NCRP Research Symposium #3

University of Toronto, 19-20 May 2016 

Incomes, Housing, Displacement

1. Who lives in downtown Halifax? Jill Grant   Full Paper   Halifax Neighbourhood Change website
2. Mapping Metro Vancouver’s Debtscape: Findings and Recommendations, Scott Graham

Inequality, Polarization and the Labour Market

4. Income inequality and polarization in the City of Toronto and York Region, presentation by Alan Walks, Mihaela Dinca-Panaitescu, Dylan Simone     Full Report
5. The Pecarity Penalty: The impact on households and communities and what to do about it, presentation, Michelynn Lafleche   Full Report    Report Summary   
6. Next steps: NCRP-PEPSO Labour Market Research, Wayne Lewchuk 
7. Working to end housing poverty & homelessness in Halifax, Kasia Tota

Neighbourhood Change

7. How Haligonians talk about and perceive neighbourhood change, Howard Ramos
8. The role of community-based organizations in neighbourhood collective agency, Jessica Carriere, Emily Paradis

Second Suites and Rooming Houses

9. Secondary suites in Calgary: Politics and policies, Kylee van der Poorten
10. Identifying secondary suites in Hamilton, Kathleen Kinsella
11. Are we losing rooming houses in Halifax? Uytae Lee

Rental Stock and Condos

12. A Vancouver regional perspective on affordability, displacement and social justice, Penny Gurstein, Karla Kloepper
13. The impact of condos on Hamilton since the 1970s, Geoff Rose

EU Divercities Research on the Jane-Finch Neighbourhood

14. Does diversity matter? The EU DIVERCITIES research project & case study of Toronto’s Jane-Finch neighbourhood, Tuna Tasan-Kok, Sara Özogul  DIVERCITIES website  DIVERCITIES research reports about Toronto

David Hulchanski

The tenants of private-sector rental housing experience different problems and different opportunities according to where they live in the Greater Toronto Area, according to a 2014 consultation conducted by Social Planning Toronto.

Tenants in York Region, where the shortage of affordable housing is most acute, are mainly housed in second-suite basement apartments, many of which are illegal. This makes tenant organizing and education work especially difficult. Not surprisingly, York Region has no tenant associations. Moreover, landlords, even of legal units, may be renting as a sideline to other work, and may not know or follow the requirements for accepting tenants or collecting rent. As one housing worker put it, “Some landlords, they treat it as a hobby, not as a professional business. They don’t treat tenants professionally.”

In Peel Region, where there are more multi-family residential buildings and a few tenant associations, the problems have more to do with the need for better regulation and bylaws to protect tenants, better enforcement, and a central advocacy group to advocate for affordable housing. One participant pointed out, “There aren’t the resources to enforce the bylaws. The City [of Mississauga] introduced a second suites bylaw but no new resources or new staff to enforce the bylaw.”

Toronto tenants were concerned about discrimination in rental housing and ineffective enforcement of laws and bylaws. Even within the city, the issues differed by neighbourhood. In central Scarborough, hidden homelessness is a problem, along with rooming house regulation. In the Rexdale and Jane-Finch area, credit checks have been used to exclude social assistance recipients from accessing housing.

Some problems are more universal, from cockroach infestations to harassment by landlords.

The consultation was not all about problems. The leaders heard about responsible landlords, community organizing efforts, public-sector and non-profit initiatives to create or upgrade affordable private rental housing, and even areas in Toronto in which people can get “a new start” because landlords in these areas are less likely to use reference and credit checks.

The findings are drawn from five community consultations organized and facilitated by Social Planning Toronto with service providers, housing advocates, and tenant leaders in Toronto, York, and Peel in fall 2014.

The term “private-sector rental housing” covers an astonishingly diverse range of types of accommodation. There are low-, medium- and high-rises, basement apartments or second suites in homes, rooming houses, apartments over stores and in converted storefronts, motels, houses and condo units for rent, shared housing situations, private seniors’ homes, and mobile homes. Some rental housing takes the form of dormitory-like accommodation, whereby people pay for a small space in a shared room where single beds are lined up on a basement floor similar to a hospital ward.

Each form has its own cluster of issues, and efforts to understand and improve this type of housing need to acknowledge the diversity of the housing forms.

When asked to make recommendations for improvement, participants in the consultations agreed that tenants need more and better information on their rights. One housing worker noted, for example, “Newcomers ask me, ‘If I go to Landlord-Tenant Board, I’m going to court. Am I going to have a criminal record?’ [I say], ‘No, you’re not,’ but they don’t know.” However, no amount of tenant education will help if regulations and rulings are not enforced and there is no requirement for landlords to maintain their properties. As one person noted, “It’s also the accountability, how to hold the landlords more accountable…you’re paying but you’re not actually getting the service.”

Another recommendation that many participants endorsed was a detailed study of the workings of the Landlord Tenant Board with a view to making the system more transparent, ensuring that members have appropriate training, and enforcing meaningful penalties on landlords who break the law.

Participants also wanted to see a more proactive form of regulation rather than the current complaints-based approach. This would involve hiring more inspectors to check on rental housing regularly.

Perhaps the most difficult problem to solve is the public perception that renting is somehow inferior to owning and that renters are unreliable or untrustworthy transients. As one participant put it, “[In York Region,] there is a split in the community. The owners are the ‘good’ people and the renters are the ‘bad’ ones. Lots of people don’t realize the [rental housing] situation. There’s lots of judgment and stigma. People have no choice about their living conditions. They want to live in better conditions. They can’t afford it.” These attitudes may be harder to address than simply problems with the physical conditions of rental housing.

Full report: Private-Sector Rental Housing in Toronto

Social Planning Toronto (SPT) is a community non-profit organization that works to improve the quality of life of Toronto residents. SPT is a partner with the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership. The report was written by Israt Ahmed, Mohammad Araf, and Beth Wilson.

2021

Benoit, A. & Townshend, I (2021). Income Polarization and Participation in Community Organizations in Calgary: Summary Report. Toronto: University of Toronto, NCRP Research Paper 246. 52 pages.  Download PDF

Pham, S. (2021). Applying Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing to Spatial Time-Series Analyses of Metropolitan Regions. Toronto: University of Toronto, NCRP Research Paper 245. 29 pages.  Download PDF

2020

Grant, J., Walks, A., & Ramos, H. (Eds.). (2020). Changing Neighbourhoods: Social and Spatial Polarization in Canadian Cities. Vancouver: UBC Press.  348 pages, 12 Chapters, 26 maps, 20 charts, 21 tables.  Chapters 4 to 10: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Hamilton, Halifax, Calgary, Winnipeg.  Website    Sample Chapter

• “This book is an invaluable resource for planners, policy makers, NGOs, community activists, and students seeking to understand the driving forces behind neighbourhood change.”  – Brian Doucet, Canada Research Chair in Urban Change and Social Inclusion, University of Waterloo
• “Sets the benchmark for future discussions about urban inequality in Canada.”  – Nathanael Lauster, associate professor of sociology, University of British Columbia

2019

Belanger, Y.D., Dekruyf, K.A., Moncrieff A., Kazakoff, T. (2019). The Urban Indigenous Housing Experience of NIMBY-ism in Calgary, Alberta. Final Report prepared for the Aboriginal Standing Committee on Housing and Homelessness, Calgary, Alberta. Download PDF

Grant, J. L., Derksen, J., & Ramos, H. (2019). Regulating marginality: how the media characterises a maligned housing option [Rooming Houses]. International Journal of Housing Policy, 19:2, 192-212.  Download Abstract & References

Grant, J. L., Lee, U., Derksen, J., & Ramos, H. (2019). Neighbourhood Change and the Fate of Rooming Houses. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 110(1), 54-69. Download PDF

Hulchanski, J.D. (2019). The Divided Cities and Neighbourhood Change Literature: A Selected Bibliography, Toronto: NCRP Working Paper, last revised 13-Oct-2019.  Download PDF

Maclennan, D., Pawson, H., Gibb, K., Chisholm, S., & Hulchanski, D. (2019) Shaping futures: Changing the housing story, Australia, Britain, Canada. Glasgow: Policy Scotland, University of Glasgow, March 2019. 114 pages. Report & Shaping Futures Website

Simone, D., & Walks, A. (2019). Immigration, race, mortgage lending, and the geography of debt in Canada’s global cities. Geoforum 98, 286-299. Download PDF

2018

de Castro Marasco, R. (2018). The Divided City: Income Inequality and Housing Disadvantage in Calgary, MA Thesis, University of Lethbridge (Ivan Townshend, Supervisor). Download PDF 

Leloup, X., & Rose, D. (2018). La nouvelle géographie sociale de Montréal : évolution de la distribution socio-spatiale du revenu entre 1980 et 2015 dans la région métropolitaine de Montréal. Montréal: Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Centre Urbanisation Culture Société. Télécharger PDF

Leloup, X. & Rose, D. (2018). The New Social Geography of Montreal: The socio-spatial evolution of income distribution between 1980 and 2015 in the Montreal Metropolitan Area. Montréal: Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Centre Urbanisation Culture Société. Download PDF

Germain, A., Leloup, X., Rose, D., Torres, J., Préfontaine, Ch. et al. (2018). La qualité de vie dans les projets résidentiels de grande densité incluant du logement abordable. Quelques leçons. Montréal, Québec: INRS et Ville de Montréal. Direction de l’habitation.  Download PDF

2017

Brail, S., & Kumar, N. (2017). Community leadership and engagement after the mix: The transformation of Toronto’s Regent Park. Urban Studies. First published online January-11-2017. Download PDF  

Brail, S., Mizrokhi, K. & Ralston, S. (2017). Examining the transformation of Regent Park, Toronto: Prioritizing hard and soft infrastructure. In Urban Transformations: Geographies of Renewal and Creative Change, edited by N. Wise and J. Clark. New York: Routledge, pp. 177-194.

