Conclusions about the uneven nature of urban transformation with regard to Densification and the Postmodern transformation of the Canadian City

Comparing similarities and contrasts between Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto

6.0 - Final Summary of Empirical Observations

In this investigation a number of conceptual and empirical questions were raised about the nature of urban change in the late-twentieth century. Starting with the empirical issues, evidence for the transformation of Vancouver was presented by looking at three different but related empirical phenomenon. As a result the study of densification, the creation of new spatial norms, and the emergence of new settlement spaces became the empirical anchors that were used to illustrate the emergence of significant new urban patterns.. In turn, three different discourses were employed to frame the study of each of these three empirical dimensions of urban change.

The first discourse was that of political economy. The second discourse which was brought to bear on the study of urban transformation was the discourse on modernity. Finally, social ecology was the third conceptual framework which was used to search for significant patterns of change.

In this fashion concepts from political economy were used to study the flow of capital in order to make sense of the densification process. At the same time concepts from political economy and the discourse on modernity were used as a conceptual anchor to study different systems of urban regulation. Finally concepts from social ecology were brought in to highlight the impact of changing migration patterns.
The first empirical angle for studying urban change had to do with changes in the urban land market. This was carried out by looking at how investment patterns moved from a land-extensive to land–intensive regime. By doing this it was possible to show how Greater Vancouver became the first low density metropolitan area in North America to be transformed into a medium density urban area. A detailed analysis of the densification process showed that that three central factors molded this process.

The first factor had to do with the property market. Here it was shown how the relative decline in income in relation to property values shifted investment in the built environment, creating low, medium and high-rise forms of densification according to the rise and fall in the densification ratio and the context created for development by existing zoning regulations.
The second factor which helped to shift the flow of capital had to do with demographics. Along with rising property values, rapid population growth, lower fertility, and the creation of a much larger adult centred population would produce a new consumer culture which would feed into the densification process.

The third factor had to do with the provision of transportation and communications infrastructure. In cities such as Vancouver, rising property values, and rapid population growth provided the necessary conditions for a dramatic increase in transit-oriented development which has become a central feature in the progression of the densification process..
However, densification only takes in one of the three empirical dimensions that have been used to map the postmodern city. In addition to a regime of regulation, the postmodern city was also shaped by a distinctive constellation of norms which occurred with the emergence of a new mode of regulation.

With the creation of a new division of labour that came out of the evolution of the information economy, a new middle class arose as a significant class fraction in the late-twentieth century, establishing a material and political base for the incubation of a distinctive postmodern outlook that would eventually result in the creation of a distinct postmodern mode of urban regulation for the city..

As this class grew in size and influence it was able to challenge the time-space orientation of the traditional middle class. This new class was also able to undermine the norms of bureaucratic rule which had firmly attached the traditional middle class to large corporate structures. Eventually these developments would peculate down to the local state and become manifest in the practice of planning. In the case of the City of Vancouver, this would happen in the early 1970’s when urban reformers came into power. Soon after a new planning director was hired and new planning regime was put in place, one which was quite obviously postmodern rather than modern in orientation.

This ideological shift was replicated in other North American cities, However in Canada, but in Vancouver, most particularly, there was a special twist to this development which show how significant variations are possible even though similar macro tendencies are in operation with regard to the process of change. Here the main cause for variation had to do with differences in the rate of advance of market rule and the much stronger hold of bureaucratic rule in Canada.

The economic and technological innovations associated with the information economy not only brought the new middle class into existence as a powerful force for change; at the same time these same forces helped to shift the long standing balance between market and bureaucratic rule which had governed the twentieth-century modernism..

Since the beginning of the modern age, which can be traced back to the beginning of the Renaissance, relative shifts in weight of these two intertwined but opposing forces have been responsible for establishing the background conditions for the emergence of distinct cultural epochs which the current postmodern age is but only the most recent historical manifestation.

For example, twentieth-century modernism was framed by the ascendancy of bureaucratic rule which followed out of the corporatization of society, something that was brought about as a consequence of the rise of the welfare state and the growth of large corporations in the private sector. For the middle class in particular, this led to a powerful identification with order and regimentation. In turn, the growing influence of bureaucratic rule were further amplified by a rising tide of militarism, which was another defining feature of twentieth century modernism beginning with the first modern arms race, that began between Great Britain and Germany in the 1880’s, this powerful cycle of militarism only ended in the late 1980’s, with the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989.

