on the capitalist real estate market (as opposed catering to middle-class “urbane hipsters”, to non-market housing). It is tempting for ensued (Fantauzzi, 2004). The result in municipalities to look at such areas as poten- many Toronto neighbourhoods like South tial sources of heightened revenue and for Riverdale and Brockton has been renewed planners to see themselves as reinvigorating gentrifi cation.15 and intensifying older neighbourhoods, These policy lessons will not be appropri- often in the name of promoting ‘social mix’ ate in every situation, in every metropolitan (August, 2008; Lees et al., 2007). However, area and certainly not in every gentrifying such actions often lead to gentrifi cation, dir- neighbourhood. They should be considered ectly as a form of ‘new-build’ gentrifi cation as complementary to the primary aims of and/or indirectly by stimulating investment supporting investment in non-market and in surrounding areas (Davidson and Lees, affordable housing for low-income house- 2005; Lees et al., 2007). This is particularly holds, and political mobilisation of working- true in globalising cities like Toronto, where class communities. Nonetheless, these policy there is high demand for gentrifi ed space prescriptions would appear particularly (Smith, 2002). The evidence from Canadian amenable to application in globalising cities, cities suggests that, instead of increasing since the latter contain large and growing social mix, gentrifi cation leads to the opposite low-income immigrant communities who (Walks and Maaranen, 2008b). are increasingly pushed into less accessible These policy lessons are also borne out by and poorly serviced neighbourhoods as Toronto’s recent history, but in a negative gentrification reduces the relative ethnic way. In 1996, the City of Toronto changed diversity and immigrant reception function its approach towards employment lands and of the inner city (see Walks and Maaranen, adopted a simplifi ed zoning system (similar 2008b), as well as to cities with signifi cant to that favoured by the Thatcher government brownfi eld employment lands within range in the 1980s; see Allmendinger, 1997) which of inner-city residential areas, which them- allowed as-of-right any land use and con- selves are under constant threat from dis- fi guration of the internal space (and density) placement due to globalisation. 2620 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

Notes years as a working-class neighbourhood, “now ... lawyers and their like are reclaiming 1. Gentrifi cation is considered incomplete if Grant Street’s high ground from the east end the neighbourhood’s average income has rabble”. Brown highlights potential social remained below the metropolitan average. tensions by contrasting the styles of the This could occur if only part of the neighbour- existing poorer residents, represented by the hood gentrifi ed, if gentrifi cation stalled at Groves family (a “second generation welfare some point or if gentrifi cation has taken place family” with “gap-toothed smiles” and the only slowly. In each case, if the gentrifi cation “last vestige of anti-bourgeois vitality on trends continue (or resume), it is conceivable Grant Street”) and the in-coming gentrifi ers that the neighbourhood will eventually join who divide the street into “us” and “them”. the ranks of ‘gentrified’ neighbourhoods, “Us”, according to one new resident, includes which have above-average incomes and “people on the street who like each other indices of social status (for more information and talk to each other”. “We care. We care on these defi nitions, see Walks and Maaranen, not only about property values, but about 2008a). pleasantness and the visual, the aesthetics” 2. New industries established by 1910 included (Brown, 1986, p. 98). Brown also details how a planing mill, the Canadian Wire Mattress one resident named John had the city remove Company, Campbell fl our mills, the Dodge public benches at the foot of Grant Street, Wood Split Pulley Company and the so that “drunks” who might rest on them Nordheimer Piano Company. would no longer “create an eyesore that might 3. Planning reports produced by the City of have devalued everyone’s property” (p. 100; Toronto in the early 1970s merely noted that see also Gillmore, 1999). the “main problem” for Brockton was its “poor 6. Industries included the Gooderham and vehicle and pedestrian circulation pattern Worts Brewery yards, the Consumer Gas resulting from a lack of east–west streets” Company, the A. R. Clarke Tannery, Sunlight (City of Toronto Planning Board, 1972, p. 38). and later Lever soap, a carriage works and The area contained the three longest blocks numerous printers, plumbers and carpentry in the city without