Mihaela Dinca-Panaitescu, M., Hulchanski, D., Laflèche, M., McDonough, L., Maaranen,R. & Procyk, S. (2017) The opportunity equation in the Greater Toronto Area: An update on neighbourhood income inequality and polarization. Toronto: United Way Toronto and York Region. 43 pages. Download PDF

Gallagher, K., Starkman, R., & Rhoades, R. (2017). Performing counter-narratives and mining creative resilience: using applied theatre to theorize notions of youth resilience. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(2), 216-233.

Germain, A., avec la collaboration de X. Leloup, D. Rose, Ch. Préfontaine-Meunier et Ch. Lippé-Maheu (2017). La mutation d’un quartier: la Cité de l’Acadie. Montréal, Québec : INRS et PRQT.  Download PDF

Walks, R. A. (2017). Metropolitanization, Urban Governance, and Place (In) equality in Canadian Metropolitan Areas. In Inequality and Governance in the Metropolis (pp. 79-106). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

2016

Ahmed, I., Araf, M., & Wilson, B. (2016). Private-sector rental housing in greater Toronto: Towards a research agenda. Toronto: Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership & Social Planning Toronto. 26 pages.  Click here for the Report & the Blog about it

Carriere, J., Howarth, R. & Paradis, E. (2016). Connecting the power of people to the power of place: How community-based organizations influence neighbourhood collective agency. Toronto: University of Toronto, Neighbourhood Change Research Paper. 52 pages.  Download PDF

Carriere, J. (2016). Neighbourhood collective efficacy: A scoping review of existing research. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 239. 42 pages.   Download PDF

Gosse, M., Ramos, H., Radice, M., Grant, J.L., Pritchard, P. (2016). “What affects perceptions of neighbourhood change?” The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 60(4), 530-540.

Grant, J. L., & Gregory, W. (2016). Who lives downtown? Neighbourhood change in central Halifax, 1951–2011. International Planning Studies, 21(2), 176-190.

Harris, R. (2016). The historical paradoxes of affordable housing. Alternatives Journal (forthcoming, spring).

Jones, C.E., & Ley, D. (2016). Transit oriented development and gentrification along Metro Vancouver’s low?income SkyTrain corridor. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, (60)1, 9-22.

Leloup, X., Desrochers, F. et Rose, D. (2016). Les travailleurs pauvres dans la RMR de Montréal: profil statistique et distribution spatiale. INRS Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Centraide du Grand Montréal, Montréal.  Download PDF

Leloup, X., Desrochers, F. et Rose,D. (2016). Les travailleurs pauvres dans la RMR de Montréal : profil statistique et distribution spatiale. Rapport abrégé. INRS Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Centraide du Grand Montréal, Montréal.  Download PDF

Leloup, X., Desrochers, F. & Rose, D. (2016). The Working Poor in the Montréal Region: Statistical Profile and Spatial Distribution. Abridged Report. INRS Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Centraide du Grand Montréal, Montréal.  Download PDF

Logan, J., & Murdie, R. (2016). Home in Canada? The settlement experiences of Tibetans in Parkdale, Toronto. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17(1), 95-113.

Miller, B. (2016). A New Kind of Suburb? Suburban Planning and Development under Calgary’s Sustainability-Focused Municipal Development Plan. Forthcoming.

Townshend, I., Miller, B. & Evans, L. (2016, In press). Socio-Spatial Changes in Neighbourhood Income Characteristics in Calgary: An Exploration of the Three Cities Model. 22 pages.

Townshend, I. & Coppola, F. (2016). Changing Patterns and Segregation of Seniors in Calgary, 1981-2006: Are There Links to the Three Cities Model? Forthcoming.

Townshend, I. & Coppola, F. (2016). Visible Minorities in Calgary’s Neighbourhoods: A Three Cities Perspective on Changing Patterns of Segregation 1981-2006. Forthcoming.

Townshend, I., & Donoghue, D. (2016). A Method for Identifying Typologies of Neighborhood Social Structural Transformation through Space and Time in an Urban System. Forthcoming.

Walks, A. (2016). Homeownership, asset-based welfare and the neighbourhood segregation of wealth. Housing Studies, 31(7), 755-784.

Alan Walks, A., Dinca-Panaitescu, M., & Simone, D. (2016). Income inequality and polarization in the City of Toronto and York Region Part I: Examining levels and trends from spatial and non-spatial perspectives. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto,  and NCRP, Research Paper #238.   Download PDF    Download Powerpoint Presentation

2015

Davies, W.K.D., & Townshend, I.J. (2015). New Urbanisms: From Neo-Traditional Neighbourhoods to New Regionalism. Chapter 2 in Davies, W.K.D (Ed). Theme Cities: Solutions for Urban Problems. Springer, pp. 17-62.

Dinca-Panaitescu, M. & Walks, A. (2015). Income inequality, income polarization, and poverty: How are they different? How are they measured? Toronto: Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership.   Download PDF

Distasio, J. & Kaufman, A. (2015). The divided prairie city: Income inequality among Winnipeg’s neighbourhoods, 1970-2010. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies. 110 pages.  Download PDF   Download Summary

Grant, Jill L. & Gregory, W. (2015). Who lives downtown? Neighbourhood change in central Halifax, 1951 to 2011. International Planning Studies. DOI: 10.1080/13563475.2015.1115340

Harris, R., Dunn, J. & Wakefield, S. (2015). A city on the cusp: Neighbourhood change in Hamilton since 1970. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, Research Paper 236. 33 pages.   Download PDF

Hulchanski, J.D. (2015). Unrealized Renewal, Chapter in The Ward: The Life and Loss of Toronto’s First Immigrant Neighbourhood, edited by John Lorinc et al., Toronto: Coach House Press.

Jones, C.E. (2015). Transit-oriented development and gentrification in Metro Vancouver’s low-income SkyTrain corridor. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 237. 41 pages.   Download PDF

McLean, H., Rankin, K. & Kamizaki, K. (2015). Inner-Suburban Neighbourhoods, Activist Research, and the Social Space of the Commercial Street, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), 1283-1308. Open access.

Prouse, V., Ramos, H., Grant, J. L., & Radice, M. (2014). How and when scale matters: the modifiable areal unit problem and income inequality in Halifax. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Canadian Planning and Policy Supplement, 23(1), 61-82.

Rankin, K.N., & McLean, H. (2015) Governing the Commercial Streets of the City: New Terrains of Disinvestment and Gentrification in Toronto’s Inner Suburbs, Antipode, 47, 216–239.

Rosen, G., & Walks, A. (2015). Castles in Toronto’s sky: Condo-ism as urban transformation. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(3), 289-310.

Roth, N., & Grant, J.L. (2015). The story of a commercial street: growth, decline, and gentrification on Gottingen Street in Halifax. Urban History Review 43(2): 38-54.

Stapleton, J. (2015). The working poor in the Toronto region: Mapping working poverty in Canada’s richest city. Toronto: Metcalf Foundation. 40 pages.

Suttor, G. (2015). Rental housing dynamics and lower-income neighbourhoods in Canada. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 235. 50 pages.  Download PDF

United Way Toronto. (2015). The opportunity equation: Building opportunity in the face of growing income inequality. Toronto: United Way Toronto. 119 pages.   Download PDF

Werner, A., Distasio, J., & McCullough, S. (2015). Living in the red: Exploring Winnipeg’s debt-scape. Winnipeg: Institute for Urban Studies, IUS In-Brief Series. 12 pages.