In contrast to this the postmodern age was fashioned by the rise of market rule. As already mentioned, this came about with the emergence of the information economy, which produced social and economic spaces for the emergence of a new middle class who would advance new methods for organizing activity in the public and private spheres.. At the same time, the ascendancy of market rule was also buttressed by an abiding anti-militarism, which reached full bloom during the counter culture and continues to this day, as can be seen by the shrinking size and influence of the military in most advanced nations.
However, when we look at Canada, this dynamic worked itself out in slightly different way than the United States. And this would have a profound impact on urban development in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which would mark the first phase of the postmodern transformation of the city,. And no better is this revealed than in the evolution of planning in Vancouver..
Canada’s failure to actively participate in the Vietnam War, stronger unions and the presence of an influential social democratic movement helped to deflect the strong anti-statist reaction that gripped the new middle class in the United States that came with the rise of market rule. With the rebellion off the American new middle class against bureaucratic rule, the State was viewed as an overbearing colossus. By contrast, in Canada, a much more benign view of the State was articulated by the new middle class. Rather than viewing the State as the enemy, thee Canadian new middle class looked upon the State as being an ally and partner with regard to the transformation of the city.

So while the Federal Government in the United States began to rapidly vacate the urban field in the 1970’s, just the opposite happened in Canada. With the new housing programs such as Nip and RRAP, the creation of a non-profit housing sector, and successful ventures such as Granville Island, False Creek South and St, Lawrence Towne, the Canadian city underwent an urban Renaissance.

Because the advance of market rule was held in check until the mid 80’s a distinctive form of urban development arose in Canada, which had no counterpart in the United States.. The retreat from the city which began in the United States in the early 70’s would not take place in Canada until the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when most programs introduced in the 1970’s were cancelled. The first signs of this appeared with the beginning of de-regulation and Nafta. Market rule continued to gain momentum n the 1990’s when the deficit forced the Federal Government to retreat from many areas which affected the city.

The retreat of bureaucratic rule and the rise of market rule would become gain speed with the election of pro-market provincial governments. In terms of urban regulation, Ontario became the main bellwether for this trend, with the province engaging in a massive downloading of responsibility and privatization, which was also accompanied by the most radical reorganization of municipal government in one-hundred and fifty years..

In Canada the retreat of the State and the rise of market rule eventually set the conditions for a second phase in the postmodern transformation of city to begin. If the collaboration between the new middle class and the State became a defining feature of the era of the livable city, which marked the first phase of the postmodern transformation of the city, the retreat of the State and the rise of market rule would set the main background context for the rise of the age of the urban spectacle. While many of the forms of regulation introduced during the 1970’s have been preserved, they have been significantly altered to reflect the ascendancy of market rule and the retreat of bureaucratic rule, as can be seen in the sponsorship of private-public partnerships rather than the alliance between community and government which marked the most innovative urban developments during the 1970’s in Canada.

As well, with this development there has been an amazing reversal in the urban order of Canada and the United States. Now it is Canada which lags significantly behind the American State with regard to undertaking urban initiatives.
To how these two phases affected planning in Vancouver it is only necessary to compare South False Creek with North False Creek. In South False Creek an award winning development was created out of an alliance between the State and the community during the 70’s. Similarly, in the 1990’s another award winning development was begun on North False Creek. Unlike South False Creek, which came out of the collaboration between community and government, the parameters for development on the North Shore clearly became the product of the collaboration between the State and large development corporations.

Changes in the social ecology of the city provide the third empirical dimension for mapping out change in the postmodern city. For Vancouver, at least, not only did densification and the birth of a new mode of regulation emerge as a defining feature of the postmodern transformation of the city, in addition to this, shifting population flows, the movement of the middle class back into the inner city, and a declining birth rate provided the conditions for the creation of entirely new settlement zones which had not existed during the modern period.

Here the affect of population growth, combined with vastly increased immigration and, as mentioned before, the migration of the new middle class into the inner city and exurbia provided the demographic raw material for the emergence of a distinctive postmodern social geography. Thus, during the postmodern period the Central Business District of Vancouver and the commercial frame which surrounded it, were significantly altered as commercial and industrial land uses began to retreat in the face of residential expansion and the expansion of land uses devoted to the economy of the urban spectacle.

Likewise, the migration of the new middle class into the Transitional Zone inaugurated the process of gentrification, a new mode of transformation which did not even exist in the modern period, but one which would lead to the transformation of the Transitional Zone into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. In Toronto a similar zone emerged, but in most other large urban centres this zone has taken longer to develop on the scale that can be found in Vancouver and Toronto.

