VOICES OF DOWNTOWN DARTMOUTH: A STUDY OF URBAN DECAY AND RENEWAL
by
Meaghan E. Dalton
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts with
Honours in Politics
Acadia University
March, 2014
© Copyright by Meaghan E. Dalton, 2014
This thesis by Meaghan E. Dalton
is accepted in its present form by the
Department of Politics as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts with Honours
Approved by the Thesis Supervisor
______Dr. Ian Stewart Date
Approved by the Head of the Department
______Dr. Andrew Biro Date
Approved by the Honours Committee
______Matthew Lukeman Date
ii
I, Meaghan Dalton, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non‐profit basis. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.
______Signature of Author
______Date
iii Table of Contents
Abstract...... v
Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 WHY STUDY URBAN DECAY AND RENEWAL? ...... 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 3 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ...... 6 ARGUMENTS...... 7
Chapter 2. Unpacking Theories of Urban Decay and Renewal ...... 9 UNPACKING THEORIES OF URBAN DECAY ...... 10 UNPACKING THEORIES OF URBAN RENEWAL ...... 17
Chapter 3. From Success to Slump ...... 22 “THE FASTEST GROWING TOWN IN CANADA” ...... 22 FIFTY YEARS OF DECAY ...... 24 ALL ADDS UP TO STRUCTURE ...... 32
Chapter 4. A Layered Renewal Process in Downtown Dartmouth...... 34 TEN YEARS OF TRANSFORMATION ...... 35 WHY IS DOWNTOWN DARTMOUTH RENEWING NOW AND WHO IS IT ATTRACTING?...... 39
Chapter 5. Conclusion...... 50
Appendix: List of Interviews ...... 55
Bibliography...... 56
iv
Abstract Urban decay and renewal have been studied in the North American context for about a century, most notably by urban studies pioneer Jane Jacobs. This thesis examines the most prominent theories of urban decay and renewal that are relevant to my case study of downtown Dartmouth. With a review of the literature on theories of urban decay and renewal, I determine which theories hold strongest. However, with my qualitative case study, I further determine how accurate the prominent theories of urban decay and renewal are, and if there are any major elements missing. I uncover opinions often unheard from community members with different backgrounds and ideologies, including residents, former politicians, non‐profit organizers, businesspeople, and municipal planners. When it comes to urban renewal, an almost inevitable occurrence is gentrification. What my case study of downtown Dartmouth demonstrates is that urban decay and renewal does follow many of the prominent structural theories; however, the hostility that can unfairly push lower‐income residents out is less from big business and developers, and more from a stronghold of conservative long‐term residents who have been a powerful force in local politics, implementing zoning policies based on conservative values and discriminatory thinking.
v
Chapter One: Introduction
Downtown Dartmouth was a vibrant growing community until the mid‐ twentieth century. From the mid‐twentieth century until recently, when most people considered downtown Dartmouth, they thought of disreputable businesses, near‐ decrepit buildings, homelessness, other social problems, and cheap housing because few wanted to live in the area. This was not always the case; so, what led to its decay? In the past five to ten years, these impressions of downtown Dartmouth have begun to transform dramatically with a changing demographic, more attention to streetscapes and business fronts, more reputable businesses, and upscale condominium developments. Something changed in downtown Dartmouth to spur this turnaround from decay.
What makes a once vibrant and growing city suddenly decay into a city with a poor reputation? What makes this decaying city suddenly spring into renewal? Who makes development decisions? Or, are urban decay and renewal inevitable effects of capitalist forces and global trends? The use of downtown cores in North American cities has greatly changed since the early twentieth century, when downtowns were a mix of residences and large industries. This completely changed in the mid‐ twentieth century, when industries failed to keep up with global competitors or were moved to peripheral business parks for more space. Along with the removal of industries came the suburban dream where families wanted a large home away from dirty industries and with ample land, safe for their children to play. Downtown cores were hollowed out. But at the start of the twenty‐first century, we are again seeing the rise of the downtown core as the place to live. There are so many layers to urban
1 decay and renewal and it fascinating how one urban centre can grow and shrink and grow again, and how these changes can engender significant controversy.
Why Study Urban Decay and Renewal?
The decay and renewal of an urban core is an important field of study, especially as the use of downtown cores change once again to the residential purposes of the wealthier population. The decay and renewal of a city does not just affect the aesthetics of a city or the economy of an area in a negative or positive way.
It can also dramatically affect the people in the area, leading to increasing inequalities and potentially some unjust policies for urban development. I believe this study of urban decay and renewal is important because it can shed light on how well current policies for development are working, how fair they are to everyone, and whether there should be policy alternatives taken into consideration. A downtown core can be renewed with little attention paid to those it may be dislocating, and this can be a problem.
Academically, this study is important because I am testing the accuracy of prominent theories for urban decay and renewal. Are patterns of urban decay and renewal changing, or are some patterns just being more noticed in time? How well do prominent theories of urban decay and renewal stand up when applied to a real case? Can theories of urban decay and renewal help policy‐makers of urban development steer away from negative patterns that can cause decay and/or be socially unjust? Though this is a small study, it (and studies like it) can help in examining the relevance and accuracy of predominant theories of what makes a city decay and what makes it renew. A qualitative study like this can also bring in newer,
2 and often under‐heard, perspectives from individuals immediately affected by urban decay or renewal.
Sociologically, this study is important because I am giving people a voice in how urban decay and renewal affects them, and how the development decisions of politicians affect people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Though an urban renaissance can be exciting for the community members of a downtown core that has experienced years of decay, there can be negative consequences for some of the residents. What are their concerns and what are possible solutions to their concerns? What can we learn about policies for urban renewal from those on the ground, including residents, businesspeople, non‐profit organizers, and planners?
How do decision‐makers respond to the critiques and concerns of those on the ground? Do different groups of people (from different backgrounds, with different political ideals, and different occupations) tend to come together when their community is changing, or become hostile towards one another, or a bit a both? I hope to unpack general sentiments around the renewal of a downtown core that was in a state of decay for fifty years and discover trends in how people from different backgrounds react to changes in their community. As well, I hope my qualitative research can give new insights into what are the best approaches to urban development.
Methodology
I am interested in urban decay and renewal studies because the community I grew up in (downtown Dartmouth, Nova Scotia) has undergone both decay and renewal. This study helps with understanding why decay and renewal has occurred
3 and how dramatic changes in a community can affect the residents. My study was conducted mainly qualitatively, but in order to study urban decay and renewal, I first examined and researched prominent theories of urban decay and renewal to fully understand patterns in urban decay and development, and to have theories to compare to my case study of downtown Dartmouth. I analyzed prominent theories in some depth and examined those most appropriate to this locale at this time. This aids in understanding why some cities decay and fail and why others renew with great success. While presenting my qualitative research of the decay and renewal of downtown Dartmouth, I simultaneously tested the prominence and importance of the theories first outlined.
I was particularly interested in what could be learned from talking to individuals personally about their reactions, opinions, and memories of urban decay and renewal. I wanted to understand the social implications of urban development policies on individuals who have been left out of the decision‐making process, often times because of socioeconomic status. Their voices can go unheard, so I believe this sort of qualitative study can give these community members a voice that may affect or at least critique urban development policies.
I have conducted qualitative research in the form of a case study (downtown
Dartmouth), using interviews with six people from various backgrounds in the community: residents, a past politician, non‐profit organizers, a businessperson, and municipal planners. As there can often be opposing opinions from grassroots and businesspeople, I picked members of the community from both sides. I also decided to interview people involved in Planning and Development Services in order to
4 understand the technical processes of implementing zoning policies, and the legislated plans for downtown Dartmouth. I wrote a consent form for interviewees as well as a summary of the project I was doing, and I also completed the Canadian
Tri‐Council tutorial on Ethical Conduct. The interviews were all held at either public cafes or offices at the interviewee’s place of employment. Each interview took between one and two hours. The transcribed interviews were analyzed for content that related to the decay and/or renewal of downtown Dartmouth, as well as processes used by the Planning and Development Services that affected policy for downtown Dartmouth.
For my case study, I interviewed the following community members: Don
Chard, a former Member of Legislature for Dartmouth South, a previous member of the School Board and a member of the Dartmouth Historical Society; Mitch Dickey, who works for the Halifax Regional Municipality’s (HRM) Planning and Development
Services, with a major focus on downtown Dartmouth; Bev Cadham, the program coordinator of an organization for adults with mental illnesses, called Among
Friends Social Club; Kevin Little, a member of the Public Good Society of Dartmouth;
Tim Rissesco, the Director of the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission; and
Paul Johnston, the Coordinator of Corporate Affairs for the HRM, who has great expertise on how planning and development policies work in the area.
I also completed extensive historical research to understand the decay of downtown Dartmouth through the work of historians from the community. I also relied on the Public Good Society of Dartmouth, which conducted research on the demographics and housing situation in the area.
5 A potential pitfall of this study is the lack of breadth of research. I only reached a small proportion of the community’s population, and therefore am inevitably missing some insights, concerns, or opinions on the study of urban decay and renewal. This is why I attempted to contact a wide array of community members from varying backgrounds and with varying degrees of influence on the development of downtown Dartmouth. The fact that I only examined one city can certainly skew my findings. If the prominent theories I unpack in my literature review do not match up with downtown Dartmouth, it does not necessarily mean that these patterns do not match up with other cities. However, even if this is the case, and downtown Dartmouth does not match up with the prominent theories from urban studies, I believe it is just as valuable to understand how a city may be unique, or how there may be other layers to examine when unpacking urban decay and renewal.