2014

Ghosh, S. (2014). Everyday lives in vertical neighbourhoods: Exploring Bangladeshi residential spaces in Toronto’s inner suburbs. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 2008-2024.

Harris, R. (2014). Why neighbourhoods matter more than ever. Paper prepared for The Urban Forum, University of Chicago, April 24-25, 2014. 27 pages.

Hulchanski, J. D. (2014). Toronto’s mayoral election in four maps. Blog entry published at spacing.ca, 29 October. http://spacing.ca/toronto/2014/10/29/torontos-mayoral-election-four-maps/

Kaufman, A., & Distasio, J. (2014). Winnipeg’s vanishing rooming houses: Change in the West Broadway and Spence neighbourhoods. Winnipeg: Institute for Urban Studies, IUS In-Brief Series. 20 pages.   Download PDF

Kaufman, A., & McCracken, M. (2014). Winnipeg must save its rooming houses. Op-ed published in Winnipeg Free Press, 25 April. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/winnipeg-must-save-its-rooming-houses-256652091.html

Murdie, R., Maaranen, R. & Logan, J. (2014). Eight Canadian metropolitan areas: Spatial patterns of neighbourhood change 1981-2006. A typology based on a combined statistical analysis of census tract data. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, Research Paper 234. 85 pages.   Download PDF   Summary Report   Set of Maps

Murdie, R. & Logan, J. (2014). Bibliography and review of neighbourhood typologies with a focus on Canada, the United States, and Australia/New Zealand. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, Research Paper 233. 59 pages.   Download PDF

Paradis, E., Wilson, R. & Logan, J. (2014). Nowhere else to go: Inadequate housing and risk of homelessness among families in Toronto’s aging rental buildings. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, Research Paper 231. 47 pages.   Download PDF

Procyk, S. (2014). Understanding income inequality in Canada. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, Research Paper 232. 35 pages.   Download PDF

Prouse, V., Grant, J., Radice, M., Ramos, H. & Shakotko, P. (2014). Neighbourhood change in Halifax Regional Municipality, 1970-2010: Applying the “Three Cities” model. Halifax: Dalhousie University. 56 pages.   Download PDF    Powerpoint Presentation

Rankin, K. and H. McLean (2014) Governing the commercial streets of the city: New terrains of disinvestment and gentrification in Toronto’s inner suburbs, Antipode.

2013

Hulchanski, J. D. & Murdie, R. (2013). Canada’s income polarization trend: An international and a four metropolitan area comparison. Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership Policy Brief #4, April 2013. Submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance for its study on income inequality in Canada. 10 pages.

Hulchanski, J. D., Murdie, R., Walks, A., & Bourne, L. (2013). Canada’s voluntary census is worthless. Here’s why. Op-ed published in The Globe and Mail, 4 October. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-voluntary-census-is-worthless-heres-why/article14674558/

Murdie, R., Logan, J., & Maaranen, R. (2013). Eight Canadian metropolitan areas: Who lived where in 2006? Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 229. 50 pages.  Download PDF   Set of Maps

(Summary) Murdie, R., Logan, J. & Maaranen, R. (2013). Who lived where in 2006? A neighbourhood typology of eight Canadian metropolitan areas. Toronto: Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership. 13 pages.   Download Summary PDF

Rankin, K., Kamazaki, K., & McLean, H. (2013). The state of Business on Weston Road: Disinvestment and Gentrification in Toronto’s Inner Suburbs, Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 226.

Rose, D. & Twigge-Molecey, A. (2013). A city-region growing apart? Taking stock of income disparity in Greater Montréal, 1970-2005. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 222. 58 pages. (Also available in French as Research Paper 222f).   Download English PDF   Download French PDF

 (Summary) Rose, D. & Twigge-Molecey, A. (2013). Une métropole à trois vitesses? Bilan sur les écarts de revenu dans le Grand Montréal, 1970-2005. Montréal: Centre – Urbanisation Culture Société, Université INRS. 8 pages.

Rose, D., Germain, A., Bacqué, M., Bridge, G., Fijalkow, Y., & Slater, T. (2013). ‘Social mix’ and neighbourhood revitalization in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local policy discourses and expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montréal (Canada). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 430-450.

Twigge-Molecey, A. (2013). The spatial patterning of wealth and poverty in the Montréal region, 1971-2006: A literature review. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 230. 53 pages.   Download PDF

Walks, A. (2013). Income inequality and polarization in Canada’s cities: An examination and new form of measurement. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 227. 124 pages.   Download PDF

Walks, A. (2013). Canada growing unequal: The evidence and the need for labour market and tax reform. Brief submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance for its study on income inequality in Canada, 5 April. 5 pages.

2012

Black, J. (2012). The financing and economics of affordable housing development: Incentives and disincentives to private-sector participation. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 224. 50 pages.   Download PDF   Research Bulletin Summary

Ley, D. & Lynch, N. (2012). Divisions and disparities in Lotus-land: Socio-spatial income polarization in Greater Vancouver, 1970-2005. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Paper 223. 38 pages.   Download PDF

Murdie, R. (2012). In a state of good repair? The City of Toronto’s public housing. Toronto: Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, University of Toronto, NCRP Policy Brief #1. 12 pages.

Walks, A. (2012). Anything but scattered: The proposed sale of Toronto Community Housing’s standalone scattered-site housing and implications for building an inclusive Toronto. Toronto: Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, University of Toronto, NCRP Policy Brief #2. 9 pages.

Walks, A. (2012). Canada’s new federal mortgage regulations: Warranted and fair? Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto, and NCRP, Research Bulletin 46. 15 pages.

2011

Mazer, K. M., & Rankin, K. N. (2011). The social space of gentrification: the politics of neighbourhood accessibility in Toronto’s Downtown West. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(5), 822-839.

Murdie, R., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Does spatial concentration always mean a lack of integration? Exploring ethnic concentration and integration in Toronto. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(2), 293-311.

Murdie, R., & Teixeira, C. (2011). The impact of gentrification on ethnic neighbourhoods in Toronto: A case study of little Portugal. Urban Studies, 48(1), 61-83.

Rankin, K. N., & Delaney, J. (2011). Community BIAs as practices of assemblage: Contingent politics in the neoliberal city. Environment and Planning A, 43(6), 1363-1380.

2008

Walks, R. A., & Maaranen, R. (2008). Gentrification, social mix, and social polarization: Testing the linkages in large Canadian cities. Urban Geography, 29(4), 293-326.  Download PDF

By Robert A. Murdie, Professor Emeritus, York University

I first knew Jenn as a member of her thesis supervisory committee at York University and more recently as collaborator on a variety of projects associated with research on neighbourhood change at the University of Toronto.

Jenn completed her master’s degree in Geography at York University in 2010, working with Valerie Preston and myself. Her thesis focused on the ability of Tibetan refugees to create ‘home’ in Parkdale and how ‘home’ is understood by a group of Tibetan women.

Based on the thesis research and additional material from interviews of Tibetans who participated in a study of tenants in Parkdale’s high-rise apartments funded by a Community University Research Alliance (CURA) grant (a forerunner to NCRP) we co-wrote an article in the Journal of International Migration and Integration.

• Jennifer Logan and Robert Murdie (2014) “Home in Canada? The Settlement Experiences of Tibetans in Parkdale, Toronto,” Journal of International Migration and Integration, published online and forthcoming in print.

Jenn was a research assistant with the NCRP assisting me with the development of the now published neighbourhood typologies. Based on a joint analysis of census tract data for eight Canadian census metropolitan areas this research produced a neighbourhood typology for 2006 and a typology of neighbourhood change for 1981-2006. As background to these studies Jenn and I also developed a bibliography and review of neighbourhood typologies with a focus on Canada, the United States, and Australia/New Zealand.

• Robert Murdie, Richard Maaranen and Jennifer Logan (2014) Canadian Metropolitan Areas: Spatial Patterns of Neighbourhood Change, 1981-2006, Cities Centre UofT & Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, Research Paper 234. 85 pages. Download PDF
• SUMMARY report: How Neighbourhoods are Changing: A Neighbourhood Change Typology, 1981-2006.  Download PDF

• Robert Murdie, Jennifer Logan and Richard Maaranen (2013) Eight Canadian Metropolitan Areas: Who Lived Where in 2006? Cities Centre UofT & Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, Research Paper 229. 44 pages.  Download PDF
• SUMMARY report: Who Lived Where in 2006.  Download PDF

• Robert Murdie and Jennifer Logan (2014) Bibliography and Review of Neighbourhood Typologies with a Focus on Canada, the United States, and Australia/New Zealand, Cities Centre UofT & Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, Research Paper 233. 58 pages.  Download PDF

While involved with the NCRP Jenn also assisted Emily Paradis in a study exploring the continuum of inadequate housing, risk of homelessness, and visible homelessness among families in Toronto’s rental buildings.