For Vancouver, gentrification combined with the migration of an Asian middle class into the city completely overturned the relation between inner city and the suburb, that had existed in the Modern era. As well, this middle class migration sharply diminished the sharp division that existed between the Eastern and Western parts of the City in the Modern era.

Similarly, with the rapid entry of middle class Asian immigrants into the inner suburbs after 1986 the suburbs were completely transfigured, completely sundering the powerful association between the movement to the suburbs and assimilation that had existed during the modern period. After 1986 this relation broke down completely as a Zone of Asian Resettlement was created. Consequently the suburbs rather than the inner city now became the main portal for immigrants.

In Turn, the rapid movement of Asian immigrants into the inner suburbs set off a counter reaction, as the existing Caucasian population moved outwards. With this a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement started to emerge in the 1990’s.

Finally the exurban parts of Vancouver were reconfigured as the new middle class began to take over many of the peripheral spaces of the region. As with the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement this often involved the transformation of producer spaces into residential spaces or spaces devoted towards the support of the economy of the urban spectacle. Like the gentrification of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement and the Core, this has produced new fault lines as blue-collar workers and their employers increasingly clash with white-collar workers over the use of space.

6.2- Theoretical Challenge – Developing a Classification System for Understanding the Uneven and Contingent nature of Urban Transformation based on the articulation of three Separate but inter-related empirical facets of Change – A Comparison of Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto.

The theoretical challenge that was addressed in this exploration of urban transformation had to do with selecting a mix of conceptual tools and empirical examples which could be used to identify and highlight the significant patterns of change. Here the challenge become one of searching for common patterns with out overdetermining the process of change. To this end, concepts from regulation theory were borrowed and later modified to provide a series of organizing constructs which could be used to development a classification scheme based on the articulation of the empirical phenomenon which have so far been mentioned.

For example, the densification process was conceptualized as the defining feature of a regime of accumulation. At the same time, postmodern norms were conceptualized as a mode of regulation. Finally, the institutional framework that supported the articulation of the densification process with postmodern regulation was used as the basis for postulating the existence of a new model of urban development. Using all three organizing constructs: -- that is a regime of accumulation, mode of regulation, and model of urban development -- a framework was created that allowed the production of space in the late-twentieth century to be contrasted with a model of urban development which typified urban development in Vancouver and other Canadian cities in the mid-twentieth century.

Even though many of the same forces at work in Vancouver were also present in other cities no attempt was made to use this classification scheme to project one over-arching explanation of urban change for all cities in Canada. To avoid the undo simplification which comes out of such an attempt to comprehend change, considerable emphasis was placed on the way the various different strands of change were articulated with each other to form a broader pattern, or model of urban development. In this way the articulations and the play of specific historical conjunctures, rather than abstract time, or the unfolding of metaphysical trends, was used as the point of departure for understanding the new urban weave that was responsible for the creation of a new postmodern order.

As the delayed ascendancy of market rule in Canada revealed, significant variations in urban development can even result from simple differences in timing, or the different play of conjunctures. For example, at a less abstract level, the evolution of planning in Vancouver shows how significant the actions of agents within the local State can be to the unfolding of a specific trajectory for a particular city.

Hence, not only was the template for the postmodern transformation of Vancouver laid out by macro shifts, such as the move from bureaucratic to market rule – change and transformation were also effected by the local state. that acts as a prism, which can deflect, muffle, or amplify the macro and meso forces at work in the city.

Furthermore, by employing regulation theory it was possible to show how uneven the process of urban transformation can be. To see this it is only necessary to look at how the uneven and non-linear the progression of the densification process has been. The same can be said about variations in the strength and size of the new middle class. Here difference in the size and influence of the new middle class have played a decisive role in the diffusion, adoption and interpretation of postmodern norms. Finally, just as variations in the densification process and the uneven spatial development of the new middle class have produced considerable variation in the evolution of the postmodern city, different velocities of immigration, are another important factor which has affected the look of the postmodern city across Canada. Thus, despite the presence of broad uniformities that shape the city, there are also idiosyncratic developments which can produce a remarkable amount of variation in the urban order.

6.3 – Variations in the postmodern evolution of the Canadian City: A Comparison between Vancouver, with Toronto and Winnipeg.