Chapter overview
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter Two focuses on theories of urban decay and renewal. These are divided into historical and structural theories, meaning some theorists believe the hollowing out of a city core is based on time and weathering, whereas other theorists believe structural forces, like the tastes of people, market forces, and the actual planning of a city can lead to decay or renewal.
Chapters Three and Four delve into my qualitative case study of downtown
Dartmouth. While researching the decay and renewal process of downtown
Dartmouth, I am also relying on the theories outlined in chapter two to understand how typical or atypical the process from decay to renewal has been. Chapter Three
6 focuses on the success and then decay of downtown Dartmouth through the first half of the twentieth century. My research is conducted through interviews with community members and historical texts. I first demonstrate that downtown
Dartmouth was initially a success, and then trace its decay. As there is not a single explanation of Downtown Dartmouth’s decay, I must draw conclusions through conversations with a sample of community members and research from texts and papers.
Chapter Four outlines objective facts that demonstrate the renewal of downtown Dartmouth: aesthetic changes, demographic change, and the economic climate are some indicators of urban renewal. However, again, I will draw conclusions from interviews, papers, and articles to understand downtown
Dartmouth’s current urban renewal and success. Chapter Four also examines the effectiveness or fairness of the development policies and processes of downtown
Dartmouth thus far.
Arguments
Much of the decay and renewal processes of downtown Dartmouth do follow trends of many North American cities and many of the prominent theories of decay and renewal. The evolution of downtown Dartmouth seems best explained by the popular structural theories of urban decay and renewal: cultural tastes, trends, and market forces play the largest role in the development of a city, rather than the historical forces of time and age. However, there are some unique characteristics of downtown Dartmouth that do not align with prominent theories. These include its unique demographic with a strong presence of adults with mental illnesses from the
7 deinstitutionalization of the Nova Scotia Hospital, as well as the services necessary to support this demographic. In addition, it seems conservative and bigoted thinkers also play a large role in the development of downtown Dartmouth. Parts of the local government and some long‐term residents are defending the status quo and some are even exhibiting not‐in‐my‐backyard (NIMBY) tendencies. From the outside in, it may look as though fairly typical gentrification patterns are occurring in downtown
Dartmouth, where big developments are pushing out the lower‐income community members. What actually is uncovered is less of the expected hostility between grassroots and businesspeople and developers, and more hostility and prejudice from the longer‐term residents and local politicians towards more vulnerable residents.
Although the decay and renewal of downtown Dartmouth does follow the prominent theories, the gentrification that is occurring seems to be caused not only by market forces, but also by more subtle cultural forces. The conservative mindset of long‐term residents who desire little change to their community, a lack of transparency from the local government, policies based around some discrimination, and little help for lower‐income residents seem to be the major problem areas of the urban renewal of downtown Dartmouth. Current policies cause some difficulties for large developers, but, ultimately, lower‐income residents have been most negatively affected.
8 Chapter Two: Unpacking Theories of Urban Decay and Renewal
To understand what causes a city to decay or renew, classical theories of urban decay and renewal must be examined. These theories are broad and it is seemingly impossible to say there is a “best” theory for both situations; however, in this chapter, I unpack some of the prominent theories in urban studies to find out which is most relevant when studying why and how urban decay and renewal have taken place in the community of downtown Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
I am only examining urban theories from the twentieth century onwards, as
Dartmouth did not become a city until then. These theories are of most relevance to my case study. Many urban theorists believe urban decay is a natural development of most, if not all cities, and their theories are sometimes complementary and sometimes contrasting, which is why it is difficult to be sure there is a definitive answer for why a city can decay. Some theorists believe the structures and patterns of the layout of the city itself can lead to its own destruction. Famous urban theorists, such as Jane Jacobs (1992), delve deeply into this argument. As noted in
William Alonso’s “The Historic and Structural Theories of Urban Renewal” (1964), other early twentieth century theorists, such as Robert M. Haig and Ernest W.
Burgess, believe urban decay can be best understood as an historical phenomenon, where with time, the city centers become unsatisfactory to the wealthier population, who then move away from the center. Lastly, there are structural theories, such as those by urban theorists like William Alonso (1964), where forces such as people’s changing tastes, the market, government funding and other financial incentives, and
9 the geographic location of industries have a major effect on urban decay and renewal.
Unpacking Theories of Urban Decay
Jane Jacobs, a well‐known urban theorist from the mid‐twentieth century, wrote in great detail about the power that the physical form of a city has on shaping its success or decay (Jacobs 1992). Jacobs focuses on how new establishments in a community can be exciting for community members, but what becomes popular is often duplicated and duplication can lead to a community’s decay. Besides this analysis of human trends in a community, Jacobs examines particular physical characteristics including sidewalks and small businesses on busy streets. She believes these physical forms can help to sustain diversity, safety, and success of a city. However, other structural characteristics like parks during nighttime, university campuses, and train tracks can lead to problems of crime, exclusion of groups, and the decay of a city. Jacobs does not pinhole her theories as either historical or structural, but many of the theorists’ ideas that will be unpacked shortly do tend to provide either historical or structural explanations to a city’s decay and renewal. It is possible that urban decay can ensue from a combination of historical and structural explanations, and Jacobs’ theories tend to take this more holistic approach.
Jane Jacobs noticed a pattern in cities where a once diverse and less mainstream area of a city can have one new business move into the area, prosper, and immediately, the area starts to “undiversify” itself (Jacobs 1992, 244). She gives an example that she witnessed when living on 8th Street in Greenwich Village in the
10 late 1950s. She considered 8th Street to be “nondescript” thirty‐five years before she wrote this text in 1961. Then, a local property owner built a successful business that consisted of a small nightclub and a theater. As the street became busier in the evenings, more entrepreneurs opened convenience and “special shops” (Jacobs
1992, 244). On 8th Street, “it happened that restaurants became the largest money‐ earners per square foot of space. Naturally it followed that Eighth Street went more and more to restaurants” (Jacobs 1992, 244). While this took place, the nearby Fifth
Avenue crowded out clubs, galleries, and small offices with “blank, monolithic, very high‐rent apartments” (Jacobs 1992, 244).
New and unique ideas were being forced to build on other streets and fewer of these new ideas were coming to Eighth Street. The owner of the nightclub and theatre realized “if the process ran its full and logical course, Eighth Street would eventually be left beached, in the wake of popularity that had moved away” (Jacobs
1992, 244). This would become a common occurrence in many cities. The popularity that stems from the creativity of diverse neighbourhoods then ironically leads to a homogenous community. As Jacobs puts it: “Diversity is crowded out by the duplication of success” (Jacobs 1992, 247). When the trend fades, there are no immediate alternatives to keep the community alive, but this is only one way a city’s success can lead to its own destruction.
Classical physical forms within a city, such as parks, train tracks, campuses, large parking areas, arterial highways, and industrial parks share one thing in common: they all encompass a large amount of land that is converted into a single use. Jane Jacobs calls these areas “border vacuums” (Jacobs 1992, 258). These
11 border vacuums become problem areas because they form dead ends for city users, and therefore represent barriers. Barriers mean fewer people will use the area, and
Jacobs finds this particularly troublesome: “The more infertile the simplified territory becomes for economic enterprises, the still fewer users, and the still more infertile the territory… This is serious, because literal and continuous mingling of people, present because of different purposes, is the only device that keeps streets safe” (Jacobs 1992, 259). Some of these border vacuums may not seem problematic in daylight, but it is only once the sun sets that they become border vacuums, such as large parks, which people often fear to use at night because the chances of crime in the dark increase (Jacobs 1992, 261). Jacobs’ thesis is that a lack of diversity in a city, whether spatial, economic, or demographic, is a major reason for urban decay. A lack of diversity in these areas can be explained in an historical manner as well as a structural manner, as it relates to passing of time, as well as the physical structures that make up a city.
Ernest W. Burgess (1925) of the Chicago School, and Robert M. Haig (1926), two urban theorists from the early twentieth century, have had much influence on urban planning and future studies of urban changes. Their explanations for urban decay are historical. Haig and Burgess believed the hollowing out of the city center occurred because what was once a prosperous and new part of town eventually gets old and decrepit. The wealthy families who once lived in these areas no longer want to live in older homes, so they choose to move to the city’s fringes where there is available land to build newer and more satisfactory homes (Alonso 1964, 227).
Urban theorist and land economist Homer Hoyt (1937) backs up the arguments of
12 Haig and Burgess by claiming “the wealthy seldom reverse their steps and move backwards into the obsolete houses which they are giving up… As they represent the highest income group, there are no new houses above them abandoned by another group,” hence the pattern of the wealthy moving to the periphery (Alonso 1964,
228).
After the higher income homeowners move to the fringes, or the suburbs, lower‐income people often move into these older vacated homes. Homer Hoyt came to the assumption that Ernest Burgess’s historical explanation perfectly demonstrated how trickle‐down economics works for providing housing to the lower classes (Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008, 45). Hoyt believed the historical explanation of urban decay helped the argument of trickle down economics because it showed how the wealthier community members’ investments were indirectly helping lower income individuals: “new houses are built only for the well‐to‐do but in time pass on to those of lower income. Thus, society provides housing for the poor not by building directly for them but by letting the wealthier absorb most of the depreciation costs before the house is handed on” (Alonso 1964, 228). Haig (1926),
Burgess (1925), and Hoyt’s (1937) theories are historical because their theories contain parts that move through time, such as: “the aging of structures, sequential occupancy by income levels, and population growth” (Alonso 1964, 227).
Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the pattern of the wealthy vacating their downtown homes because of age has seemed to hold true, but other theorists suggest this pattern can best be explained through a structural analysis,
13 believing that even if homes in the cities’ center had not aged, the wealthy may have still moved to the periphery.
The historical explanation of urban decay and renewal depends on the aging of buildings, which are unsatisfactory to the wealthy. Eventually, the new homes in the suburbs become old, so developers clear old buildings in the city centers, displacing lower‐income citizens, and build new satisfactory homes in the center again. This becomes a cyclical pattern of centrifugal and centripetal forces, where the center and the fringes alternate having the newer, more satisfactory, homes for the wealthy (Alonso 1964, 228).
William Alonso, a planner and economist who became the acting director of
The Center of Population Studies at Harvard University, wrote in Land Economics
(1964) how urban decay and renewal could possibly be better explained through structural analyses of cities. Alonso made the argument that the wealthy may prefer to be on the fringes of urban areas with ample land, so their move to the peripheries was not due to the aging of their housing stock, but because of their desire for more land. The wealthy population’s tastes changed, Alonso argued, “as a result of the structure of the market forces rather than the consequence of historical development” (Alonso 1964, 229). Therefore, according to Alonso and other emerging urban theorists during the mid‐twentieth century, the hollowing out of the city center was occurring due to changing tastes. With increasing accessibility of the automobile, people were able to live farther from work. Edgar M. Hoover and
Raymond Vernon argued in his text The Anatomy of a Metropolis (1959): “high‐ income people use their superior purchasing power to buy lower density housing,
14 but at the cost of a longer journey‐to‐work” (Alonso 1964, 229) and this became the norm throughout the mid‐twentieth century. Alonso even claimed that the increasing preference for ample land throughout the twentieth century may not just be a popular trend in tastes, but a cultural value in North America (Alonso 1964,
230). This would have been the era when Americans had the vision of “the American dream” of a single family home and a white picket fence.
Alonso’s market forces that have influenced the decay of the city center are explained clearly in Jane Jacobs’s (1992) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, as well as by a more contemporary urban theorist Richard Harris (2004), who examined market forces to some extent in the Canadian context in Creeping
Conformity: How Canada Became Suburban. Harris and Jacobs both examine how overcrowding of downtown cores along with government incentives for industries to move to the fringes of cities made the perfect recipe for suburbanization, and therefore, urban decay. Land clearance subsidies became more common from federal and municipal governments (Jacobs 1992, 292). Suburban governments were also giving tax reductions and temporary tax holidays in order to attract employers and developers (Harris 2004, 58).
Along with the financial incentives from federal and municipal governments and other financial institutions, when a business wanted to expand, the opportunity to purchase adjacent properties was becoming less possible in crowded city centers, which helped spur the process of decentralization (Harris 2004, 57). Once factories and other larger businesses moved to the fringes of cities, the workers were soon to follow because it was a win‐win situation for everyone: “Employers were keen to
15 have access to a nearby labour force, and workers were pleased to be able to acquire relatively cheap houses close to their jobs” (Harris 2004, 60).
Harris suggested the movement of workers to the fringes played a major role in the decay of downtown cores. This analysis differs greatly from Haig’s and
Burgess’ historical theories, where they believed the wealthy moved to the fringes of cities because of the aging of their properties, making them less satisfactory, and therefore being forced to move to the suburbs (Alonso 1964, 229). Harris even goes on to state: “In any case, the middle class and the social elite usually were not interested in settling in suburban areas that were shadowed by factory smoke”
(Harris 2004, 60). Perhaps these conflicting explanations show the importance of taking a holistic approach to the topic of urban decay because these conflicting theories illustrate people’s changing tastes as well as the changing times. Haig and
Burgess wrote their theories in the early twentieth century, a time when many factories still existed in the downtown core, making that area dirtier and more apt to be occupied by the working class. Harris’ explanation of urban decay and suburbanization in Canada examines the 1960s, so Harris was able to make arguments based on the new development of industrial parks in the peripheries, whereas older theorists may not have expected industrial parks to be the mode of future urban development.
There is no approach to understanding urban decay that can be considered
“one size fits all.” However, the structural explanations for urban decay seem most persuasive because, as the structural theorists show, people are greatly influenced by trends, tastes, cultures, and the market. As well, in the twenty‐first century, we
16 can see that the wealthy are not forced to move to the fringes to acquire satisfactory homes. They simply renovate or completely demolish and rebuild downtown properties to accommodate their tastes and standards. The wealthy moving to the fringes was less about the aging of their homes and more about their tastes and desires to live the suburban dream away from the dirt, crime, and crowdedness downtown cores were known for during the mid‐twentieth century. The historical approach that Haig and Burgess use, where the wealthy moved to the fringes of the city because there was no other place to go for satisfactory homes may have played some part in the explanation for suburbanization (Alonso 1964, 229), but the structural arguments made by Jacobs (1992), Alonso (1964), and Harris (2004) are most convincing. Indeed, Alonso claims that the historical explanation for urban decay cannot be explained without the structural theories of tastes and market forces (Alonso 1964, 228).
Unpacking Theories of Urban Renewal
Current downtown redevelopments seem to confirm the strength of the structural theories. Many downtown cores (including Dartmouth) still have little to no space to add additional upscale housing for the wealthy, but redevelopment is happening anyway because of the current middle and upper class preference to live in downtown areas. It seems that tastes go hand‐in‐hand with market forces (each affecting the other) to cause redevelopment in downtown areas after the trend of suburbanization has lost its charm. This seems to be the cyclical pattern expected by
Alonso in 1964. This new development is what Alan Ehrenhalt called “The Great
Inversion” (Ehrenhalt 2012). Current patterns in urban renewal help clarify why
17 decay took place originally and challenge strictly historical theories. According to modern theorists, the growing gentrification in downtown cores is “challenging the foundational assumptions of spatial preferences and filtering” (Lees et al. 2008, 46).
There are a few prominent theories to explain the redevelopment of downtown areas. I am focusing on three such theories. The first is that environmental concerns are bringing people back to the core in order to drive less and have less of a carbon footprint in general. A second theory of urban renewal revisits the structural reasons for urban decay: changing preferences and market forces. Lastly, there is the theory of gentrification, which will be unpacked in more depth further on.
More people are being pressured to move back to the high‐density neighbourhoods of downtown cores because of environmental factors. There is a rising trend where people feel inclined to move back to downtown cores in order to lower their carbon footprints. Living downtown means there is less necessity for owning a vehicle because of the convenience of services and the wide array of transportation options. There are also direct environmental movements fighting to stop developments that have negative environmental impacts, such a developments that encourage sprawl. These environmentalists want high‐density city living because it lessens the amount of necessary traffic and decreases the harming of nature (Ross 2011, 76).
Some people, however, are indirectly being affected by environmental factors, such as rising oil costs, which many see as financial pressures. Members of the middle and upper class are now feeling the financial strains of transportation on
18 their daily commutes from the suburbs (Ehrenhalt 2012, 8). This theory for returning to city centers is less around protecting the environment and more about being restrained by the environment and market forces.
Middle and upper classes once again desire living in the action and diversity downtown communities have to offer. The idea of moving back to city centers has also become more appealing because of deindustrialization. Large, dirty, and noisy factories that once resided in downtown areas have been pushed to the peripheries
(Ehrenhalt 2012, 9). Middle and upper class families also tend to follow a trend where once their children grow up and move out of the family home, the older couple wants a more convenient and diverse lifestyle, and ample land and space becomes less of a priority, so they move back to the city center (Alonso 1964, 230).
North America currently has an aging population; could this have anything to do with the increased demand for urban renewal? Some people may be genuinely looking to improve their “cultural health.” This is a term describing Jane Jacobs’ prescriptions for mixed‐use and mixed‐income downtown neighbourhoods because these are more gratifying, vibrant, and safe for everyone. This is certainly a trend that is understandable (Ross 2011, 75). There is also the trend that “cookie‐cutter” houses, typically found in the suburbs, are not aesthetically pleasing. People appreciate and look for a sense of community that has diverse surroundings.
Are the changing preferences of the middle and upper classes so innocent and tied to their desire for cultural health, or are there underlying tones of racism, elitism, or ignorance? This is where the argument for gentrification comes in and it is not difficult to understand why it is a controversial theory. Gentrification literally
19 means “the replacement of an existing population by a gentry” and was first coined by a British urban sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964 (Lees et al. 2008, 4‐5). However, the term “gentrification” has become more loaded since 1964, as it is associated with displacing and excluding lower classes that lived in the core areas now gentrified, as well as creating “chronic shortages of affordable housing” (Lees et al. 2008 44). This demonstrates how gentrification may be effectively reversing the trickle‐down process of the housing market that commenced with the mid‐twentieth century flight to the suburbs, noted in Chapter 2. Lees et al. believe “gentrification is nothing more and nothing less than the neighbourhood expression of class inequality” (Lees et al. 2008, 80).
These gentrification theorists believe the structural theory that led to suburbanization is being continued with gentrification. The middle and upper classes desired ample land and more satisfactory homes. This desire was answered by suburban development, which was helped by government funding and tax breaks.
