A short and informative video on why mega-projects fail. We can all think of a mega-project in either the Greater Toronto Area or around the world of mega-projects either going over-time, budget, or failing.
Professor Sutton provides some strong arguments to combat gentrification within the cities through;
All of these are very possible, however, cities are viewed as corporations, meaning that there main interest is to make money. This is one of the main reasons why you don’t see that much pushback from new developments and the gentrification of certain neighbourhoods. There needs to be a progressive government in place to create these progressive policies. If not, gentrification will likely continue. We also need to look into community land trusts and new development that support rent-geared-to-income housing. These actors won’t stop gentrification, but will reduce the impact it has on a community.
I would argue with Professor Sutton that revitalization and re-development of communities are also forms of gentrification. We spoke about terminology and the importance of it in my environmental design course last term and we grouped terms like renewal, revitalization, and re-development under gentrification. There’s the example of Little Havana in Miami, where the community began a revitalization project that lead to the gentrification of the community. If you have the chance, I would recommend reading Back to Little Havana by Feldman and Jovilet.
Gentrification has impacted the working class and those with low incomes, but in the US it is slightly different since these low-income communities are for the most part comprised of blacks. There are some scholars in the US that believe gentrification is a form of colonialism. I’ll discuss the topic of colonialism and gentrification in a later post. Lastly, the spotlight has been on gentrification in the media for the past few years. However, gentrification is not a new phenomena, it has been ongoing for the past 50+ years affecting communities across the globe.
You can read the original article on gentrification here: 3 Common Myths of Gentrification.
With a surge of articles both in the United Kingdom and Canadian Press, one has to ask what is driving condo development in cities? Is the demand being created by home-owners who need housing and would like to live in mid to high-density development? Or is it by foreign investors that are using condominium development as a form of investment? I believe it is a very fine line between the two group, with the amount of people immigrating into Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area we must create housing for them to live and with current planning constraints condos are able easily justifiable. However, most condominiums lack the size for today’s modern Canadian family.
According to French and Hopkins (2012) “There is definitely a foreign investment component to the new condo industry – it makes up the vast majority of sales right now.” All the articles on this topic echo the same sentiment that there is nothing wrong with foreign investment since it is beneficial for trade. However, this is a correlation between foreign investment and the demand for housing and inflation of prices. Meaning, as long as there is development and higher house prices it is good for the economy.
With condos increasing the housing stock, there is data showing not all of the units are being sold out. With this in mind and the current lack of affordable housing in the GTA there should be some type of policy allowing that these units being able to house those that need access to housing. But, maybe this is too much of utopian thinking.. Marotte (2014) points out “the units end up staying empty or only briefly occupied…One study last year said that nearly one-quarter of condos in some Vancouver areas were empty or occupied by non-residents.”
I think it will be difficult to attempt to solve this question in a short blog post, yet one factor of condo development is foreign investments. If the rise in condo development continues municipalities should start thinking of by-laws that will allow for a certain percentage of condo units being allocated for affordable housing. With a policy like this, it would continue to allow for development and at the same time house those that lack the access to housing.
Here are some more articles that discuss the rise of condo development and foreign investment:
Photo By: Chris Baker
This week I had the opportunity to visit Waterfront Toronto head office and tour some of the revitalization projects taking place with my urban planning program. The organization was formed through a partnership of three levels of Canadian government (municipal, federal. and provincial). With the main objective to revitalize the harbour through sustainable developments, building affordable housing, and by redeveloping brownfields. Since brownfields are an interest of mine, the discussion was very captivating. After hearing about the organization and having them present both their future and completed projects it was time for the tour. We visited the Courus Entertainment Site, the new George Brown Waterfront Campus, and Sherbourne Common. All of which that look amazing and all have some form of sustainable design.
During both the presentation and the tour a question which I wanted to ask came to mind, what drives waterfront development? Now, I am aware of the decentralization of industries which are one of the processes behind the changes the waterfront. The decentralization of industrialization saw industries move away from the city-core and into the fringes. This is associated with land development, geographic industrialization, and metropolitan planning. Another process is the suburbanization of industry. this is related to decentralization, where industries began to move away due to advancement in technology and transportation. These industries no longer had to rely on ports and railways lines as a method of moving their goods. These two changes are instrumental for the creating of brownfield sites.
However, there is another theory by Bird (1963) that examines the evolution of ports. Bird’s model can be used for almost any port transformation in the Global North. The steps involve in the evolution of ports include:
With these spaces now unoccupied and no longer serving use, it’s time for them to be re-purpose. To me, the driving forces behind Toronto’s transformation are due to both the decentralization of industries and the need to attract investment. One of the objectives from Waterfront Toronto was to attract the creative class and the tech-based economies to the waterfront.
In summary, the transformation of habour in Toronto and other ports around the world are intriguing. Ports were always a form of trade and economic activity. From the trade of fish and pelts to coal and the shipping of goods. Ports are currently being modernized to fit today’s current economic market, with spaces for the creative class. The transformation of brownfield sites is beneficial since it is a form of reducing sprawl by re purposing these landscapes for residential and commercial uses. My hopes are that these future brownfield sites located in Toronto are equitable.
Lewis and Walker (2001) – Beyond the Crabgrass Frontier: Industry and the Spread of North American Cities
De Sousa (2001) – Turning Brownfields into Greenspaces in the City of Toronto
Birds (1963) – The Evolution of a Port (The Anyport Model)
The Globe and Mail – Sun Life moving away from Bay Street