To illustrate how these variations have produced dissimilar postmodern landscapes this section will briefly look at what has happened in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto. Again, the three dimensions of the postmodern transformation that were used in the study of Greater Vancouver will be applied to Toronto and Winnipeg. So the first dimension has to do with the densification process. The second is concerned with the impact of different regulatory regimes. Lastly, the third dimension has to do with the reorganization of settlement zones in each city. From this it will then be possible to show how the articulation of each dimension has shaped change in each city. For even with the play of powerful common external influences the path that change has taken in each city reveals considerable variation which can related to how each dimension of change has been articulated with the others. The importance of instance will also be revealed. How change unfolds is not only determined by how each dimension was articulated with the other, but also when this occurred (or the specific instance). Here time is viewed as being a concrete rather than abstract force. So even if similar articulations can be observed in each city, the time in which each articulation occurred is of critical importance to understanding the evolution of the city. To show how this works we only need to look at the impact of the urban reform movement on the development of each city. For instance, in Winnipeg, urban reformers only came to power in 1998 but in Toronto and Vancouver this happened nearly twenty years earlier, when reformers in these two cities gained power over the local state in 1972. How this affected each city would become evident in the evolution of the regulatory culture in each of these cities. What different instances such as this reveal, is the key role that political activities within the local state can play in the process of urban transformation. So urban transformation is not only shaped by the interplay of powerful external forces; as we shall see, it is also shaped by the local state, which can modify, absorb or deflect these outside influences.

6.3.1 -- Densification

Beginning with densification, it is possible to show different rates of densification, as well as differences in the timing of this movement of capital show up in the evolution of the built environment in each city. From this it is also possible to show how this established different feedback loops which influenced how the social ecology of each city evolved in the postmodern era. For not only does densification affect the pattern of capital flows, as well, it helps to shape how the built environment is constructed. This, in turn, will affect the type of housing construc ted, and from this the types of people who will move in or avoid a specific area. Where the densification ratio is low the economic stimulus for low density development is enhanced, as can be seen in the percentage of single-detached units that exist in each city. This, in turn, affects where people will live. The higher the cost of residential space the more likely it is that low-income groups and recent immigrants, who are not middle-class, will be displaced or attracted to other settlement zones. In Vancouver this can be shown by looking at how the Punjabi community has shifted from the City of Vancouver to Surrey between 1986 and 1996. As the Punjabi community also shows, differences in the cost of residential space also affect the ability to raise families. While just over a third of all households in Metropolitan Vancouver are made up of non-family households, this rises to nearly 50 per cent in the City of Vancouver. And if we exclude the suburban parts of Vancouver and just look at the inner city made up of the Core and the Zone of Middle class resettlement, we see that the number of non-family households rises to 67 per cent.

Looking at the densification ratios for each city over time (Table 26) the uneven and non linear path taken by this process becomes clear. In the 1970’s higher ratios showed that the densification was advancing in all cities. However, between 1986 and 1996 Toronto and Winnipeg begin to diverge from Vancouver. After rising from 1.89 to 2.39, in Winnipeg, the densification process goes into reverse, falling to 2.14. Not surprisingly, the proportion of single-detached dwelling units began to rise. For example, in Winnipeg, as the densification ratio rose between 1971 and 1986 the number of single-detached dwelling units in Winnipeg fell from 63 to 59 per cent of the housing stock. However as the densification process went into reverse the proportion of single-detached units in Winnipeg begins to rise again, climbing back up to 62 per cent in 1996. With about 70 per cent all dwelling units constructed between 1996 and 2000 made up of single-detached units the proportion of single-detached units may even rise above the 63 per cent level which existed in 1971( Table 26).

If densification in Winnipeg advances then retreats during the postmodern era, in Vancouver, just the opposite occurs. Rather than slowing down as was the case in Toronto, or reversing, which happened in Winnipeg, densification became more intensified. Changes in the composition of the Housing stock in Vancouver reflect this quite well. In 1971 the proportion of single-detached units was approximately the same in Winnipeg as it was in Vancouver. However by 1996 a huge gap develops, with the proportion of single-detached units in Greater Vancouver falling from 62 per cent in 1971 to 45 per cent in 1996
When Vancouver and Winnipeg are compared to Toronto a much more ambivalent picture emerges. While the densification ratio rose from 2.72 to 3.30 between 1971 and 1986, between 1986 and 1996 the densification moves upwards at a much slower pace. Although the densification ratio doubles in Vancouver, in Toronto it only rises by 20 per cent. Not surprisingly, we see the proportion of single-detached units does not go down dramatically, as with Winnipeg. This shows up in the composition of the housing stock. While the proportion of single-detached dwelling units in Vancouver experiences a precipitous decline, in Toronto there is a slight rise in the number of single-detached units, with single-detached dwelling units accounting for about 43 per cent of all dwelling units.