The preferences of the wealthy have changed. They prefer the convenience and culture of inner cities, and now governments and other financial institutions are catering to this preference. Geographer and Anthropologist Neil Smith (1982) describes this new pattern:
[M]any downtowns are being converted into bourgeois
playgrounds replete with quaint markets, restored townhouses,
boutique rows, yachting marinas, and Hyatt Regencies. These
very visual alterations to the urban landscape are not at all an
accidental side‐effect of temporary economic disequilibrium but
20 are as rooted in the structure of capitalist society as was the
advent of suburbanization (Smith in Lees et al. 2008, 73).
It may be that capitalist powerhouses know what they are doing in their plans for urban redevelopment but homeowners may be unaware of the consequences. It may also be that gentrification is not a zero‐sum game for the lower classes of the areas being gentrified. Much may depend on the individual context of each city’s urban renewal. This is what I explore in the following chapters when I present my qualitative research in the city of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
Explaining urban renewal through this structural theory emphasizes the impact of the market. Governments, real estate developers, and businesses are beginning to invest in local downtown economies, which seem to show the power of changing trends in populations. The major structural forces that may be in play in urban renewal in the twenty‐first century seem to be changing cultural trends and growing environmental concerns. Put simply, I am suggesting it is structural, rather than historical, theories of urban renewal that have the most salience in my community, and the three theories discussed above: environmental forces, changing preferences and market forces, and gentrification, are all just sub‐theories of the structural theory of urban decay and renewal discussed earlier in this chapter. In my interviews with a wide array of community members from downtown Dartmouth, I found evidence that confirms the power of structural forces when it comes to urban decay and renewal.
21 Chapter Three: From Success to Slump
Downtown Dartmouth has undergone a transformation from growth and vibrancy, to decay, to the present renewal process that is taking place. What was once a bustling town full of young families and successful manufacturing industries suffered a major downfall in the mid‐twentieth century. In recent decades,
Dartmouth has had a poor reputation for problems stereotypically related to lower‐ income populations such as homelessness, crime, and addictions (not to say these problems are isolated to lower‐income populations). Until the past few years, downtown Dartmouth supplied ample cheap housing. Recent developments, however, including two large upscale condominiums called King’s Wharf, other more upscale townhouses nearby, more expensive coffee shops and restaurants, a higher‐ end hair salon and spa, and an upward surge in cost of housing all indicate that downtown Dartmouth is undergoing urban renewal. The transformations that have occurred and are currently taking place, as well as the fact that I grew up in downtown Dartmouth and have seen the transformations first hand, are the reasons
I am using this location as a case study for examining and applying theories of urban decay and renewal.
“The Fastest Growing Town in Canada”
Downtown Dartmouth began growing steadily after the establishment of
Halifax in the mid‐nineteenth century. With its proximity to Halifax, downtown
Dartmouth was a convenient location to settle for those starting large industries that would serve the growing city of Halifax, and therefore a convenient place for families to grow with its many job opportunities in the industries. Substantial population
22 growth continued until the mid‐twentieth century. Until then, employment in a variety of industries, as well as the location of the Marine Slips on Dartmouth Cove, were major reasons for expansive settlement in the downtown Dartmouth area.
Downtown Dartmouth contained everything from one of the continent’s most famous skate manufacturing companies (Starr Manufacturing), the Acadia Sugar
Refinery, Plymouth Cordage, to the Dominion Molasses Company, which all supplied goods for Dartmouth residents, the greater city of Halifax, and even much of the
Maritimes (Chapman 2001, 268‐271). The Marine Slips were also located in the downtown Dartmouth area, employing hundreds of workers. These industries were central to downtown Dartmouth’s growth. To accommodate the increasing number of residents, Portland Street and the surrounding area grew to accommodate everything the residents needed. There was a movie theatre, men’s and women’s clothing stores, a furniture store, a jewelry store, and other essential businesses for the community (Chapman 2001, 268‐271).
An August census of 1950 to 1955 reported a growth rate of Dartmouth at four hundred per cent over previous accounts with a population of 20,000 residents
(Chapman 2001, 369). At this time, Dartmouth was considered “the fastest growing town in Canada” (Chapman 2001, 369). Downtown Dartmouth was bustling and vibrant, with active aquatic clubs on Lake Banook, skating on Sullivan’s Pond in winter, increasing enrollment at the local schools, and an expanding Dartmouth newspaper, the Dartmouth Free Press (Chapman 2001, 374). By 1957, the downtown core had reached its limits and needed to expand (Chapman 2001, 369).
23 Fifty Years of Decay
The second half of the twentieth century is not a story of such growth and prosperity for downtown Dartmouth. Market forces such as streamlining of manufacturing, as well as increased worldwide competition, put financial strains on the once successful Dartmouth industries, forcing them to downsize and then ultimately close. Business trends also changed with shopping centres and industrial parks becoming the norm, where businesses could expand and shoppers could get everything they needed in one building. This drained the downtown streets of their shops and industries. Suburbanization, as well as the closures of old downtown schools, played some part in the decline of downtown Dartmouth as well. Long‐term residents’ desire to keep downtown Dartmouth the way it was also played a role in why there were so few new developments happening in downtown Dartmouth. A unique circumstance downtown Dartmouth dealt with, which also had an impact on the area’s demographics, was the deinstitutionalization of those living with mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities at the Nova Scotia Hospital in Woodside, just outside of Dartmouth in the 1970s and 1980s.
Global market forces caused the streamlining of factory work and strengthened competition from foreign competitors. This affected almost all mom‐ and‐pop businesses and local industries, including those in downtown Dartmouth.
Starr Manufacturing, which was most famous for its skate production, could no longer compete with cheaper American and German skates. An early harbinger of the decay of downtown Dartmouth was the closure of the skate division of Starr
Manufacturing in 1939 (Chapman 2001, 271). In 1956, the Dominion Molasses
24 Company was purchased by two Halifax businessmen, who streamlined the operation: “The company was doing brisk business in Ontario and the western provinces” requiring less work in the Dartmouth plant (Chapman 2001, 367). In
1957, Plymouth Cordage on Wyse Road closed after ninety years of business due to labour costs being more expensive locally: “Labour costs on foreign rope products imported locally were estimated at $0.35 an hour compared to local labour costs of
$1.50 an hour” (Chapman 2001, 373). These are just some examples of how difficult it was for local industries to compete with foreign companies and how difficult it was to keep employees with extensive streamlining of production.
A desire for more space was also a trend that would negatively affect the shopping district of downtown Dartmouth. When factories and businesses wanted to expand, they eventually had to move out of their original spaces in the downtown area. They often moved to industrial parks, such as Woodside and Burnside, or newly built shopping centres. A downtown core of small shops became a thing of the past. With the completion of the Angus L. Macdonald Bridge in 1955, the first shopping centre in all of the Maritimes was planned for the Dartmouth side of the bridge and construction began in 1957. The convenience of a shopping centre with its free and ample parking was a hit: “The novel one‐stop‐shopping approach to retail merchandising was the beginning of the end to downtown Dartmouth as the retail centre of the community” (Chapman 2001, 363). As exciting as this was, the downside was the draining of businesses from Portland Street. The logic of the market is a structural force that spurred the hollowing out of the downtown core, as
25 demonstrated in Chapter Two through the arguments of Jane Jacobs (1992) and
Richard Harris (2004).
Another indicator of decay in downtown Dartmouth was the changing demographic from young middle and upper‐class families to a rising number of seniors and low‐income families. These indicators of decay can, again, be explained by a structural argument as outlined in Chapter Two. As William Alonso (1964) argued, changing tastes of residents played a large part in urban decay, and this seems to be a factor in why downtown Dartmouth’s population began aging and hollowing out. Don Chard, a former member of the Halifax Regional School Board and former Member of the Legislature for Dartmouth South (which encompasses downtown Dartmouth) argues the downtown area no longer met the interests of young families. He argues, in line with the structural arguments of William Alonso, that families wanted single‐family homes with yards. New family‐friendly housing with space that families could get outside of the downtown core was not abundant in downtown Dartmouth. Families also liked the idea of small schools with close‐knit communities. In the mid‐twentieth century, the older downtown schools were closed, as was shared by Don Chard. The old Dartmouth High School was located downtown on Ochterloney Street in the historical Greenvale building, but was eventually moved in 1958 to a newer and more modern building on the corner of
Thistle Street and Victoria Road, closer to north Dartmouth (Chapman 2001, 375).
Not having the family‐friendly environment downtown led to an aging population in downtown Dartmouth. Dennis Pilkey (2013), a member of the Public
Good Society of Dartmouth wrote a discussion paper, which outlines the decline of
26 Dartmouth’s population and housing, as well as the challenges they face with a demographic quite different from the rest of the Halifax Regional Municipality.
Pilkey examines Dartmouth Centre, which encompasses a slightly broader range than the downtown Dartmouth area I am examining. Over the past twenty years, the population of Dartmouth has declined by six per cent while the Halifax Regional
Municipality grew twenty‐six per cent over the same time period (Pilkey 2012, 7).
Pilkey’s statistics show that seniors make up a large proportion of the Dartmouth
Centre population, and many of them live alone (Pilkey 2012, 9). The population is seeing a major decline and challenges in comparison to the rest of the Halifax
Regional Municipality: “There are many people living alone, especially seniors, and there are more single parent families existing on low incomes. In fact, incomes for all categories are lower than the earnings of those in the HRM. There is a large part of the population not even in the work force” (Pilkey 2012, iii).