through-streets and the shops. By 1923, the southern and eastern planning department’s recommendation, portions were heavily developed with indus- arrived at with signifi cant resident input, trial land. was a system of pedestrian paths to provide 7. The streets (‘slums’) of South Riverdale better circulation. The other recommen- were notorious enough to earn a full chapter dation was to retain the neighbourhood as a in the 1970 book The Underside of Toronto “stable low-density residence area” (pp. 39–40). (Crysdale, 1970). The Bloor-Dufferin study determined that 8. “White-painters” is an early term for gentri- the planning district’s primary “role is that fi ers. In the 1970s, early gentrifi ers would often of providing low cost, essentially family hous- paint the well-worn and often soot-covered ing ... [and to] continue to be an immigrant brick facades of houses they occupied with receiving area” (City of Toronto Planning white paint, hence the term (see Lees et al., Board, 1971, p. 7). The city concluded that, 2007; Ley, 1996) “therefore any reduction in the present family 9. News reports detail “bothersome odors in housing stock should be prevented” (p. 21). the area ... they range from rank fl esh odor, 4. It is worth mentioning that only seven years like that of a dead animal, to an extremely earlier, this same area had been identifi ed by rosy perfume smell” (Wintrob, 1984). Local the Metro Social Planning Council as not residents gathered signatures to petition smelly worth rehabilitating—with housing that industries, including tanning and rendering was too old and in need of major repairs and factories, that were producing odours akin to replacements (Toronto Star, 1970). “rancid onions” (Polanyi, 1984). 5. For instance, writing in Toronto Life magazine, 10. Often employed in the construction trades Brown (1986, p. 98) observes that, after 90 and with a tradition of ‘mutual help and FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2621

support’, Portuguese and Italian homeowners problem is when they desire to remain, but maintained and improved their houses with are instead forced to leave by the displacing bartered labour. In Brockton, residents are effects of gentrifi cation. Providing better and said to have worked together and with their more democratic access to resources enhances neighbours to renovate their homes—building the ability of such communities to remain in extra units, adding kitchens and bathrooms, the neighbourhood if they choose. fi nishing the basement, fi xing wiring and 15. Qualitative and journalistic accounts of re- plumbing, and painting the exterior bright cent gentrifi cation in these neighbourhoods colours (Teixeira, 2000, p. 214). (Teixeira, 2007; van der Ven, 2003) are con- 11. Mediterraneanisation, according to Caulfi eld fi rmed by the initial release of the 2006 census

data which show that 235 new dwellings (either denotes a style of incumbent upgrading condominiums or loft conversions) have been popular among the city’s Italian and developed in South Riverdale since 2001, Portuguese homeowners that features angel while 245 new dwellings have been built brick facades, porches with grillwork rails (or converted from non-residential use) in and brick arches, and aluminum fascia Brockton. In turn, affected tracts in Brockton and window-trim; [while contrastingly] saw their average individual income jump middle-class upgraders prefer restored signifi cantly from approximately 67 per cent brick facades, either no porch or a wooden of the CMA average in 2001 to 75 per cent one that replicates the original design, in 2006. Likewise, the three census tracts that and refurbished fascia and trim (Caulfi eld, make up the west and south of South Riverdale 1994, pp. 20–21). all saw their average incomes shoot up from 12. Among those in South Riverdale are the 57 per cent, 74 per cent and 87 per cent in Queen’s Common townhouse development 2001, to 89 per cent, 82 per cent and 93 per (on the site of the former Colgate factory), cent of the CMA average in 2006. the Wrigley Chewing Gum Factory lofts, the “I-Zone” Artists Lofts (on the site of the former Coca-Cola factory), the Drug Factory Acknowledgements lofts, the Stone Manor development, the The research reported on herein was supported Print Factory Lofts and the Garment Factory by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Lofts. Council of Canada (SSHRC) through a Community– 13. One debate concerned whether or not con- University Research Alliance (CURA) grant. The taminated properties should be registered authors would like to thank Bob Murdie, David publicly (Dimanno, 1986). Notably, alderman Ley and the three reviewers for their helpful and Fred Beavis believed that there