Furthermore, if we look at Vancouver we see proportion of single-detached units declines in all settlement zones. This suggests that densification has become a generalized phenomenon. But if we look at Toronto a bifurcated pattern appears. In Vancouver, for instance. between 1971 and 1996 the proportion of single-detached units in the inner exurban ring fell from 66 to 52 per cent. However in Toronto the decline was much more modest, moving downward from 72 per cent in 1971 to 68 per cent, in 1996. While the gap between the proportion of single-detached in exurbia and region just 15 per cent in Vancouver, for Toronto there was nearly a 60 per cent.

Differences in the Densification ratio for each city also tell us a great deal about investment in the built environment. This can be gauged by looking at how the number of dwelling units in the inner city and core increased between 1971 and 1996. In Winnipeg, with its low densification ratio, investment in housing stagnated between 1971. In 1976 there were about 91,000 housing units. By 1996 this had only grown to 92,000 units, a 1 per cent increase over 25 years. In the Core there was more investment than in the inner city as a whole. Here the number of dwelling units increased from 15,765 to 17567, a 13 per cent increase. Meanwhile, over the same period of time the number of dwellings in Metropolitan Winnipeg increased by 63 per cent: far below the increase for Vancouver and Toronto which respectively experienced a 120 and 92 percent increase in dwelling units between 1971 and 1996.

Looking at the Core of Toronto and Vancouver just the opposite occurs. For example, the number of dwelling units in Vancouver’s Core climbed upwards from 27,035 to 41451 between 1971 and 1996 – a 66 per cent increase. Similarly the number of dwelling units in the inner city of Vancouver (in this case the City of Vancouver) grew by 70 per cent over the same time. In Toronto a similar pattern of investment is present as well. For instance, between 1971 and 1996 the number of dwelling units in Toronto’s Core rose from 32,605 to 61,460 – a 90 per cent increase. Likewise, wise the number of dwelling units in Toronto’s inner city (which refers to the old City of Toronto) moved upwards from 153,265 to 224,495 between 1971 and 1996 – a 44 per cent increase. Although the number of dwelling units increased much faster for the metropolitan regions of Vancouver and Toronto, with Greater Vancouver experiencing a 100 per cent increase and Toronto a 92 increase, the Core and Inner still achieved considerable expansion. In the case of Toronto’s Core the increase almost equaled that of the region, while for Vancouver investment in new units nearly approached 70 per cent of the metropolitan average. By contrast, in Winnipeg the number of dwellings units in the Core increased by only 13 per cent. When the inner city of Winnipeg is compared to the region, the lack of residential investment becomes even more startling. While the number of dwelling units for the region increased by 63. per cent, in contrast to this between 1971 and 1996, the number of dwelling units in the inner city only increased by 1 per cent.

Since almost all the increase in the inner city would have to involve redevelopment, these contrasting figures show the near absence of residential capital flowing into the inner city of Winnipeg between 1971 and 1996. While the inner cities of Vancouver and Toronto shared more equally in the distribution of new investment, in Winnipeg most of this investment avoided the inner city and flowed out to the suburbs instead.

Densification and the Urban Underclass

If densification involves the concentration of capital, in some instances the obverse is possible. In terms of the densification process this occurs when capital abandons an area. When this happens an underclass formation is created. This has a number of dramatic consequences for the built environment. First of all the Market becomes dysfunction. Homeowners can’t sell their properties, and falling or collapsing exchange values begin to cannibalize the use values of the existing housing stock. When this happens redlining can occur, as the institutions which normally support the operation of the housing market disappear, making it difficult to purchase or sell existing housing, or to obtain insurance. Consequently, houses are abandoned, or allowed to deteriorate because the market cannot support any investment. Over time this can result in a significant outflow of people as well as capital.

In Canada, Winnipeg stands out as the only major urban centre which has experienced this disinvestment. While the migration of the new middle is the defining feature of the postmodern social geography in Toronto and Vancouver, in Winnipeg it is the appearance of an underclass landscape which stands out as the most salient feature of the postmodern era.