Structural forces such as the tastes of potential residents played a large role in the decay of downtown Dartmouth. The inclinations of downtown Dartmouth residents were also a structural force that inhibited development in their neighbourhoods. Mitch Dickey, a planner for the Halifax Regional Municipality’s
Planning and Development Services, who primarily focuses on the planning of
Dartmouth, illuminated a major structural force that has inhibited growth in downtown Dartmouth. According to Dickey, here are three powerful groups in downtown Dartmouth when it comes to its development: conservative long‐time residents, progressive residents concerned with social justice, and business‐oriented residents. From Dickey’s experience, the only thing these three groups can agree on
27 in terms of development is design and aesthetics. The conservative long‐time residents of downtown Dartmouth are concerned with the height of new buildings in the downtown business core. This has to do with sight‐lines to the harbour and concerns about the community character changing. As Dickey puts it, whenever there are public consultations about development proposals, the topic of height
“becomes the lightning rod.” The force of this group has protected the downtown core from high buildings thus far and causes developments to occur in a sprawling fashion. Prior to 2000, the policies surrounding development in downtown
Dartmouth were actually anti‐development. Dickey discussed how it was very difficult to develop high‐density housing because there was “a perception among some that such housing leads to higher crime rates.” However, as Dickey notes,
“there is no empirical evidence of crime resulting from development… So the crime concern is usually a standard response from people who just oppose community change.” Dickey stated that only since 2000 has higher‐density housing been encouraged in downtown Dartmouth (only in the commercial core), but the conservative group of long‐time residents continues to be a powerful stakeholder.
The structural arguments outlined in Chapter Two help us understand the population decline. The deindustrialization of downtown Dartmouth played a major role in the decline of downtown Dartmouth. A desire for single‐family homes, which can be understood as the common mid‐twentieth century desire of suburbanization, as well as the fear of change in the downtown area, are showing the power people’s tastes have in spurring the decay of the downtown core. Local politicians’ decisions to support conservative residents’ desires for downtown Dartmouth is also a
28 structural force that has aided in the decline of the downtown core and taken away a family‐friendly appeal, leaving behind a population of seniors and those who could only afford cheaper housing, which became the norm of downtown Dartmouth.
Thus, downtown Dartmouth’s decay was quite typical. Market forces of manufacturing streamlining and competition, and tastes for single‐family homes in more suburban neighbourhoods are global trends that few old North American cities could really escape. Older residents’ hostility towards change in their downtown neighbourhoods is not necessarily surprising either. Downtown Dartmouth does, however, have a unique circumstance that many believe also played a role in the decay of the area. In the 1970s and 1980s, a move to deinstitutionalize those living with mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities was on the rise. The Nova Scotia
Hospital, once called the Mount Hope Asylum for the Insane, was established in 1868 as a psychiatric hospital just outside of downtown Dartmouth, in Woodside
(Simpson 1983, 8‐11).
Until the 1970s and 1980s, people with mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities lived in this institution and were not well integrated within a real neighbourhood. The move to deinstitutionalize and integrate people with mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities into the community seemed like a positive step in terms of inclusion and offering more possibilities for independent living.
However, the deinstitutionalization of patients from the Nova Scotia Hospital was done poorly, according to most of my interviewees, who witnessed it firsthand. It is common knowledge in downtown Dartmouth that many of these people were
29 boarded in the rooming houses of slumlords. As Bev Cadham, Program Coordinator and Branch Manager of Among Friends Social Club, notes:
[T]he landlords were not really maintaining their properties…
because I guess they probably didn’t feel they had to. They were
guaranteed an income anyways because all the money came from
Community Services, so whether they kept them up, it didn’t
matter. They were just always going to be occupied. They were
unsightly. They were a health hazard.
The fact that residents were taken advantage of by slumlords was not the only problem that came with the deinstitutionalization of patients from the Nova
Scotia Hospital. There was generally not enough support in the community for these people to be living independently and they were often left to wander the area with little to do. Some even succumbed to homelessness, as Chard recalls. Another common story was how the mixing of these residents into apartment buildings that were predominantly populated by seniors in the downtown area created problems.
When Don Chard served as the Member of Legislature in 1998, he heard many stories similar to this:
Alderney Manor was intended, I think, as a senior’s building, but
the social services people were apparently moving other
populations into the building. So you had people there who had
perhaps been discharged from the Nova Scotia Hospital and if
they were taking their medications, they might be fine, but they
might stop taking their medications and then start having
30 problems. And I was hearing stories about old ladies who were
living in an apartment there. They’d be woken up at two o’clock
in the morning because their next‐door neighbour had run out of
cigarettes.
The patients who were deinstitutionalized from the Nova Scotia Hospital could have had a positive experience integrating into a residential community. There were services for immediate support, such as the soup kitchen called Margaret’s
House, which opened in 1994, the Food Bank, and the Among Friends Social Club for adults living with mental illnesses, which has been in Dartmouth for about fifty years, according to Cadham. Unfortunately, there was inadequate support in the form of proper small options housing (where those with mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities can live in a regular home with a small number of people who are taken care of by support workers or caregivers) or other types of more independent living that provides various supports. This is why it became common to see many mentally ill people in downtown Dartmouth, and from a first glance, what seemed to be many homeless people panhandling or biding time around the different downtown streets.
This poor integration of patients from the Nova Scotia Hospital into the community contributed the decay of the area. Slum landlords also housed major drug production and dealers, which was also common knowledge to the public. As
Cadham recalls, “There were crack houses working out of those rooming houses.
There were always drug busts.” As a child growing up in the area, it was common knowledge that you did not walk downtown without an adult. Many who lived in the
31 area or visited were somewhat scared of the population of mentally ill, homeless, those with addictions, and drug dealers. However, this massive demographic shift could have been avoided if the deinstitutionalization process had been done more carefully and more proper housing options had been planned.
For some time, downtown Dartmouth’s streets, once vibrant and active with young families and successful businesses, became a true example of a decaying city.
As Cadham puts it, “It was quite an active little community and then it kind of fizzled and there was a lot of businesses people opened up that people weren’t exactly pleased with,” including a strip club. There was also a Hell’s Angels club organized in the area for some time, a drug paraphernalia store, and a few bars that still exist, among the few more typically family‐friendly businesses like Fisher’s Stationary,
Janet’s Flower Shop, multiple bank branches, a drug store, and the Alderney Gate
Public Library.
All Adds Up to Structure
The decay of downtown Dartmouth can best be explained by the structural theories outlined in chapter two by Jane Jacobs, Richard Harris, and William Alonso.
The major factors of decay in downtown Dartmouth: market forces, tastes, and government decisions seemed to have little to do with time, as would have been predicted by the historical theories of urban decay outlined in Chapter Two. The structural arguments outlined in Chapter Two specifically emphasize the power of market forces and tastes of residents in urban decay. What makes the decay of downtown Dartmouth unique is the circumstance of deinstitutionalizing patients from the Nova Scotia Hospital and the attempt to integrate them into the downtown
32 Dartmouth community. This information was unexpected in my research. I did not come across anything similar to this situation while reading prominent theories of urban decay. I expected to find that the structural forces of the market and popular trends and tastes have been playing a role in the current renewal process. However, the unique circumstance of a substantial proportion of the population having mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities may also play a significant role in the examination of downtown Dartmouth’s renewal process.
33 Chapter Four: A Layered Renewal Process in Downtown Dartmouth
Since 2000, downtown Dartmouth has undergone a process of renewal spurred by policy changes that are more supportive of new developments. Much has changed in downtown Dartmouth but the renewal process still has a long way to go.
The aesthetic changes to buildings and the developments of upscale condominiums are the most visible changes to downtown Dartmouth in the past decade. There are more businesses in the downtown area, and these new businesses are a new type of business. There is also a shift in the demographic of those who work and live downtown. With the new attractions of downtown Dartmouth come increasing housing costs. All of these characteristics of downtown Dartmouth are positive indicators of renewal.
The reasons for renewal relate back to the structural theories outlined in chapter two, such as changing trends, environmental concerns, market forces but also political agendas and the power of the municipal government. There have been notable setbacks to the renewal process. There is a wide array of people in downtown Dartmouth who have contrasting needs and wants for their community.
While some of the developments and development plans have been well‐received by the community, a large proportion of the community has also been concerned about gentrification and the changing community character. In this chapter I examine to what extent urban renewal has occurred in downtown Dartmouth and what has caused it after years of decay. I also examine whether the policies for urban renewal in downtown Dartmouth, are sufficiently inclusive, fair, thoughtful, and long‐term oriented.
34 Ten Years of Transformation
What began as incremental and unnoticeable change in the area has boomed into a total transformation in the past five years or so. In the early stages of downtown Dartmouth’s development, a condominium was built here or there, but little fuss was made of it. Many wondered: “Who would buy a condo in downtown
Dartmouth?” Now, the environment of downtown Dartmouth is friendly to business developers, artists, real estate agents, and wealthy “empty‐nesters.” Aesthetic changes, such as more attention paid to the streetscape, newer buildings, and businesses with enhanced décor, are major indicators of renewal in downtown
Dartmouth. With aesthetic changes come a demographic that is attracted to the area.
With aesthetic change that attracts more people comes rising rent and real estate prices, which has occurred in downtown Dartmouth. Among these structural forces are more subtle structural forces such as the cultural norms and values that influence local politicians in the municipal government who have played a large role in the decay and renewal of downtown Dartmouth. The politicians’ culturally shaped values and the trend of politicians trying to please those with the most clout are at the centre of their decision‐making, even though this may not be politicians’ intent.