should be a insightful comments. registry, so that prospective buyers “would know what they were getting into”. Working- class residents agreed to the registry, despite References the effect on their property values. However, Councillor Beavis also publicly worried about Allmendinger, P. (1997) Thatcherism and Planning: the prospect of “an exodus in a hurry” from The Case of Simplifi ed Planning Zones. Aldershot: South Riverdale if prospective buyers were to Ashgate. have full access to contamination information Atkinson, R. (2004) The evidence and impact of (Dimano, 1986). gentrifi cation: new lessons for urban renais- 14. This does not imply a static and homogeneous sance?, European Journal of Housing Policy, conception of ethnic communities and we 4(1), pp. 107–131. realise that such policy prescriptions may August, M. (2008) Social mix and Canadian enable greater mobility (both occupational public housing redevelopment: experiences and spatial) on behalf of the children born in Toronto, Canadian Journal of Urban into these immigrant communities and we Research—Canadian Public Policy Supplement, do not have any problem with this. The 17(1), pp. 35–73. 2622 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

Bourne, L. S. (1993) The myth and reality of gen- Crysdale, S. (1970) Family and kinship in South trifi cation: a commentary on emerging urban Riverdale, in: W. E. Mann (Ed.) The Underside forms, Urban studies, 30(1), pp. 183–189. of Toronto. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart. Breton, R. (1964) Institutional completeness of Dantas, A. (1988) Overspill as an alternative ethnic communities and the personal relations style of gentrifi cation: the case of Riverdale, of immigrants, American Journal of Sociology, Toronto, in: T.E. Bunting and P. Filion (Eds) 70(2), pp. 193–205. The Changing Canadian Inner City, pp. 73–88. Brown, I. (1986) Both sides of the street, Toronto Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press. Life, 1(1), pp. 62–64, 98–102. Davidson, M. (2007) Gentrifi cation as global Bunce, S. (2004) The emergence of ‘smart growth’ habitat: a process of class formation or corporate intensifi cation in Toronto: environment and creation?, Transactions of the Institute of British economy in the new offi cial plan, Local Envir- Geographers, 32(4), pp. 490–506. onment, 9(2), pp. 177–191. Davidson, M. and Lees, L. (2005) New-build Butler, T. and Lees, L. (2006) Super-gentrifi cation gentrifi cation and London’s riverside renais- in Barnsbury, London: globalization and gen- sance, Environment and Planning A, 37(7), trifying global cities at the neighbourhood pp. 1165–1190. level, Transactions of the Institute of British Dimanno, R. (1986) Councillor urges registry Geographers, 31(4), pp. 467–487. for lead polluted properties, Toronto Star, 24 Caulfi eld, J. (1994) City Form and Everyday Life: October, p. A2. Toronto’s Gentrifi cation and Critical Social Prac- Dineen, J. (1980) Plant’s lead emissions shock tice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. province, Toronto Star, 2 August, p. A5. Chan, G. (2006) China down, NOW Magazine, Fantauzzi, J. (2004) Former factories new lofts, 26 October, p. 8. Toronto Star, 22 October, p. H3. City of Toronto (2005) Staff report: Riverdale Ferguson, J. (1985) Riverdale’s lead levels Heritage Conservation District Study Area: still a problem, report says, Globe and Mail, Phase 1. City of Toronto Report presented 18 June. to the Toronto Preservation Board, Toronto Filion, P. (1991) The gentrifi cation–social structure and East York Community Councils, by the dialectic: a Toronto case study, International Director of the City Planning Policy and Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 15(4), Research Division. pp. 553–574. City of Toronto Development Department Foster, J. (1986) Greek-dominated Danforth yields (1976) The neighbourhood improvement plan the yuppie infl uence, Toronto Star, 16 June. for the South Riverdale area. City of Toronto. Germain, A. and Rose, D. (2000) Montréal: Quest City of Toronto Planning and Development for a Metropolis. New York: Wiley. Department (1982) The progress of neighbourhood Gillmore, D. (1999) South Riverdale, Toronto Life, planning in South Riverdale. City of Toronto. 33(1), pp. 64–67. City of Toronto Planning Board (1971) Bloor- Goad’s Atlas (1884, 1890, 1910) Historical maps. Dufferin study appraisal part I and Bloor- City of Toronto Archives. Dufferin area background studies. City of Grady, W. (1997) Toronto’s war on termites, Toronto. Canadian Geographic, 117(5), pp. 46–52. City of Toronto Planning Board (1972) Bloor- Hackworth, J. (2002) Postrecession gentrifi- Dufferin study 2: tentative planning proposals. cation in New York City, Urban Affairs Review, City of Toronto. 