This underclass formation covers a contiguous area that contains about 6.3 sq. kilometers or over 630 hectares, which is over three times the size of the West End and nearly as large as Vancouver’s Core. Although it is largely located in the Transition Zone, it also takes in 2.33 sq. kilometers in the Core, accounting for about 32 per cent of the land base of the Core. A sliver of this zone even intrudes into the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement where a finger of this underclass formation (not included in this study in tables – and – because of the configuration of Census Tract 15) is situated around Furby, Langside between Portage Avenue and Broadway. This arc of disinvestment and impoverishment therefore runs from Broadway to Church Street, in the North End, forming a semi circle which takes in and surrounds the western and northern parts of the Core.

The emergence of this underclass zone is quite recent. Between 1971 and 1986 the loss of housing was quite gradual. For example in 1971 there were 10905 dwelling units. By 1986 this had dropped to 9275 an 8 per cent drop, or a net loss of 1,230 over a period of 15 years. However, between 1986 and 1996 this loss in housing stock escalates dramatically, with the net loss of 1063 in just 10 years. In total there was net a net loss of 2,693 units between 1971 and1996, or a loss of nearly 20 per cent of the housing stock.

Not only has there been a significant decline in housing stock, as well there has been steady decline in the value of dwelling units in relation to the region. In 1971 the value of dwelling units in this zone was 71.1 per cent of the region. Still, values here were in were in line with the Transition Zone (which were around 76.4 of median price in the region . Likewise housing values for the inner city were about 88 per cent of the region.

But as the underclass formation started to take form by 1986 the value of owned dwelling units fell to 56 per cent of the regional average. For the first time a significant gap emerges between the Transitional Zone and the Inner City. While the value of dwelling units in the Transitional zone and the Inner City also fell slightly in relation to the region, with values in the transitional zone standing at 70 per cent of the region, and the Inner City at 79 per cent. Instead of a gap of five percent, the difference between the Transitional Zone and the incubating Underclass Zone widens to 14 percentage points. and 23 per cent in relation to the Inner City.

The widening gap shows that the market is beginning to segment into qualitatively separate entities. From this it is possible to infer that a different dynamic is beginning to take shape. While the Transitional Zone maintains its status as a stable working class settlement space, the sharp fall in market values in the emerging Underclass Zone reveals that this former working class space is beginning to mutate into something else.

Between 1986 and 1996. this divergence accelerates. In 1996 the value of dwelling units fall to 47 of the metropolitan average. Although the gap between the Inner City and the Transitional zone declines in relation to the region (76 and 59 per cent respectively). Although the gap between the Transitional Zone and the Underclass settlement zone diminish slightly, the difference between the Zone of Underclass Settlement and continues to widen to 31 points (Table 26).
But it is really after 1996 that the most dramatic changes take place. Between 1996 and 1998 there is a catastrophic fall in the market. Assessment figures compiled by the City of Winnipeg for the medium value of residential property shows how precipitous the fall has been since 1996. From around $45,000 in 1996 the medium value of homes in the Zone of Underclass Settlement fell to around $15,000. As a result, in just three years there was a 67 per cent. Even though the Transition Zone experienced a decline of about 20 per cent, the rate of decline was only a third of the Underclass Zone. Consequently the gap between the Transition Zone and the Zone of Underclass settlement widened considerably, moving from 20 per cent points to 300 per cent, which suggests that both settlement zones were no longer part of the working class zone, something which was certainly the case in 1971. This collapse of the market can also be seen observed in the sales of specific homes. For example in 1996 only 28 homes sold for less than $10,000, however by 1999 this had risen to 87. Finally the loss of value can be gauged by the lowest selling price of a home. In 1996 $5,000 was the lowest price. In 1998 this fell to $2000. And by 1999 the lowest price for a home sold on the market was $500.

Indeed, even more worrisome is the growing number of housing units that have become abandoned or made derelict. A recent survey of 27,000 inner city homes by the Winnipeg Arson discovered that at least 1000 units were boarded up or derelict. Moreover, since 1995 the city has demolished over 500 homes to arrest decline and slow the rate of arson. Unit result between the city demolished dwelling units. With so many unsaleable units now present a new state of decline has been reached, where we now see the rapid abandonment housing rather than the incremental neglect of maintenance which typified most of the postmodern era. Indeed if nothing significant is done in the near future. This can be the large number of vacant homes in this zone. Not surprisingly, much of this area is known as the Fire Zone, because of the high number of arsons here. In Canada there is no parallel to what has happened here. To find a close equivalent we would actually have to leave the country and look to places such as as Detroit, East St. Louis or Camden, New Jersey.