At first hand, if downtown Dartmouth prior to 2000 is compared with downtown Dartmouth in 2014, there are many aesthetic transformations, which tend to surprise people who are familiar with the area’s poor reputation. After years of decrepit housing, disreputable businesses (such as a strip club and drug paraphernalia store) and seeming disinterest for the façade of the neighbourhood, downtown Dartmouth has gained a polished look, with upscale businesses,
35 revamped streetscapes, and more aesthetically‐pleasing properties. More emphasis is placed on features that beautify the area, such as flower boxes, new signs with slogans demonstrating what Dartmouth has to offer, décor during the Holiday season, and a cleaner look in general.
The businesses that have recently opened in downtown Dartmouth also make great efforts to have attractive entrances, signage, and in some cases, outdoor seating and patio settings. The new businesses include a coffee shop, a spa, a fine dining establishment, a candy store, a yarn shop, an art gallery, and a bicycle retailer and repair shop, among others. The most popular new establishment in downtown
Dartmouth is a coffee shop called “Two If By Sea,” which prides itself in its specialty coffees, barista art, and its own coffee bean roasting. It also maintains sunny outdoor seating during the warmer months. It is located in the bottom floor of a new condominium development called “Founders Corner,” which also greatly improved the streetscape of one section of downtown in the past five years. [Photos A – C at end of chapter].
These new businesses have attracted a new demographic compared to that examined in Chapter Three, where there had always been a high percentage of low‐ income families, single mothers, seniors, residents living with mental illnesses, and long‐time residents of the area. This new visible demographic is another indicator of downtown Dartmouth’s renewal. Kevin Little, from the Public Good Society of
Dartmouth, noted “there were always professionals working in the area, but you never saw them on the streets. You saw low‐income people and seniors,” according to Little. Now there are visibly more businesspeople and professionals, and young
36 people who are interested in the new businesses and the atmosphere downtown
Dartmouth has to offer.
The new businesses cater to a higher‐income clientele. Two If By Sea’s selection of drinks will typically cost between three and five dollars compared to a place like Tim Horton’s that costs between one and three dollars. The success of businesses with higher prices is evidence that there is a demographic shift happening in downtown Dartmouth. Establishments like the coffee shop and other higher‐end businesses will continue to attract those who have the money to spend on their products. As Cadham puts it, all of these changes “create a newer, more refreshing look for the downtown core,” but “the members [of Among Friends Social
Club] won’t access the new shops because it is out of their price range” (Cadham
2013).
With the new demographic these businesses are attracting comes more successful upscale housing developments. Single‐family homes, senior‐oriented apartment buildings and slum landlord‐owned properties were what made up most of the housing in downtown Dartmouth for the second half of the twentieth century.
This has shifted dramatically. People are actually attracted to downtown Dartmouth again, for reasons other than low‐cost housing, making it is easier to persuade higher‐income people to move to the area. Downtown Dartmouth has undergone a substantial shift from single‐family homes to condominiums in the past ten years.
Each new condominium seems to be more upscale and grand than the previous.
The King’s Wharf condominium development in downtown Dartmouth is not yet completed, but is already one of the most upscale places to live in downtown
37 Dartmouth. According to its website, King’s Wharf is considered “the premier neighbourhood on Halifax Harbour.” People who buy a condominium at King’s
Wharf can go on “sunset strolls along the Harbour,” “take the elevator to the ocean,” and “cast off from the King’s Wharf dock and arrive at the office with your hair a little windblown but your spirits soaring” (King’s Wharf: Halifax Dartmouth Condos
2014). Just last month as I exited the first floor coffee shop in one of the King’s Wharf condominium developments, there was a sign stating: “2 bedroom apartment for rent. $2100 per month.” That is a rental rate unheard of in downtown Dartmouth. If you examine local listings on the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission’s rental page, most two‐bedroom rentals fall between $700 and $1200 per month
(Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission 2014). Though the higher‐class condominiums are currently an exception to the downtown neighbourhood, the rent and real estate prices for properties downtown have definitely risen in the past ten years, and most dramatically in the past five years. A 2007 housing report showed a three‐bedroom older home in old Dartmouth, or the residential zone of downtown
Dartmouth, cost around $190,000 (REMAX 2007). In 2013, it was estimated the average cost of a home in old Dartmouth was approximately $287,000 (Innovative
Real Estate 2013).
There have only been small pockets of housing developments closer to the style of a single‐family home. There are a few new rows of townhouses in the downtown core, which have also added to the refreshed aesthetic of the area.
However, there is much more of a focus on condominium developments than single‐ family homes and townhouse developments because developers can make more
38 profit from higher condominium developments. What these condominium developers consider affordable, according to Dickey, is around the three hundred thousand dollar range. This does affect the demographic makeup of downtown
Dartmouth. As Don Chard suggests, young families typically desire the single‐family home over apartment‐style living, so the new demographic is swaying more toward older couples (“empty nesters”) and childless businesspeople.
An article in The Coast, entitled “Welcome to the New Dartmouth,” states:
“oddly enough, the ‘new’ Dartmouth figures to skew older. If it follows the HRM’s demographic and condo‐ownership patterns, King’s Wharf won’t be populated by yuppies and artists but by retirees moving from the ‘burbs” (Semansky 2010). This argument is actually not so surprising. As the theories outlining urban renewal in
Chapter Two demonstrate, families tend to want single‐family homes while their children are growing up, but once the children move out, parents desire the action, convenience, and vibrancy that the downtown core offers (Alonso 1964, 230).
Why is Downtown Dartmouth Renewing Now and Who is it Attracting?
The structural forces for urban renewal noted in Chapter Two are at play in the downtown Dartmouth community, but some more than others. The theory of environmental pressures causing a family to move from the suburbs is not unique to downtown Dartmouth. The price of gas is rising, which makes long commutes from suburbs less desirable. In the suburbs, when a family’s children grow up, it almost becomes necessary to have two cars, and this also strains a family’s financial resources with the rising price of gas and the cost of upkeep on a vehicle. There are also residents who believe in the protection of the environment and purposely
39 choose to live downtown in order to lower their carbon footprint. Living downtown offers the convenience of ample metro transit options and the ability to travel by foot or bicycle. However, these environmental concerns were only a minor part of explanations that came from speaking with my interviewees.
One of the major selling points of downtown Dartmouth is its convenience.
From downtown Dartmouth, you can take the ferry to downtown Halifax in about ten minutes. There are also several major bus routes that take you to downtown
Halifax, the industrial park in Burnside, or the shopping centres in Halifax and
Dartmouth. From downtown Dartmouth, the bridge to Halifax is only about a two‐ minute drive away. Some even commute to Halifax by bicycle across the bridge.
Downtown Dartmouth offers the convenience of close proximity to downtown
Halifax, but maintains a small town feel and cheaper housing options. This is an advantage to living in downtown Dartmouth often advertised by organizations like the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission and condominium projects like
King’s Wharf.
With the increasing attractiveness, cleanliness, and safety of downtown neighbourhoods, middle and upper class people are attracted to living downtown again after the trend of suburbanization. As noted in Chapter Two, the deindustrialization of downtown cores made them more appealing to middle and upper classes. In downtown Dartmouth, the renewal process did not take place instantly after the deindustrialization process. This makes sense, however, because it takes time to remove or upgrade old factory buildings and to remove any stigma from what may have been considered an unclean and more industrial community.
40 There also has to be the appropriate housing to attract higher‐class people to an area. Downtown Dartmouth’s transition from industrial to a higher‐end residential and business district has been a slow process, but it does follow the theory of renewal after deindustrialization argued by Alan Ehrenhalt (2012) in Chapter Two.
The arguments for cultural health and the changing tastes of people as they age, which were unpacked in Chapter Two, seem to be having the biggest impact on downtown Dartmouth’s renewal. Downtown Dartmouth is not being renewed in a family‐friendly direction yet. There is not much room to build single‐family homes, so the only young families that are moving in to the area are the few willing to buy and renovate an old home, as noted from some residents in a public consultation around zoning changes in downtown Dartmouth (Halifax Regional Municipality
2007, 7). You will see some new young families in the more residential areas of downtown Dartmouth, but the actual downtown business district continues to be populated by single professionals or “empty‐nesters.” There are some new businesses that attract young people like a bike retail and repair shop, restaurants, and coffee shops, but the majority of businesses and developments seem to be geared to older people who do not have children. They can afford smaller but more luxurious downtown condos and no longer have a need for backyards and extra bedrooms for children. In an interview with Matt Semansky of The Coast, Hugh
Millward, a professor of Geography at Saint Mary’s University explains:
We don’t have the same number of young professionals, even
proportionally, as a city like Toronto, because we don’t have
the same big finance industry downtown… We’re getting a lot
41 of people, a lot of the wealthy Maritimers who are downsizing
from the four‐bedroom suburban house to a smaller, inner‐
city condo, and they can do that because they’ve got the equity
(Millward in Semansky 2010).
With a demand for investment in downtown Dartmouth because of all of the selling points such as convenience, protecting the environment, and vibrancy, many interviewees believe that the renewal of downtown Dartmouth is exciting, but also believe the municipal government is taking an easy way out. Many believe that because one big developer has the money to take on a huge development, like King’s
Wharf, which will attract wealthier and older residents who will spend their equity on the downtown Dartmouth economy, perhaps local politicians find this easier and more profitable than dealing with small‐scale local and community‐oriented redevelopment of properties. Don Chard, the former MLA of downtown Dartmouth recalls all of the red tape his historical society was required to get through in order to revamp an old school building into a cultural community centre. They managed to jump through every frustrating hoop until finally one more item was demanded of them, and they gave up. As Chard notes, the old Greenvale School was turned into upscale condominiums not long after.