• Emily Paradis, Ruth Marie Wilson and Jennifer Logan (2014) Nowhere Else to Go: Inadequate Housing and Risk of Homelessness Among Families in Toronto’s Aging Rental Buildings, Cities Centre UofT and Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, Research Paper 231. Download PDF

Beyond her academic achievements, Jenn was an invaluable colleague and friend. She had great people skills and an appreciation of other cultures. Jenn’s friends speak of her humanitarian activities beginning at age 18 with Katimavik, the volunteer service programme begun by Pierre Trudeau (and cancelled abruptly by the Harper government), followed by three months in Nepal tutoring women when doing her undergrad work at the University of Winnipeg. She also chaired the World University Service of Canada chapter at the University of Winnipeg. Following her master’s programme she worked with women in India.

Jenn returned from Saudi Arabia in late 2014 where she had been teaching English for a few months. Early in 2015 she went to a retreat in the Peruvian rain forest.

On this and many earlier trips she was on a spiritual journey searching out new opportunities and trying to find her self. She was not yet ready to settle down.

While in Peru, Jenn died of a “tobacco tea purge” that went horribly wrong. She was not reckless but she was adventurous, travelled extensively and engaged in a variety of spiritual retreats. In short, Jenn wanted to change the world.

Until her untimely death she maintained an interest in the settlement experiences of new immigrants, their evaluation of “home”, and the role of housing in immigrant integration. Jenn was a valued member of the Neighbourhood Change research team and contributed substantially to various publications of the project.

I last saw Jenn in December when she came to our condo for lunch and an afternoon of reflection. She was excited about going to the retreat in Peru and about the pull of the Middle East. But I think she realized the dangers that region posed so was turning her attention to a job teaching English in Japan.

Jenn’s embrace that day reminded me of the hug she received from Amma at the ashram in India as reported in her blog, “Can a Hug Change Your Life?” With her love and service, in addition to a hug, Jenn enhanced the lives of many she encountered in her travels throughout the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Maclean’s Magazine, “Jennifer Joy Logan, 1982-2015,” by Luc Rinaldi, 24 February 2015 

Canadian Press, “Canadian dies in Peru: Jennifer Logan of Saskatoon,” 4 February 2015

Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership (NCRP / PRQT)

A brief introduction to our research (4 page PDF):   NCRP: English     PRQT:  Français

Principal Investigator 

J. David Hulchanski, PhD, Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, Dr. Chow Yei Ching Chair in Housing, Research Associate, Cities Centre, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V4, Canada     

Richard Maaranen, MA (Spatial Analysis), Data Analyst, Research Associate, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Cities Centre, University of Toronto

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Six Metropolitan Area Team Leaders

Vancouver

David Ley, PhD, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 1984 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T1Z2, Canada     

Calgary

Ivan Townshend, PhD, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1K 3M4, Canada    

Winnipeg

Jino Distasio, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Director, Institute of Urban Studies, Associate Vice-President, Research and Innovation, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 2E9, Canada      

Toronto

R. Alan Walks, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Geography & Programme in Planning, Research Associate, Cities Centre, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Rd., Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6

Montréal

Damaris Rose, PhD, Professeure titulaire / Professor, Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Université INRS, 385 rue Sherbrooke Est, Montréal, QC, H2X 1E3  

Halifax

Jill Grant, PhD, Professor, School of Planning, Dalhousie University, Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada   

Voici des publications réalisées dans le cadre du Partenariat de recherche sur les quartiers en transition, basé à la Faculté de travail social Factor-Inwentash et au Cities Centre de l’Université de Toronto. La recherche est financée par le Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines du Canada. Pour plus d’informations sur les subventions obtenues, voir l’onglet ABOUT. Une description de l’équipe de recherche de Montréal, basée au Centre Urbanisation Culture Société de l’Université INRS, est disponible sous l’onglet CITIES.

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto’s Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Cities Centre. The research is funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These grants are described on this website at the ABOUT tab. The Montréal team, based at Unversité INRS – Centre Urbanisation Culture Sociétéis, is described at the CITIES tab.

[binnash_bookmark_list].

Policy Briefs provide succinct and timely commentary on policy issues based on research carried out by members of the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto. The research and its dissemination are supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The views expressed are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the research team, the university, or the funder.

J. David Hulchanski and Philippa Campsie, General Editors

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto’s Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Cities Centre. The research is funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These grants are described on this website at the ABOUT tab.

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto’s Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Cities Centre. The research is funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These grants are described on this website at the ABOUT tab.

Tower Neighbourhood Renewal in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: An Analysis of High-Rise Apartment Tower Neighbourhoods Developed in the Post-War Boom (1945-1984)

by E.R.A. Architects, planningAlliance, and the Cities Centre, University of Toronto

For the Ontario Growth Secretariat, Ministry of Infrastructure, Government of Ontario. November 2010

In 2010 a major study of rental apartment buildings over eight storeys constructed between 1945 and 1984 was released by the Government of Ontario.

One-third of of all renters in the Toronto region (defined as the “greater golden horseshoe”) and 48 per cent of the City of Toronto’s renters, live in these tower neighbourhoods.  Renters, an average, have half the income of homeowners. Many of the tower neighbourhoods have high rates of poverty.

With many Apartment Towers now fifty years old, this housing stock requires significant reinvestment. Many of the Toronto area researchers associated with the Neighbourhood Change initiative helped establish the Tower Renewal Network to advocate for a comprehensive approach to community renewal in the tower neighbourhoods.

Tower Neighbourhood Renewal, as a complete bottom-up community development process, can bring together refurbishment of individual buildings with a program for environmental, social and economic renewal of entire neighbourhoods. In so doing, it can help create complete, prosperous, equitable and sustainable communities.

Research on tower neighbourhoods is one important focus of the Neighbourhood Change initiative.

__________________________________________________________

The following is an except from the executive summary of the report.

___________________________________________________________

The Greater Golden Horseshoe’s (GGH’s) pattern of urbanization is unique in North America. A major contributing factor to this urban form is the significant development of high-rise modern apartment housing that occurred in the postwar period, roughly between 1945 and 1984, though concentrated between 1960 and 1980. There are nearly 2,000 post-war Apartment Towers located throughout the region as a result of post-war planning policies that encouraged the “tower-in-the-park” housing model and higher density apartment clusters in new suburban communities.

Though unique in North America, the region’s decentralized clusters of modern towers share similarities with post-war housing developments found the world over, with particular concentrations in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and parts of Asia. In many of these locations, the revitalization of aging tower clusters and their neighbourhoods has been recognized as a key strategy for achieving contemporary urban planning goals of low-carbon, prosperous, and equitable communities. With the European Union showing particular leadership in this field, post-war Apartment Tower Neighbourhoods have emerged as model low carbon communities and centres of social and economic development, through targeted green refurbishment and integrated processes of neighbourhood renewal.

Throughout this report, this process will be defined as Tower Neighbourhood Renewal, and residential buildings that are eight storeys and above, constructed between 1945 and 1984, will be referred to as Apartment Towers.

Findings Related to Current State of Apartment Towers

• Apartment Towers are a major component of the GGH’s housing stock. There are 1,925 Apartment Towers in the GGH. Collectively these towers are home to approximately one million people.
• Apartment Towers represent one-third of the GGH’s rental housing stock, and 48 per cent of the City of Toronto’s rental stock.
• Apartment Towers are among the highest energy users of all housing types inthe region, requiring as much as 25 per cent more energy per square metrecompared to a single detached house. Similarly, they typically have low wastediversion rates of less than 12 per cent.
• Apartment Towers are very closely linked to areas of social need. Seventy-seven per cent of all Apartment Towers in the GGH are found in Census DisseminationAreas considered to have high or very high social need, while only 12 percent of towers are found in areas considered to have low or very low social need.
• Apartment Towers in the GGH are generally found in clusters. In the GGH, 89 per cent of all Apartment Towers are found in clusters of two or more, and 62 per cent are found in large clusters of five or more. The largest of these Apartment Tower clusters contain more than 10,000 households.
• Apartment Towers are generally situated on large land parcels of 1 hectare or more. This is a legacy of open space ratios that were encouraged to achieve the “tower-in–the-park” configuration, with 80 to 90 per cent of the site area left asopen space. The total land resource in the GGH on which Apartment Towers are situated is 2,198 hectares. More than half of apartment properties are directly adjacent to another apartment property, creating clusters of adjoined open space.
• Residents of Apartment Towers tend to rely more on transit, walking and cycling to get around than other residents of the region. Sixty-two per cent of Apartment Towers are within areas with higher than average public transit use for their respective municipalities. Fifty-eight per cent of Apartment Towers are in zones with higher than average rates of walking and cycling. Seventy per cent are located in zones with lower than average car ownership rates.