Not only has capital abandoned the underclass zone, as predicted, people have left as well, with the population falling by 40 per cent between 1971 and 1996. In 1971 33,455 people lived in this zone. By 1986 the population had declined to 24,525, before settleling further downward at 20,788 in 1996 (Table).

Using the same criteria that was used for Winnipeg on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, a far different pictures emerges. Although there was significant loss in housing stock between 1971 and 1986 which parallels what took place in Winnipeg. But as the high land values and a rising densification ratio reveal the disinvestment has never been an important issue in the Downtown Eastside. For example in 1971 the densification ratio in the Downtown Eastside was 6.25. By contrast, in Winnipeg the densification was 2.17. In 1986 the ratios were 12.70 and 2.68 respectively. Between 1986 and 1996 the densification ratio continued to climb upward in the Downtown Eastside but fell in Winnipeg. As a result the densification ratio for the Downtown Eastside increased to 13.4 while the densification ratio in the Underclass Zone of Winnipeg fell to 2.6.
The movement of the densification ratio in both places therefore shows the presence of two completely different market and demographic dynamics. The loss of residential units in the Downtown Eastside had more to do with the conversion of residential properties into commercial and industrial landuses, not the abandonment of capital. Particularly since 1986 there has been a massive build up in the population and housing stock of the Downtown Eastside, which belies any notion that an underclass formation has emerged with regard to the operation of the real estate market. For example the number of dwelling units in the Downtown Eastside grew from 8020 units in 1986 to 10410 in 1996. With only 8210 units in Winnipeg’s underclass zone the number of dwelling units in the Downtown Eastside soared way above of Winnipeg’s. Similarly, while the Underclass Zone in Winnipeg experienced a 40 per cent loss in population in, Vancouver the population approached the 1971 level. Furthermore, when the 2001 census is completed it will probably show more people live in the Downtown Eastside than in Winnipeg. It should also show that the continued expansion of the housing stock rather than its depletion, which may continue in Winnipeg.

In Toronto, there is even less evidence of an underclass formation. The Regent Park area in Toronto’s Core would be the only area that a profile similar to Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside or Winnipeg’s Zone of Underclass Settlement can be found. But unlike Winnipeg, declining population and falling property values are not a problem. Although ownership rates are not as low as the Downtown Eastside they do stand considerably below those found in Winnipeg, something that is probably explained by prevalence of non-market dwelling units.

However, if we look at how the market in the Inner Suburbs has evolved since 1971 signs of relative, but not absolute disinvestment do appear. While the relative decline of the market cannot be used to demarcate this zone as an underclass formation, relative declines in housing prices suggest that there has been a fall in the social status of this zone and that some small pockets might eventually develop into weak underclass formations (but not at the same scale or the level of intensity that can be found in Winnipeg’s Underclass Zone).

Looking more closely at the inner suburbs of Toronto we see that there was a 59 per cent increase in the number of dwelling units between 1971 and 1996 as the number of dwelling units increased from 446,465 to 789,595. While these numbers reveal that disinvestment was not present in the inner suburbs; if we look at the price of realestate in relation to the region it is possible to conclude that the area experienced some decline in social and economic status since 1971, one which has accelerated between 1986 and 1996. For instance, between 1971 and 1996 the value of housing in the inner suburbs of Toronto fell from 103 to 95.7 per cent of the metropolitan average.

Except for Winnipeg, the most salient feature of the postmodern transformatin of the inner city was the conversion of the Transition Zone into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. With regard to densification this can be shown by examining the relative shift in housing values and ownership levels over time. Whenever the relative value of housing increases and ownership levels remain stable or actually increase, this can be interpreted as a symptom of gentrification and a sign that a Transition Zone is being transformed from a working class space into a middle class space.
As already mentioned, such a transformation did not take place in Winnipeg. Although ownership levels remained stable, hovering around 55 per cent of the housing stock in 1971 and 1996, the relative decline in the value of housing in relation to the region tells us that this zone remained a working class space and was not transformed into a middle class space. For instance, in 1971 the median value for dwelling units in Winnipeg’s Transitional Zone were about 76 per cent of the regional average. However, by 1997 this had fallen to 59 per cent.