With all of these new developments and the refreshing look of downtown
Dartmouth after years of decay, what is the force behind this transformation? Mitch
Dickey, a planner from the Halifax Regional Municipality’s Planning and
Development Services, who focuses on downtown Dartmouth, explained the political forces behind the move to renew downtown Dartmouth. As Dickey notes, prior to
42 2000, the downtown Dartmouth community and its bylaws made for a climate that was very anti‐development. In 1997, the HRM began designating Priority Planning
Projects. The municipal government and Planning and Development Services realized downtown Dartmouth needed a new community plan. They began holding public consultations with residents and businesspeople, where Dickey remembers
“many lively debates” around how to improve downtown Dartmouth. While many residents, developers, and businesspeople wanted to move forward with progressive developments, there was considerable resistance from some long‐time conservative residents who were “concerned about change and liked things the way they were,” as Dickey recalls.
Part of the HRM’s Priority Planning Project includes bringing four thousand more residents to downtown Dartmouth by the year 2020. The current population of the downtown core is 6700 people, Dickey reports. Thus far, he adds, the population has remained stagnant and enrollment in local downtown neighbourhood schools has actually decreased. The HRM wants to encourage families to move to the area, but there are currently few developments that meet the wants of most young families, i.e. single‐family homes. Gloria McCluskey, councilor for downtown
Dartmouth, has some doubts about HRM’s desire to encourage families to move to the area. She believes “downtown Dartmouth has too high a concentration of rooming houses, and development geared to higher‐income residents is a winning move for the neighbourhood right now” (McCluskey in Semanskey 2010); the high‐ income residents that are being attracted are not families but older people. There are some townhouses being built but there is not a great market for townhouses.
43 Developers believe they will make much greater profits from high and upscale condominiums than from townhouses. As well as few single‐family homes being planned, Dickey explains there is no plan in place for affordable housing as of yet.
This is concerning for the lower‐income residents who have resided in the area for a long time and require the services of downtown Dartmouth.
It seems that the Municipality would rather work with more profitable and large‐scale developers than with community members on projects that would benefit the whole community but perhaps not be so profitable. Politicians supporting large‐scale developments over less‐profitable community‐based developments in Nova Scotia may have increased due to Community Services and
Housing switching from a municipal responsibility to a provincial responsibility.
Chard claims the local government is responsible for new property developments but has no responsibility to keep lower‐income or other community needs in mind; therefore, many believe that because they do not have to be concerned with housing or community services that they simply choose not to take it into consideration when making decisions concerning new developments. If this is the case, the renewal of downtown Dartmouth may not be living up to its best potential and decisions may be disproportionately made in the interests of wealthier single professionals and older couples. Millward predicts:
That equity [from older couples and young professionals]
translates into authority, and if the senior‐dominated
downtown Dartmouth condo Admiralty Place is any
indication, empty‐nesters will fight hard for their own vision
44 of downtown, one that doesn’t prioritize a hopping late‐night
scene… Young artists give a neighbourhood hipster
credibility… but an older crowd with cash makes more of an
impact (Millward in Semansky 2010).
This is a somewhat worrisome prediction that could mean further gentrification for downtown Dartmouth residents who do not have the income to keep up with luxury development plans. Council is essentially investing more in individual economic profit over a community coming closer together. Therefore, what may aesthetically and financially renew downtown Dartmouth may hurt the vibrancy and close‐knit community feel, or the “cultural health,” that attracted new residents in the first place.
Although the typical trends of gentrification tend to lead to a friction between businesspeople and developers versus grassroots, non‐profits, and community services, this does not seem to be a major problem in downtown Dartmouth. Tim
Rissesco, the Director of the Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission, said he and other business‐oriented community‐members are well‐aware of the services many in downtown Dartmouth need and use, such as Community Services,
Margaret’s House, and Among Friends Social Club. He believes there is little friction coming from his and others’ business‐oriented approach to improving downtown
Dartmouth. As well, both Kevin Little and Bev Cadham, who are more grassroots members of our community, also believe they have positive relationships with the business‐oriented community members of downtown Dartmouth. Any exclusion of lower‐income residents seems to be coming mostly from the local government. A
45 majority of those interviewed brought up their disappointment with the decisions of the local government to support larger more profitable developments over community oriented developments, and their lack of support for the vulnerable population of downtown Dartmouth.
The displacement of long‐time lower‐income residents is not only coming from the local government’s encouragement of large new developments but from the conservative long‐time residents, who fear either change, people from different backgrounds, or both. They too do not want an increase in non‐profits moving next to them. At a community meeting concerning a zoning regulation that allowed non‐ profits in the downtown neighbourhood zone, many residents were outspoken about certain uses of a nearby property, and it showed a trend of “not in my backyard” prejudices. The particular complaint was stated in the community meeting’s minutes: “concern has been expressed by the community regarding the frequency and geographic concentration of registered non‐profit organizations in the neighbourhoods within the DN [Downtown Neighbourhood] Zone” (Halifax
Regional Municipality 2007, 1). It appears that this specific concern came from the arrival of the Elizabeth Fry Society’s Holly House (the Elizabeth Fry Society is a non‐ profit organization created to rehabilitate women who were in prison for up to two years) to a downtown neighbourhood street. Holly House takes in a small number of women (seven) who can access many services in order to get themselves on a positive track (Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia 2009).
The local councilor of downtown Dartmouth held a public meeting where residents spoke out about concerns around the “unintended impacts” from
46 legislation allowing non‐profits like Holly House into their neighbourhood (Halifax
Regional Municipality 2007, 2). Community members voiced concerns, as outlined in an official HRM document. One resident stated: “What do we have to do to stop this?
We don’t want non‐profit housing in our area” (Halifax Regional Municpality 2007,
6). As well, another resident stated: “the KKK could operate an office in the area under this provision of the LUB [Land Use Bylaw] if they are registered as a non‐ profit” (Halifax Regional Municipality 2007, 8). Another resident stated that she did not purchase her property to live beside non‐profit housing (Halifax Regional
Municipality 2007, 8).
The legislation allowing non‐profit housing projects like Holly House to move to the Downtown Neighbourhood Zone was changed to prevent future such occurrences. Clearly, there is some prejudice about low‐income and disadvantaged people living in the downtown neighbourhood, emanating not from newer residents and developers, but from long‐time residents. However, this could be because of the long‐time residents’ negative experiences with the deinstitutionalization of those with mental illnesses from the Nova Scotia Hospital in the past. These residents may be wary that history will repeat itself, even though these are different situations.
This adds another complication to the renewal process of downtown Dartmouth and gives another reason for concern. With long‐time residents rallying against affordable and rehabilitative housing in their neighbourhoods, and there being no plan for affordable housing in downtown Dartmouth, it seems low‐income residents are not being included in the renewal of downtown Dartmouth.
47 The renewal of downtown Dartmouth has followed many of the trends expected from Chapter Two: changing tastes, environmental concerns and pressures, and an aging population spurring a revival of the downtown core. What was unexpected in the renewal of downtown Dartmouth is the force and possible lack of transparency from the local government, and their one‐sided approach to development that favours large and profitable developments over small‐scale, community‐oriented developments. This force in the development of downtown
Dartmouth may cast a dark shadow over the excitement of its renewal if more displacement of lower‐income residents occurs and downtown Dartmouth becomes less of a close‐knit community.
Photo A: Ochterloney Street before Founder’s Corner condominium development and Two If By Sea Café. Source: “SkyscrapePage Forum”
48
Photo B: Same section of Ochterloney Street as pictured above after Founder’s Corner and Two If By Sea Café were built. Area only looks different because of camera used, making items appear further away. Source: Google Maps.
Photo C: Two If By Sea Café on Ochterloney Street. Source: Google Maps
49 Chapter Five: Conclusion
The analysis of urban decay and renewal is not a new area of study, but it is both exciting and controversial. Much can be learned about the decay and renewal of an urban core by speaking with those involved on the ground, rather than just the politicians or urban planners. This is what makes this analysis valuable to urban studies. I believe the voices of individuals without stature can often be left out of policy planning and making. It is important to research what they can add to already existing theories of urban decay and renewal.
The prominent theories of urban decay and renewal do align with much of downtown Dartmouth’s evolution: growth from local factories that could no longer keep up with global competitors, and the trend of the suburban dream with large new homes and ample space for children to play outside. Downtown Dartmouth certainly followed these structural trends, which ultimately led to its demise.
However, those trends do not add up to the whole picture of downtown Dartmouth’s decay. When it comes to urban renewal, the theories held true as well. Tastes change, especially with age, and people desire the cultural health a downtown can provide. The global structural trends certainly played a big role, but what is seldom mentioned in renewal and decay theories is the powerful role for culturally shaped political trends, in conjunction with a culture of discrimination and conservative values, at least in the case of downtown Dartmouth.
For understanding urban decay and renewal, structural theories are most relevant and persuasive when applied to downtown Dartmouth. Jane Jacobs (1992), for example, demonstrated the importance of a diverse economy. If one successful
50 business is replicated, a community is not diversified, and an area can subsequently be “left beached, in the wake of popularity that (has) moved away” (Jacobs 1992,
244). With downtown Dartmouth’s renewal, there is diversity in the new services.
However, newer businesses are all catering to the same demographic: the middle and upper classes. Planners and business developers seem to have learned from the mistakes Jacobs observes of having a variety of businesses, but they are only partly providing heterogeneity to the community. They are only catering to one demographic, and this could cause the renewal of downtown Dartmouth to be fragile.