For a PDF of the text on this webpage, click here.

RESEARCH ON NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE

Of what practical use is it?

..

• Neighbourhood research makes it possible to link local issues to their broader contexts, causes, and potential solutions. No neighbourhood is an island. Research raises awareness of and public sensitivity to the broader forces affecting neighbourhoods, which in turn can affect the work of neighbourhood centres and social agencies in lower-income communities. For example, it may help explain how and why the client base of a neighbourhood agency is changing over time, or help the organization develop responses to changes in the community.

• Neighbourhood research helps to identify the root causes of problems. The neighbourhood is the place in which policies (such as those relating to income security, labour markets, affordable housing, discrimination, etc.) affect individual lives. Many of the problems that community and social agencies deal with are the result of growing inequality, failed policies and poorly designed or underfunded programs. Neighbourhood research helps communities better recognize and understand the consequences of policy problems and help make the case for improved public policies.

• Neighbourhood research can help elected representatives understand local problems and gain their support for the public policies needed to solve those problems. Research can help local organizations make an effective, evidence-based case for particular policies to elected officials who represent the neighbourhood at the municipal, provincial, and national levels.

• Neighbourhood research brings together people from different disciplines, different roles, and different backgrounds. Looking at the neighbourhood as a whole helps bridge not only academic divides (between, say, geography and sociology), but also government divides (between, say, Transportation and Parks & Recreation departments in a municipality). Many problems are caused by a lack of understanding or coordination between different groups, so these bridges can help lead to effective problem-solving. Neighbourhood research also helps mobilize diverse stakeholders in advancing the ideas emerging from the research, offers opportunities to connect across classes and cultures, and can reduce NIMBYism.

• Neighbourhood research helps people move from individual to collective solutions to some of the problems they face. It helps organizations identify the limits of individual interventions and provides a rationale for neighbourhood centres and community leaders to work on policy change in partnership with other social movements, organizations and actors.

• Neighbourhood research gives the neighbourhood centres a powerful fact base from which to argue for increased community investment. A better understanding of issues and trends provides support for making a case for investment to take place in ways that are intended to redress community inequities.

• Neighbourhood research can provide feedback to neighbourhood centres on their work. It can, for example, identify the extent to which a neighbourhood contains a mix of incomes, or the extent to which it is declining relative to other neighbourhoods in the same city, or identify trends in health, employment, housing quality, food security, and other variables, which can explain some of the difficulties in providing services and help lead to a refocusing of a centre’s or agency’s operations.

• Neighbourhood research can allow for effective presentation, visualization, and communication of trends and issues. Maps and graphics are an accessible way to convey information about what is happening in and among neighbourhoods to policy makers and also to the communities being served. Researchers can help community leaders present information in an accessible form to multiple audiences.

• Neighbourhood research can make the invisible visible. City-wide analysis of neighbourhood-level trends can identify previously unrecognized changes, helping focus attention on certain neighbourhoods and emerging issues that were previously not recognized. The significance of these neighbourhoods, the issues they are facing, and their importance for the city as a whole can be effectively demonstrated and can more easily become city-wide priority concerns (including in municipal elections, within municipal departments and among funders).

• Participation in neighbourhood research helps improve the quality and relevance of the research effort and helps train the next generation of researchers and community leaders. When community members and agency staff are directly involved in assisting in defining research needs, supporting research initiatives, critically assessing results, and defining policy implications, the research effort is more likely to be relevant to community needs. The effort and experience helps build additional leadership capacity in communities and academic institutions to further address neighbourhood issues and advocate for policy change.

These are publications resulting from or associated with the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto funded in large part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto’s Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Cities Centre. The research is funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These grants are described on this website at the ABOUT tab.

These are publications resulting from or associated with the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto funded in large part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto’s Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Cities Centre. The research is funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. These grants are described on this website at the ABOUT tab.

These publications on issues and trends in Canada’s urban system carried out by researchers associated with the University of Toronto’s Cities Centre influenced the research questions and research design of the Neighbourhood Change research initiative.

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change research initiative based at the University of Toronto’s Cities Centre funded in large part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada starting in 2005.

Our Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, with its focus on inequality and socio-spatial exclusion, seeks to address three major topics.

#1:  Neighbourhood Restructuring Trends and Processes

#2:  Consequences of Socio-spatial Inequality and Polarization

Question #1: Neighbourhood Restructuring Trends and Processes

• What changes have occurred in Canadian urban neighbourhoods in the last 40 years.
• What are the differences between neighbourhoods within specific cities and between cities?
• How do we explain neighbourhood changes and trends, and the similarities and differences within and between CMAs?
• What is the extent and spatial distribution of economic inequality, ethno-cultural differentiation, and concentration of characteristics such as Aboriginal identity, youth, ethnicity, immigration status, and poverty in different areas?
• What are the similarities and differences among the CMAs with respect to changes in the socio-economic character and ethno-cultural composition of their neighbourhoods?
• What variables are specific to Canadian urban neighbourhood change?
• Which neighbourhoods can yield a deeper understanding of these phenomena?
• How does increasing neighbourhood inequality observed in Toronto, and presumably other Canadian cities, compare with inequalities in the cities of other nations?
• Why has Canada, which is similar in many ways to the other Western nations, not (yet) experienced urban riots, anti-immigrant backlash, rising crime levels, severely deteriorated neighbourhoods, and the like?  

Question #2: Consequences of Socio-spatial Inequality and Polarization

• How do neighbourhood changes in Canada’s large cities affect people’s life chances, educational outcomes, employment opportunities, mobility, access to resources, and social attitudes?
• What are the consequences of neighbourhood trends for issues such as immigrant settlement, urban schooling, youth involvement in the criminal justice system, the well-being of Aboriginal people, and the development of age-friendly neighbourhoods?
• What impacts have interventions at the neighbourhood level had on these trends?
• What factors promote resilience among residents and neighbourhoods? What examples of community intervention have yielded positive results?

Question #3: Implications for Policies and Programs

•  What neighbourhood-level interventions are most effective in mitigating the effects of socio-spatial inequalities?
• How can we ensure that youth, newcomers, low-income households, ethno-cultural minorities, Aboriginal people, and the elderly are successfully included in the mainstream of society?
• How do policies and programs in housing, education, immigration, criminal justice, and income security moderate or exacerbate the impacts of socio-spatial inequality?
• What roles can different levels of government, NGOs, and the private sector play in reducing inequalities?
• How can we develop support for public policy measures to reduce inequality?

Figure 1 summarizes the conceptual framework of the proposed research.

It depicts the major factors affecting neighbourhood change, indicates how they are related, and links these factors to our research questions and to contextual forces that help explain neighbourhood change.

Global, national, and regional economic, social, political and cultural forces (Box 1, macro level forces) and individual household preferences and constraints (Box 2, micro-level forces) affect the social geography of metropolitan areas (Box 3). It is the socio-spatial change over time in metropolitan areas (all of Box 3) that we seek to better understand. Urban residential environments (neighbourhoods) are continually changing socially and physically due to neighbourhood restructuring processes (Box 4), household decisions, including decisions about where to live (Box 5), and the existing pattern of socio-spatial inequality within each metropolitan area (Box 6). The change in a metropolitan area is shaped not only by macro and micro forces (Boxes 1 and 2), but also by government and non-governmental policies and programs (Box 7). Urban spatial inequality and ethno-cultural spatial segregation are always in flux (there are strong and weak feedback loops), further influencing households’ mobility decisions. Such decisions produce the trends in socio-spatial change that can be analyzed and better understood if studied over several decades in a comparative framework.

Each household’s socioeconomic and ethno-cultural characteristics confer advantage or disadvantage. Some households can choose when and where to move; others are severely constrained. These differences in the degree of freedom to choose relate to individual and household characteristics: income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, immigration status, Aboriginal identity, and disability, and to the nature of local housing markets. Policies and programs (Box 7) affect neighbourhood restructuring (Box 4), household mobility decisions (Box 5), and the urban spatial outcomes of increasing or decreasing inequality and polarization (Box 6). Some policies are causal; others are reactive (but may in turn become causal).