37(6), pp. 815–843. City of Toronto Planning Board (1977) Towards Hackworth, J. and Rekers, J. (2005) Ethnic pack- a neighbourhood plan: South Riverdale. City aging and gentrification: the case of four of Toronto. neighbourhoods in Toronto, Urban Affairs Criekengen, M. van and Decroly, J. (2003) Review, 41(2), pp. 211–236. Revisiting the diversity of gentrification: Hackworth, J. and Smith, N. (2001) The chang- neighbourhood renewal processes in ing state of gentrification, Tijdschrift voor Brussels and Montreal, Urban Studies, 40(12), Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92(4), pp. 2451–2468. pp. 464–477. FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2623

Hartman, C. (1974) Yerba Buena: Land Grab Annals of the Association of American Geo- and Community Resistance in San Francisco. graphers, 76(4), pp. 521–535. New York: Glide. Ley, D. (1992) Gentrifi cation in recession: social Hartman, C. (1984) The right to stay put, in: change in six Canadian cities 1981–1986, The C. Geiser and F. Popper (Eds) Land Reform, Canadian Geographer, 32(1), pp. 31–45. American Style. Totowa: NJ, Rowmand and Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Allanhead. Reprinted in C. Hartman (2002) Re-making of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford Between Eminence and Notoriety, pp. 120–133. University Press. Centre for Urban and Policy Research, New Ley, D. (2003) Artists, aestheticisation and the Brunswick, NJ. fi eld of gentrifi cation, Urban Studies, 40(12), Hartman, C., Keating, D., Legates, R. and Turner, pp. 2527–2544. S. (1982) Displacement: how to fi ght it. National Lind, L. (2004) Riverdale 101, National Post, 17 Housing Law Project, Washington, DC. January. Jafri, A. (1983) Termites in Toronto: a review and Magnusson, W. (1983) Toronto, in: W. Magnusson evaluation of Toronto’s termite control program. and A. Sancton (Eds) City Politics in Canada, Planning and Development Department, pp. 94–139. Toronto: University of Toronto City of Toronto. Press. Keating, D. R. (1975) The Power to Make it Happen: McInnes, C. (1993) Outdoor market draws traffi c, Mass-based Community Organizing—What rodents and neighbours’ ire, Globe and Mail, it is and How it Works. Toronto: Green Tree 3 July. Publishing Company Ltd. Milbourne, P. (1997) Housing conflict and Keil, R. (2002) ‘Common-sense’ neoliberalism: domestic property classes in rural Wales, Envir- progressive conservative urbanism in Toronto, onment and Planning A, 29(1), pp. 43–62. Canada, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 578–601. Monsebraaten, L. (1984) Immigrants help revive Kerr, T. (1986) Council gives fi rst okay to garb- neighbourhood, Toronto Star, 16 July. age burning plant Toronto, Toronto Star, Murdie, R. (1986) Residential mortgage lending 4 December. in metropolitan Toronto: a case study of the Larner, W. and Craig, D. (2005) After neoliberal- resale market, The Canadian Geographer, 30(2), ism? Community activism and local partner- pp. 98–110. ships in Aotearoa New Zealand, Antipode, Murdie, R. (1991) Local strategies in resale home 37(3), pp. 402–424. financing in the Toronto housing market, Lees, L. (2000) A reappraisal of gentrifi cation: Urban Studies, 28(3), pp. 465–483. towards a ‘geography of gentrifi cation’, Pro- Newman, K. and Wyly, E. (2006) The right to stay gress in Human Geography, 24(3), pp. 389–408. put, revisited: gentrifi cation and resistance Lees, L. (2003) Policy (re)turns: gentrifi cation to displacement in New York City, Urban research and urban policy: urban policy and Studies, 43(1), pp. 23–57. gentrification research, Environment and Patterson, C., McDougall, C. and Levin, G. (1986) Planning A, 35(4), pp. 571–574. Bloor-Dufferin in pictures. City of Toronto. Lees, L., Slater, T. and Wyly, E. (2007) Gentrifi cation. Peck, J. (2005) Struggling with the creative class, London: Routledge. International Journal of Urban and Regional Legates, R. T. and Hartman, C. (1986) The Research, 29(4), pp. 740–770. anatomy of displacement in the United States, in Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing N. Smith and P. Williams (Eds) Gentrifi cation space, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 380–404. of the City, pp. 178–199. Boston, MA: Allen & Pigg, S. (1984) Unsafe levels of lead found in 13 Unwin. children, Toronto Star, 19 April. Lemon, J. (1985) Toronto since 1918: an illu- Polanyi, M. (1984) End to stench is demanded by strated history. Toronto: James Lorimer and residents, Globe and Mail, 19 July. Company. Richey, S. (2007) Manufacturing trust: com- Ley, D. (1986) Alternative explanations for inner- munity currencies and the creation of social city gentrifi cation: a Canadian assessment, capital, Political Behaviour, 29(1), pp. 69–88. 2624 ALAN WALKS AND MARTINE AUGUST

