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

Abstract

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

Land Ownership, Rent-Seeking, and Rural Gentrification: Reconstructing Villages for Sustainable Urbanization in China

“…According to some experts, gentrification has increasingly experienced strong local government intervention, which has led to "state-led gentrification" [15][16][17]. Most scholars believe that gentrification causes a serious injustice and an inequitable separation between the highly privileged and underprivileged people in cities [15,18,19]. Lee [17] argued that the major beneficiaries of the gentrification process are local governments and private developers instead of the existing residents.…”

‘We're a Rich City with Poor People’: Municipal Strategies of New-Build Gentrification in Rotterdam and Glasgow

“…Gentrification has been supported by state mechanisms in one way or another almost since its inception, through instruments such as improvement grants and heritage designations (Hackworth and Smith, 2001;Lees and Ley, 2008;Walks and August, 2008). However, in recent years it has become part of larger neoliberal goals (Glynn, 2008;Harris, 2008;Moulaert et al, 2003;Murphy, 2008;Smith, 2002).…”

Community BIAs as Practices of Assemblage: Contingent Politics in the Neoliberal City

“…Planners in the city's Cultural Services Office evoke Bloordale as an emerging focus area for their work of engaging community art to attract new investment. The neighborhood does seem ripe for art-driven gentrification (cf Walks and August, 2008), and it is clear that the unlikely collaboration between the BIA and the local artist has played a catalytic role.…”