There are three major questions that will guide the research. Proceeding from our analysis of socio-spatial changes over four decades in selected metropolitan areas, we will examine the nature of the social and physical neighbourhood restructuring trends and processes at play (Question 1), the consequences of socio-spatial inequality and polarization (Question 2), and the policy and program responses (or lack thereof), including the development of alternative policies and programs (Question 3).

Hypothesis: Drawing on the conceptual framework in Figure 1, research hypotheses might include: Neighbourhood socio-spatial inequality and polarization (Box 6) is a function of (a) macro-level factors (Box 1) + (b) micro-level forces (Box 2) + (c) neighbourhood effects (Box 4) + (d) local housing/labour/market/ policy effects (Box 7) + (e) place-specific (CMA) effects. The latter are hard to incorporate visually into Figure 1, although we might expect to find differences by size of city, local area growth rates, provincial policy context, political culture, demographic characteristics, and the economic structure and geography of the metropolitan areas. Our comparative analysis is designed to evaluate these CMA effects.

Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership

A major 7-year, six Canadian metropolitan area, research partnership was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in early 2012.

Title of the research grant proposal: Neighbourhood Inequality, Diversity, and Change: Trends, Processes, Consequences, and Policy Options for Canada’s Large Metropolitan Areas

Short title of the project:  Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership (NCRP)

Summary

The Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership focuses on urban inequality and socio-spatial (i.e., neighbourhood) polarization in six Canadian metropolitan areas: Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto (including Hamilton and Oshawa), Montréal, and Halifax.

With our partners we will explore (1) trends in urban and neighbourhood change since 1971; (2) processes responsible for these changes; (3) the consequences of change that lead to inequality and polarization; and (4) policy and program options that address inequality and thereby improve human well-being and urban environments.

Socio-spatial inequality and polarization are pressing global issues, yet difficult to understand, because they exhibit distinct national, regional, and (especially) local forms. We are particularly interested in understanding changes that result in cities that are sharply divided between wealthy and impoverished neighbourhoods.

The  research is timely and important. Mounting evidence of increasing income and wealth inequalities in western nations points to the emergence of new and intense socio-economic, ethno-cultural, and spatial divisions in many cities. There is a need for appropriate policy responses to prevent or alleviate inequities, reduce concentrated poverty, and reverse trends that affect the liveability of large urban areas. Jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere have implemented policies to respond to these divisions. Identifying and evaluating the effectiveness of such policies with our community partners is a key objective of the research.

Several aspects of the research are unique and will contribute to scholarship and benefit governments, social organizations and agencies, and civil society actors.

• First, the research will compile systematic and coordinated knowledge on neighbourhood restructuring in major cities in Canada – a country not previously included in comparative studies of neighbourhood change.
• Second, it will fill a gap in knowledge of how moderating factors explain different neighbourhood outcomes in cities in Canada and other Western nations.
• Third, our investigation of the causes and consequences of neighbourhood change will be essential for evaluating current and proposed policies and programs designed to address social inequality.
• Fourth, whereas most similar studies have been confined to the past 10 or 15 years, this research will cover the period since 1970, allowing a deeper analysis of the forces contributing to neighbourhood restructuring processes and their impacts.
• Fifth, we will engage in national and international knowledge exchange and capacity-building, with a focus on policy responses and program options that effectively address the consequences of urban inequality.

The research has immediate relevance for informing and shaping the policies and practices of governments, NGOs, private-sector investors, social agencies, and communities. In addition to the traditional academic outlets, with the help of our national and local partners, we will disseminate our findings through the news media, as well as establishing local neighbourhood research networks, setting up a dedicated website, publishing frequent research bulletins, and launching a free eBook of edited readings.

These are videos and audio recordings relating to the Neighbourhood Change research initiative.

These are publications resulting from or associated with the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto funded in large part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

The Online Presentation of the Three Cities Report

Check out the interactive online presentation of The Three Cities Within Toronto report.

Click here to view the presentation.

These publications are associated with the topics relevant to the Neighbourhood Change research initiative.

They are organized into the following categories:

• Neighbourhood Change
• Divided Cities
• Income Inequality
• Place-Based Policy

TNRN meeting dates and locations are posted here.

2015

June 2, 2015, 3 to 5pm

February 3, 2015, 3 to 5pm

2014

October 7, 2014, 3 to 5pm, OISE, UofT., Room 5150, 252 Bloor St. West (at St. George subway)

January 7, 2014 @ Metro Hall

2013

October 18, 2013 @ Daniels Spectrum

2012

May 15, 2012 @ United Way Toronto

March 16, 2012  @ Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, U of Toronto

2011

September 19, 2011 @ Wellesley Institute

May 16, 2011 @ Cities Centre, UofT

February 14, 2011 @ Toronto City Hall

2010

December 15, 2010 @ Faculty of Social Work, UofT

September 20, 2010 @ Toronto Arts Council

May 17, 2010 @ Toronto City Hall

February 22, 2010 @ Wellesley Institute

2009

December 7, 2009 @ United Way of Greater Toronto

September 21, 2009 @ WoodGreen Community Services

May 25, 2009 @ Community Social Planning Council

February 23, 2009 @ Wellesley Institute

2008

November 24, 2008 @ United Way of Greater Toronto

September 22, 2008 @ Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

June 9, 2008 @ Ryerson University School of Journalism

March 10, 2008 @ Cities Centre, University of Toronto

January 14, 2008 @ Family Service Association

2007

November 26, 2007 @ Community Social Planning Council of Toronto

September 24, 2007 @ Centre for Research on Inner City Health,
St. Michaels Hospital

June 11, 2007 @ Wellesley Institute

March 5, 2007 @ United Way of Greater Toronto

2006

November 27, 2006 @Centre for Urban and Community Studies,
UofT

September 25, 2006 @Centre for Urban and Community Studies, UofT

A research team in Vancouver based at The University of British Columbia is analyzing trends in neighbourhood change in the Vancouver metropolitan area as part of the SSHRC funded Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership.

The team is led by David Ley, professor of geography at UBC, assisted by Nicholas Lynch.

Members of the team include:  Sean Lauer (sociology, UBC); Dan Hiebert (geography, UBC).

The community partners include:  the Association of Neighbourhood Houses of British Columbia; and the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia.

In January 2011 The Globe and Mail featured the income trend analysis of professor David Ley’s research team. See:  BC’s Hidden New Face of Poverty, Globe and Mail, January 2011

In August 2012 a detailed report on Vancouver’s 1970 to 2005 neighbourhood income polarization trends was published, co-authored by David Ley and Nicholas Lynch (Research Paper 223, Cities Centre, University of Toronto, August 2012).

Divisions and Disparities in Lotus-Land: Socio-Spatial Income Polarization in Greater Vancouver, 1970-2005 

1. Figure 4 map – Change in Average Individual Income, Vancouver Region 1970-2005
2. Figure 5 map – Change in Average Household Income 1970-2005 Vancouver CMA
3. Figure 6 map – Average Individual Income 1970 Vancouver CMA
4. Figure 7 map – Average Individual Income 2005 Vancouver CMA
5. Figure 8 map – Average Household Income 1970 Vancouver CMA
6. Figure 9 map – Average Household Income 2005 Vancouver CMA
7. Figures 10 to 15 bar graphs – Income Distribution, 1970-2005
8. Figure 16 map – Formerly Middle-Income Neighbourhoods Vancouver Region 1970-2005
9. Figure 17 map – Recent Immigrants 1965-1971 Vancouver CMA
10. Figure 18 map – Recent Immigrants 2001-2006 Vancouver CMA

An eight page summary of the key findings in this report is available:

SUMMARY version: Divisions and Disparities: Socio-Spatial Income Polarization in Greater Vancouver, 1970-2005, by David Ley & Nicholas Lynch

This page will be updated with the results of the Vancouver team’s research as it is released.

—  August 2012

Une équipe de recherche basée à Montréal étudie l’évolution démographique et socio-économique des quartiers de la région métropolitaine de Montréal, dans le cadre du Partenariat de recherche sur les quartiers en transition, grâce au soutien financier du CRSH.

L’équipe est coordonée par Damaris Rose, professeure de géographie urbaine et sociale au Centre Urbanisation Culture Société de l’Université INRS. Annick Germain (Sociologie, INRS) et Xavier Leloup (Sociologie, INRS) font également partie de l’équipe de recherche.

L’équipe bénéficie de partenariats dans la communauté, notamment avec Cécile Poirier de Centraide du Grand Montréal.

Une étude détaillée de l’évolution du revenu dans la grande région de Montréal a été publiée au début de l’année 2013 par Damaris Rose et Amy Twigge-Molecey: Une métropole à trois vitesses? Bilan sur les écarts de revenu dans le Grand Montréal, 1970-2005.