Ring, V. (1993) Queen Broadview village, Real Swainson, G. (1991) Recycler to spend $200,000 to Estate News, 19 November, p. 6. stem sewage stench, Toronto Star, 9 September. Robson, G. and Butler, T. (2001) Coming to Teixeira, C. (1998) Cultural resources and ethnic terms with London: middle class com- entrepreneurship: a case study of the Portuguese munities in a global city, International Journal real estate industry in Toronto, Canadian of Urban and Regional Research, 25(1), Geographer, 42(3), pp. 267–281. pp. 75–86. Teixeira, C. (2000) On the move: Portuguese in Rose, D. (1996) Economic restructuring and Toronto, in: C. Teixeira and V. da Rosa (Eds) the diversification of gentrification in the The Portuguese in Canada: From the Sea to 1980s: a view from a marginal metropolis, the City, pp. 207–222. Toronto: University of in: J. Caulfi eld and L. Peake (Eds) City Lives Toronto Press. and City Forms: Critical Research and Canadian Teixeira, C. (2007) Toronto’s Little Portugal: a Urbanism, pp. 131–172. Toronto: University of neighbourhood in transition. Research Bulletin Toronto Press. No. 35, Centre for Urban and Community Rose, D. (2004) Discourses and experiences Studies, Toronto. of social mix in gentrifying neighbourhoods: Todd, P. (1986) The rebirth of South Riverdale, a Montreal case study, Canadian Journal of Toronto Star, 3 June. Urban Research, 13(2), pp. 278–316. Toronto Star (1970) Study proposed to keep Sarick, L. (1988) Incinerator plan upsets residents, East End’s character in the face of high rises, Globe and Mail, 10 September. 17 April. Scott, A. J. (1982) Locational patterns and dy- Toronto Telegraph (1968) East Toronto facelift namics of industrial activity in the modern outlined by planners, 26 January. metropolis, Urban Studies, 19(2), pp. 111–141. Valpy, M. (1988) NDP still attempting to knock off Serge, J. (1980) Riverdale citizens want government Beavis, Globe and Mail, 7 November, p. A20. to halt Klan, Toronto Star, 20 September. Varangu, E. (1984) Exploring the city, Toronto Shaw, K. (2005a) Local limits to gentrifi cation: Life, pp. 72–73, 82–83. implications for a new urban policy, in: R. Ven, L. van der (2003) New lofts, townhomes Atkinson and G. Bridge (Eds) Gentrifi cation in inching in beside the old, National Post, 1 a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, March. pp. 168–184. New York: Routledge. Walks, R. A. (2004) Suburbanization, the Shaw, K. (2005b) The place of alternative culture vote, and changes in federal and provincial and the politics of its protection in Berlin, political representation and infl uence between Amsterdam and Melbourne, Planning Theory inner cities and suburbs in large Canadian and Practice, 6(2), pp. 151–170. urban regions, 1945 to 1999, Urban Affairs Simpson, L. (1990) Stinking plant near lakefront Review, 39(4), pp. 411–440. fails to get its lease renewed, Toronto Star, Walks, R. A. (2006) The causes of city–suburban 11 July. political polarization? A Canadian case study, Slater, T. (2004) Municipally managed gen- Annals of the Association of American Geo- trifi cation in South Parkdale, The Canadian graphers, 96(2), pp. 390–414. Geographer, 48(3), pp. 303–324. Walks, R. A. and Maaranen, R. (2008a) The timing, Slinger, J. (1992) Old South Riverdale never patterning, and forms of gentrification and raised this kind of stink, Toronto Star, 29 neighbourhood upgrading in Montreal, Toronto, March, p. A2. and Vancouver, 1961 to 2001. Research Paper Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gen- No. 211, Cities Centre/Centre for Urban and trifi cation and the Revanchist City. London: Community Studies, University of Toronto. Routledge. Walks, R. A. and Maaranen, R. (2008b) Gen- Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urban- trifi cation, social mix, and social polarization: ism: gentrifi cation as global urban strategy, testing the linkages in large Canadian cities, Antipode, 34(3), pp. 427–450. Urban Geography, 29(4), pp. 293–326. FACTORS INHIBITING GENTRIFICATION IN TORONTO 2625

Whitzman, C. and Slater, T. (2006) Village ghetto urban system, Environment and Planning A, land: myth, social conditions, and housing 36(7), pp. 1215–1241. policy in Parkdale, Toronto, 1879–2000, Urban Wyly, E. K. and Hammel, D. J. (2005) Mapping Affairs Review, 41(5), pp. 673–696. neo-liberal American urbanism, in: R. Atkinson Wintrob, S. (1984) Children in Riverdale to be and G. Bridge (Eds) Gentrifi cation in a Global tested for lead, Globe and Mail, 17 September. Context: The New Urban Colonialism, pp. 18–37. Wyly, E. K. and Hammel, D. J. (2004) Gentrifi cation, London: Routledge. segregation, and discrimination in the American