The historical theories of Robert Haig (1926) and Ernest Burgess (1925) are not as convincing as structural theories in accounting for Dartmouth’s urban decay and renewal. My research shows that the wealthy or middle class left the downtown core not because they had nowhere else to build downtown, but because they chose a lifestyle of suburbia and the structural forces were against them. Downtown became decrepit because of the loss of business in the area, and the flight of the middle and upper class residents became even more pronounced. First, they found the downtown to be aesthetically unpleasing and there were businesses that made them uncomfortable. Second, they believed it was unsafe because of the demographic that was populating the area more and more. Lastly, they harboured discriminatory views against the demographic that had moved into the downtown core. The desire to come back to the downtown core was again influenced by cultural trends and market forces. These are all structural forces: cultural values, the market, the environment, convenience, and aesthetics, which make the structural
51 arguments for urban decay and renewal much more valid. However, my research shows that global trends are not the only force in urban renewal, and that the political power of a few should not be overlooked.
Based on my conversations with community members, I believe many people from all backgrounds are willing to work together to form a strong and vibrant downtown Dartmouth. Currently, conservative and discriminatory policies are holding back that positive relationship between traditionally opposing sides
(grassroots and businesspeople). There are those who want to revitalize downtown
Dartmouth with large and more upscale condominiums and higher‐end services.
However, there is also a large group of people who provide and use services such as the United Way, the Food Bank, churches, Among Friends Social Club, Community
Mental Health, the Department of Community Services, Holly House, the Public Good
Society of Dartmouth, and many others. These organizations are all clustered in the downtown Dartmouth area; they have a stake in what happens to their community, and act as a force that continues to help lower‐income residents remain safely in the community.
When speaking with business‐oriented people, like Tim Rissesco of the
Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission, and more grassroots‐oriented community members like Bev Cadham of Among Friends, and Kevin Little of the
Public Good Society, both sides understood not only the concerns but also the hopes of the other side. These are the people who really want to help renew downtown
Dartmouth. They are open to housing and services targeted towards the wealthy but
52 just want to protect the voices and needs of the marginal (such as affordable housing). Both sides now believe they have positive relationships with the other.
Alas, conservative politics are preventing this relationship from flourishing.
Some long‐time residents do not want change and some local politicians are maintaining a conservative, and even discriminatory, status quo. This is the main area that needs to change to foster a healthy, vibrant, and diverse community that will not just suffer from what Jane Jacobs (1992) labels “repeated success,” where the whole community revolves around expensive condominiums occupied mainly by older couples and single professionals. If this were to occur, where would be the diversity that young families and local schools add to a community?
A policy that could make for a healthier and more diverse community would be density bonusing, wherein a condominium developer would be allowed to build outside height limits as long as they created something in their building that provided community benefits. This could be affordable housing on a few floors, a community cultural centre, a daycare, or a multitude of other ideas. Paul Johnston,
Coordinator of Corporate Affairs for Halifax Regional Municipality, says downtown
Halifax has this policy in place, but downtown Dartmouth does. Another area that should be revisited is the zoning change that, after the creation of Holly House, no longer allows registered non‐profits in the Downtown Neighbourhood Zone. The documented public discussion shows that that decision was based on prejudiced grounds, and no policies for our community should be based on discrimination or ignorance. This policy maintains a status quo of “not in my backyard.” However, besides such specific policy changes, I think more people need to be informed on the
53 practices of inequality and discrimination that are occurring in our local politics. As well, local residents should be informed of the positive impacts of the many types of groups in our community, and how they can work together to break down the traditional hostility between grassroots and business.
After decades of decay, the renewal process of a downtown core almost inevitably leads to gentrification because with increasing success in a community comes rising prices of rent and real estate, and higher‐end services that are out of the lower‐income residents’ price ranges. What my research finds is that the gentrification of the community does not solely happen because of structural trends innocently transforming the downtown core into something more upscale, but that political leaders, whose values are culturally shaped, fail to stop the displacement, and even abet the unfair and discriminatory policies. Though downtown Dartmouth does follow many of the prominent theories for urban decay and renewal, it has its own unique characteristics that have played just as large a role. What I believe has been most powerful in aiding gentrification are policies that are based on conservative (and sometimes discriminatory) values, which hinder progress and most negatively affect the more vulnerable members of downtown Dartmouth.
54 Appendix: List of Interviewees (in order of appearance)
Don Chard: A resident of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia for decades, Mr. Chard has been involved in the downtown Dartmouth community in numerous ways, including local and provincial politics (a previous Member of Legislature), a past member of the School Board, the Dartmouth Historical Society, and various other groups. Chard is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to the history and politics of downtown Dartmouth
Mitch Dickey: Mr. Dickey is a resident of Dartmouth and a planner for Halifax Regional Municipality’s Planning and Development Services who focuses primarily on the planning of Downtown Dartmouth. Mr. Dickey was able to inform me with statistics and details for plans for the future, as well as shed some light on past and current developments for downtown Dartmouth.
Bev Cadham: While Ms. Cadham does not reside in downtown Dartmouth anymore, she has worked for the Canadian Mental Health Association’s Halifax‐Dartmouth Branch as a program coordinator for Among Friends Social Club, located in downtown Dartmouth, for twenty years. She has a vast knowledge of the population that is affected by mental illness or intellectual disabilities, as well as the low‐income population of downtown Dartmouth in general, and what services are needed to support them.
Kevin Little: A member of the Public Good Society of Dartmouth and navigator of Connections that WORK, Mr. Little is heavily involved in the downtown Dartmouth community by helping lower‐income community members make connections from Food Banks to employment and education programs.
Tim Rissesco: Director of Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission, Mr. Rissesco is a leader in the development and improvement of downtown Dartmouth. The Commission works to increase economic growth as well as the social well‐being for the downtown Dartmouth community through a web of partnerships.
Paul Johnston: Mr. Johnston, Coordinator of Corporate Affairs for Halifax Regional Municipality, an expert when it comes to technical details around the planning of the Halifax Regional Municipality in general. Mr. Johnston was able to summarize municipal zoning laws, the Halifax Regional Municipality’s Charter, as well as alternatives to development that can encourage affordable housing.
55 Bibliography
Alonso, William. “The Historic and Structural Theories of Urban Form: Their Implications for Urban Renewal.” Land Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2 (May, 1964). Accessed 15 Oct. 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3144355.
Burgess, Ernest W. “The Growth of the City” in The City, editors R.E. Park and E. Burgess. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1925.
Chapman, Harry. In the Wake of the Alderney: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 17502000. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: Dartmouth Historical Association, 2001.
Downtown Dartmouth Business Commission. “Renting a Home.” 2014. Accessed 24 Feb. 2014. http://downtowndartmouth.ca.
Ehrenhalt, Alan. The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City. Random House of Canada, Ltd., Toronto: 2012.
“Feeding Others of Dartmouth: Margaret’s House.” Accessed 5 Jan. 2014. http://cultivatingfoodconnections.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/feeding‐ others‐of‐dartmouth‐margarets‐house/.
Google Maps. Accessed 10 Feb. 2014. http://maps.google.com.
Haig, Robert M. “Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics (May, 1926).
Halifax Regional Municipality. “Downtown Dartmouth Land Use By‐Law Amendment – Limiting Institutional Uses.” 14 June 2007. http://www.halifax.ca/commcoun/hecc/documents/070614hecc12.2.pdf.
Harris, Richard. Creeping Conformity: How Canada Became Suburban, 19001960. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2004.
Hoyt, Homer. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington, DC: Federal Housing Administration, 1937.
Hoover, Edgar M. and Raymond Vernon. The Anatomy of the Metropolis. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959.
Innovative Real Estate. “Old Dartmouth Neighbourhood.” 2013. Accessed 24 Feb. 2014. http://www.innovativerealestate.ca/neighbourhoods/old‐ dartmouth/.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage, 1992.
56 "King's Wharf | Halifax Dartmouth Condos." King’s Wharf Halifax Dartmouth Condos. 2014. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. http://kingswharf.ca/.
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K. Wyly. Gentrification. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.
Pilkey, Dennis. “Housing that Works: In Search of the Gap.” The Public Good Society, November 2012. Accessed 15 Dec. 2013. http://www.ahans.ca/TPGSD%20Housing%20that%20Works%20Discussio n%20Paper.pdf.
REMAX. “Affordability Report 2007.” 2007. Accessed 24 Feb. 2014. http://www.adammarshall.ca/graphics/affordability‐report07‐RPT.pdf.
Ross, Andrew. Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Schizophrenia Society of Nova Scotia. “Holly House.” 19 October 2009. Accessed 15 Feb. 2014. http://www.ssns.ca.
Semansky, Matt. "Welcome to the New Dartmouth." The Coast. The Coast, 18 Feb. 2010. Mar. 2013. http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/welcome‐to‐the‐new‐ dartmouth/Content?oid=1525624.
Simpson, V. F. "Excerpts from Nova Scotia Hospital: 125th Anniversary, 1858‐1983" in Nova Scotia Hospital: 125th Anniversary, 18581983. Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History. Accessed 7 Jan. 2014. http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/jerome/contextes/maladiementale /3389en.html.
SkyscraperPage Forum. “Dartmouth: Founder’s Corner.” Accessed 11 Feb. 2014. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=1454
Smith, Neil. “Gentrification and uneven development.” Economic Geography, Vol. 58, No. 2 (1982).
57