La version électronique du rapport est disponible en français et en anglais sous l’onglet PUBLICATIONS, ainsi qu’un résumé destiné au grand public.

Cette page sera mise à jour régulièrement, pour faire part de l’avancement des recherches de l’équipe de Montréal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A research team in Montréal is analyzing trends in neighbourhood change in the Montréal metropolitan area as part of the SSHRC funded Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership.

The Montréal research team is coordinated by Damaris Rose, professor of urban and social geography, Unversité INRS – Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Montréal.

Members of the research team include:  Annick Germain (sociology, INRS); Xavier Leloup (sociology, INRS).

Community partners include:  Centraide de Grand Montréal, represented by Cécile Poirier.

In early 2013 a detailed study of income change in greater Montréal was published: “A City-Region Growing Apart? Taking Stock of Income Disparity in Greater Montréal, 1970-2005, by Damaris Rose and Amy Twigge-Molecey.

English and French versions of this research paper, together with a plain-language summary in French, are available for download at the PUBLICATIONS tab.

This page will be updated with the results of the Montréal team’s research as it is released.

—  April 2013

Most of this website features the results of the 2005-2010 findings of the Neighbourhood Change Community University Research Alliance that was focussed on the City of Toronto.

Soon there will be more about Montreal and Vancouver.  Neighbourhood change research on Halifax, Winnipeg and Calgary will also be added.

Publications resulting from that research are available in the Research Papers tab of the Publications section of this website.

The main summary of that research is in the report, The Three Cities Within Toronto.  An online interactive version of that report and many related resources is available on this website.

The Toronto-based research team continues to work on various themes, including analysis of trends in the outer suburbs (the “905 area”).

______________

Toronto CMA 1970 Individual Income map

Toronto CMA 2005 Individual Income map

Toronto CMA 1970-2005 Trend in Individual Income map

Co-chairs:  Emily Paradis, David Hulchanski

Next meeting 
Tuesday June 2
3pm – 5pm

The Housing Help Centre (formerly Scarborough Housing Help Centre)
2500 Lawrence Avenue East, Unit 205, Scarborough, M1P 2R7

——————

Scarborough Housing Help Centre is located near the intersection of Lawrence Ave. East and Midland Ave., a short walk east of the Lawrence East LRT station. Parking is available. See http://www.shhc.org/contact.html for more information.

Agenda

1) Neighbourhood research updates (participants share what they and/or their organizations are doing relevant to neighbourhood research and policy).

2) Presentation: Update on the Scarborough Rooming House Consultations: Issues for Tenants, Owners, Neighbours and the City by Regini David, West Scarborough Community Legal Services.

ALL ARE WELCOME

________________________________

The study of neighbourhoods encompasses research on social change, housing and built form, retailing and local economic development, employment patterns, social service provision, culture, immigrant settlement, public health, crime and safety, environmental health, local politics and more.

No single researcher, discipline or institution can encompass all the important aspects of neighbourhood change affecting today’s cities. Research that informs policy making and program administration requires a range of expertise.

The TNRN is a network of researchers from universities, governments, social agencies, and community organizations whose work focuses on neighbourhoods in the greater Toronto area.

The aim is to connect individuals and agencies actively engaged in policy- and program-relevant research on neighbourhoods, to share and disseminate data, research methods, and findings.

The network meets periodically and maintains an e-mail distribution list. The meetings and the distribution list allow for networking, sharing and distributing information, promoting research collaborations, defining research agendas, identifying sources of research funding, and making better use of research knowledge to shape policy and programs.

The TNRN email distribution list is strictly private.  It will not be shared with others. It distributes meeting reminders and occasional notices about related events or resources.

The TNRN is not a membership organization. Researchers participate by attending networking meetings and contributing updates on their work at the meetings.

Participants in the network are not delegates from or representatives of their organizations. The TNRN does not provide direct support for research projects. It is not a membership organization or coalition. It does not take positions on issues or advocate policies.

These are publications resulting from the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership based at the University of Toronto funded in large part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada starting in 2005.

They are organized into the following categories:

• Montréal Neighbourhoods
• Toronto Neighbourhoods
• Gentrification
• Affordable Housing
• Immigrant Settlement
• Urban Canada
• Food Insecurity
• Aging in Place

Neighbourhoods are becoming the new fault line of social isolation and spatial separation. 

Can neighbourhood interventions help achieve greater social inclusion?

Cities are becoming increasingly segregated spatially on the basis of socio-economic and ethno-cultural divisions.

In their book on urban trends in globalizing cities fifteen years ago, Marcuse & van Kempen (2000) warned that we can expect to see:

• “strengthened structural spatial divisions among the quarters of the city, with increased inequality and sharper lines of division among them;
• wealthy quarters, housing those directly benefiting from increased glo­balization, and the quarters of the professionals, managers, and techni­cians that serve them, growing in size; …
• quarters of those excluded from the globalizing economy, with their residents more and more isolated and walled in; …
• continuing formation of immigrant enclaves of lower-paid workers; …
• ghettoization of the excluded” (p. 272).

We are starting to see some of the effects of these trends.

Recent urban riots in England, Sweden, and France have illustrated what happens when poor households concentrate in certain districts where social, educational, and job opportunities are scarce. Such riots and looting may not be isolated local events, but rather signs of wider societal failures that impact on local neighbourhoods. These failures have been highlighted recently by the rapid spread of Occupy Wall Street–like demonstrations in cities around the world. It is becoming clear that the pattern of concentrated urban advantage and disadvantage can affect the life chances of urban residents in terms of health, education, and employment and contribute to political and economic instability.

Little is known about how these trends fit the Canadian context, although recent long-term analysis of neighbourhoods in Toronto (Hulchanski, 2010) has established that Canada is not immune to growing socio-spatial inequalities. Systematic quantitative and qualitative research on inequalities in Canada’s major cities in comparison with selected cities in other countries is needed to expand and deepen this analysis to include the diversity of the Canadian urban experience, especially at the neighbourhood level.

The Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership will examine the nature, causes, and consequences of inequality and socio-spatial exclusion in six major Canadian census metropolitan areas (CMAs), using longitudinal data on their neighbourhoods spanning 40 years: Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal, and Halifax. In 2006 these urban regions had a combined population of 14 million (44% of Canada). Between 2001 and 2006, they received 80% of Canada’s immigrants and accounted for 70% of Canada’s population growth. Our research, however, requires that we break down these aggregate statistics to identify local processes, variations, and responses.

Working with local community partners in all six metropolitan areas, we aim to identify and analyse changes in the socioeconomic status, ethno-cultural composition, and spatial outcomes of neighbourhoods in the six urban areas. We will identify similarities and differences among neighbourhoods; seek explanations for the observed changes, and identify implications for economic integration, social cohesion, equity, and quality of life that will contribute to the international literature on divided cities. Finally, we will propose policy and program responses to address and overcome inequalities. Taking a participatory and community-based approach to the research will not only contribute valuable insights, but will also help develop community capacity to address and perhaps reduce future socio-spatial inequities.

Spatial analysis makes it possible to analyse social trends and emerging issues at the neighbourhood level, and isolate factors and interactions that contribute to change. Community-university collaborations also offer a way to address the impacts of socio-spatial inequality.

Our research partnership brings together a team to tackle two major substantive policy challenges:

• a research challenge about identifying the trajectories, causes, and consequences of neighbourhood trends, and
• a policy challenge about responding to social change at the neighbourhood level.

Projects such as this face a number of methodological challenges about how to best undertake the research. For example, what are the most appropriate and insightful methods of research on neighbourhood trends, processes, consequences, and policies? Which variables are the most useful in identifying trends? How can we engage local partners and neighbourhood residents in the research? These will be addressed at the beginning of the project and reconsidered throughout.

 The research will enhance our understanding of contemporary inequalities in Canadian cities, thereby improving the potential for effective policy development and program implementation by civil society actors and all levels of government. The 40-year study period will provide a foundation for research and policy analysis long into the future. This research will position Canadian researchers as global leaders in identifying, understanding, and addressing issues of inequality, diversity, and change in our urbanized world. More broadly, the research will contribute to a public debate about social and economic inequalities in Canadian cities and their implications, and how public policies and decisions affect spatial inequalities.

Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership, Since 2004

–

2004.  Since the start of the Neigbourhood Change and Building Inclusive Communities from Within research initiative in 2004 many university and community-based researchers have been engaged on various facets of this large topic. Funding for the 2005-2010 period was provided by a Community University Research Alliance (CURA) grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

2009.  In 2009 the team grew larger with the receipt of a Public Outreach Grant from SSHRC that included dissemination of our findings in the Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver metropolitan areas. In 2011 the Metcalf Foundation partnered with the outreach grant by sponsoring an “art and education” event at Toronto’s Nuit Blanche focused on the Toronto research findings, and commissioning a “residents reference panel” which developed a set of recommendations focused on what to do about the city’s growing socio-spatial divide.

2012.  In 2012 the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded a $2.5 million Partnership Grant for continuation of the research on inequality trends and socio-spatial exclusion in six Canadian metropolitan areas with comparative research elsewhere nationally and internationally. The 2012-2022 project is titled: Neighbourhood Inequality, Diversity, and Change in the Global Era: Trends, Processes, Consequences, and Policy Options for Canada’s Large Metropolitan Areas.

Seven Metropolitan Areas.  The new project adds neighbourhood change research teams in Halifax, Hamilton, Winnipeg, and Calgary, as well as continuing and expanding the research in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.

Board of Directors

• Dallas Alderson, Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
• Barb Besner, Research & Special Projects, United Way of Winnipeg
• Jino Distasio, geography, Institute of Urban Studies, U of Winnipeg
• Leslie Evans, Federation of Calgary Communities
• Kathleen Gallagher, education, Centre for Urban Schooling, OISE, UofT  
• Scott Graham, Associate Executive Director, Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., Vancouver
• Richard Harris, geography, McMaster U
• David Hulchanski, social work, UofT 
• Michelynn Laflèche, Research & Public Policy, United Way Greater Toronto
• David Ley, geography, U of British Columbia 
• Kirstin Maxwell, Housing Services, City of Hamilton
• Robert Murdie, geography, York U
• Martha Radice, sociology and social anthropology, Dalhousie U
• Damaris Rose, geography, Centre urbanisation, culture, société, U INRS, Montreal
• Kasia Tota, Halifax Regional Municipality
• Ivan J. Townshend, geography, U of Lethbridge 
• Alan Walks, geography/planning, UofT 

Research Advisory Board

• Caroline Andrew, political science, U of Ottawa
• Larry Bourne, geography, planning, UofT
• Tom Carter, geography, urban studies, U of Winnipeg
• Duncan Maclennan, geography, St Andrews U, Scotland
• Bill Michelson, sociology, UofT
• Janet L. Smith, urban planning, U of Illinois at Chicago

Research Team, Community-based

• Dallas Alderson, Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
• Maude Beausoleil, Centraide de Grand Montréal
• Adriana Beemans, Metcalf Foundation, Toronto
• Barb Besner, Research, United Way of Winnipeg
• Matthew Blackett, Spacing Media, Toronto
• Robert S. Brown, Toronto District School Board
• Deb Bryant, Association of Neighbourhood Houses of BC
• Isabel Cascante, Research & Public Policy, United Way Greater Toronto
• Charlene Cook, Research and Public Policy, United Way Toronto
• Mihaela Dinca-Panaitescu, Research & Public Policy, United Way Greater Toronto
• Diane Dyson, Planning and Research, Woodgreen Community Services, Toronto
• Rick Eagan, West Neighbourhood House, Toronto
• Leslie Evans, Federation of Calgary Communities
• Maureen Fair, West Neighbourhood House, Toronto
• Scott Graham, Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., Vancouver
• Rob Howarth, Canadian Association of Neighbourhood Services, and Toronto Neighbourhood Centres
• Harvey Low, Social Research & Analysis, City of Toronto
• Kirstin Maxwell, Housing Services, City of Hamilton
• Laura McDonough, Research & Public Policy, United Way Toronto and York Region
• Colette Murphy, Atkinson Foundation, Toronto
• Stephanie Procyk, Research & Public Policy, United Way Greater Toronto
• Trisha Scantlebury, Research & Public Policy, United Way Greater Toronto
• Mary Ellen Schaafsma, Research, United Way of the Lower Mainland, Vancouver
• Malcolm Shookner, Nova Scotia Government, Halifax
• Anita Stellinga, United Way Peel
• Kasia Tota, Regional Municipality of Halifax
• Paul Shakotko, Executive Director, United Way Halifax
• John Stapleton, Metcalf Innovation Fellow, Metcalf Foundation, Toronto
• Lynne Woolcott, West Neighbourhood House, Toronto

Research Team, University-based, Canada

• Caroline Andrew, political science, U of Ottawa 
• Martine August, planning, U of Waterloo
• Yale Belanger, political science, U of Lethbridge
• Rupaleem Bhuyan, social work, UofT
• Larry Bourne, geography/planning, UofT
• Shauna Brail, Urban Studies, UofT
• Tom Carter, geography, urban studies, U of Winnipeg
• Deborah Cowen, geography/planning, UofT
• Frank Cunningham, urban philosophy, UofT 
• Jino Distasio, Institute of Urban Studies, U of Winnipeg
• Caroline Fusco,  physical education & health, UofT
• Kathleen Gallagher, education, Centre for Urban Schooling, OISE, UofT 
• Rosemary Gartner, criminology, UofT  
• Annick Germain, sociology, Centre urbanisation, culture, société, U INRS, Montreal  
• Sutama Ghosh, geography, Ryerson
  
• Jill Grant, planning, Dalhousie U
• Penny Gurstein, planning, U of British Columbia
• Richard Harris, geography, McMaster U
• Paul Hess, geography, planning, UofT
• Dan Hiebert, geography, U of British Columbia
• David Hulchanski, social work, UofT
• Tom Hutton, planning, U of British Columbia
• Ayobami Laniyonu, criminology, UofT
• Sean Lauer, sociology, U of British Columbia
• Xavier Leloup, sociology, Centre urbanisation, culture, société, U INRS, Montreal
• Christopher Leo, political science, U of Winnipeg   
• Wayne Lewchuk, economics, McMaster U
  
• David Ley, geography, U of British Columbia
• Richard Maaranen, NCRP Data Analyst, UofT
• Julie Mah, planning, U of Florida
• Lance McCready, education, OISE, UofT
• Bill Michelson, sociology, UofT
• Byron Miller, geography, U of Calgary
• Robert Murdie, geography, York U
• John Myles, sociology, UofT
• Sheila Neysmith, social work, UofT
• Valerie Preston, geography, York U
• Martha Radice, sociology and social anthropology, Dalhousie U
• Howard Ramos, sociology and social anthropology, Dalhousie U
• Katharine N. Rankin, geography/planning, UofT
• Damaris Rose, geography, Centre urbanisation, culture, société, U INRS, Montreal   
• Ted Rutland, geography, Concordia U
  
• Shalini Sharma, economics, UofT
• Ren Thomas, planning, Dalhousie U
• Ivan J. Townshend, geography, U of Lethbridge
• Alan Walks, geography, planning, UofT
• Scot Wortley, criminology, UotT
• Elvin Wyly, geography, U of British Columbia
• Andy Yan, planning, Simon Fraser U
• Daniyal Zuberi, social work, and public policy and government, UofT

Research Team, University-based, International

• Duncan Maclennan, geography, St Andrews U, Scotland
• Peter Marcuse, planning, Columbia U, New York City, USA
• Elena Ostanel, University Iuav, Venice, Italy
• Tom Slater, geography, U of Edinburgh, Scotland
• Janet L. Smith, urban planning, U of Illinois at Chicago, USA
• Tuna Tasan-Kok, geography, U of Amsterdam, NL
• Maarten van Ham, geography, TU Delft, NL
• Ronald van Kempen, geography, U of Utrecht, NL (1958-2016)

Commentary on issues associated with urban and neighbourhood change by members of the Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership. All views are those of the author(s) of the individual blog and do not necessarily represent the views of the research partnership, the universities and partner organizations, or the funder.

Research Focus:  Income inequality & socio-spatial polarization trends in major metropolitan areas

This website is the online home for a major research initiative focussed on long term trends relating to the urban impact of growing income inequality and socio-spatial polarization in Canada and in cities in similar nations.  

The Community University Research Alliance Grant, 2005-2010

A Community University Research Alliance grant (2005-2010) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) helped initiate a detailed study of Toronto’s neighbourhoods. The many research findings and publications resulting from the CURA grant, together with our ongoing related research, are available for viewing and downloading on this website.

The Public Outreach Grant, 2010-2012

Funding for the design and development of this website was provided by a SSHRC Public Outreach Grant in 2010 and continued funding for the website is from the 2012 SSHRC Neighbourhood Change Partnership Grant.

The Neighbourhood Change Partnership Grant, 2012-2019

In 2012 funding for continuation of this research on a national basis with some international comparative research was provided by a 7-year SSHRC Partnership Grant.  The research team for the new Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership is listed on the Research Team page of this website.