By contrast if we look at what happened to the Transitional areas of Toronto and Vancouver quite a different picture emerges. In Vancouver ownership levels rose from 24 to 32 of the housing Stock between 1971 and 1996. In the case of Toronto there was a slight decline in ownership levels but this was countered by the relative increase in the value of dwelling units as housing values moved from 76 to 101 per cent of the regional average between 1971 and 1996. This happened in Vancouver as well, but to accurately gauge this change some manipulation of the data is required Because of the absence of single-detached units and the construction of smaller apartments gross price levels hide the real value of residential space. For example if gross figures used we find that the value of housing in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement declined from 96 to 78 per cent of the regional average. But if we modify this figure by taking the smaller size of dwelling the dwelling units in this a more precise determination of what is happening can be made. When this is done, and when we factor in the size of units by looking at the number of rooms in each dwelling unit, the relative price of housing in relation to the region in 1996 changes significantly, rising from 78 to 101 per cent of the regional average (Table 14).

Lastly, when we look at exurbia an interesting difference between Toronto and Winnipeg and Vancouver emerges which can tell us several things. Throughout the entire postmodern period higher housing values suggested that the social status of exurbia in Vancouver and Winnipeg rested near the top of the region. However, for Toronto this was not always the case. In 1971 median house values in Exurbia were 87 per cent of the regional average. However by 1996 the average value of dwelling units had risen to 100 per cent of the regional average, Not surprising this shift is also reflected in the number of middle class people inhabiting this zone. For example in 1971 the percentage of middle class residents living in exurbia was noticeably below the regional average. By 1996, however, this was turn around as the number of middle class residents approached the regional average.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variations in Densification and the Creation of the Postmodern City
Table 26
1971
DU Own % $ DU $Hsld SD Apart DR
Census Metropolitan Areas
Van 345870 203525 58.8 26702 9931 62.6 33.9 2.68
Wpg 166220 98375 59.0 17780 9382 63.2 31.3 1.89
TO 773985 424780 54.8 32065 11912 45.7 36.4 2.72
Core
Van 27035 985 3.6 26078 10150 2.4 92.5 2.60
Wpg 15765 1675 10.6 14656 6952 12.7 86.6 2.10
TO 32605 4405 13.5 32065 7495 4.9 70.4 4.31
Zone of Middle Class Resettlement
Van 42540 10140 23.8 25466 7172 23.9 64.2 2.60
Wpg 13402 4765 35.5 18109 8765 37.5 59.1 2.00
TO 159605 74710 46.8 30250 10373 23.2 38.9 2.90
Transition Zone
Wpg 40705 22335 54.9 13164 8027 57.5 32.5 1.63
Future Underclass Landscape
Van 6090e 669e 10.9 25000e 4500e NA NA 6.25
Wpg 10905 3310 30.3 12687 5750 35.7 52.7 2.17
Inner City Suburbs
Van 86260 60645 69.7 26764 10323 73.2 17.4 2.88
Wpg 21600 14775 66.6 18452 10627 71.4 23.8 1.73
TO 32775 14615 44.5 43726 16301 37.5 53.1 2.68
Inner City
Van 153265 71770 46.8 26078 9317 49.6 47.0 2.79
Wpg 91472 43550 47.2 15507 8306 51.6 45.0 1.86
TO 224495 93730 41.7 32542 10821 22.7 45.9 3.00

Transition Zone
Wpg 40705 21490 54.5 13164 8027 23780 12893 1.63
Inner Suburbs
Van 98205 60435 61.2 27719 10586 65.3 29.5 2.70
Wpg 67133 49350 73.1 19504 10627 77.6 14.9 1.83
TO 446465 254650 57.0 33558 12041 36.3 50.8 2.78
Outer Suburbs
Van 75710 58730 77.3 24931 9839 82.6 9.3 2.66
Wpg 6360 4360 68.5 24102 10800 67.9 16.3 2.23
TO 103075 76400 73.7 28511 13776 72.8 15.5 2.07
Exurbia Inner Ring
Van 18275 12220 66.6 35929 13334 66.6 22.0 2.69
Wpg 1255 1115 88.8 21551 10408 100.0 0.0 2.07
TO 103075 76400 73.7 31026 11871 75530 16410 2.6
1986
DU Own % $DU $Hsld SD Apt 5+ DR
Census Metropolitan Areas
Van 532220 299840 56.2 127311 36086 53.1 52620 3.52
Wpg 236325 143715 60.5 77844 33477 59.7 29935 2.32
TO 1199899 699370 58.2 142282 43025 43.1 338500 3.30
Core
Van 33905 2470 7.2 111523 29673 0.08 21875 3.96
Wpg 17260 2060 11.9 57773 21203 7.9 8630 2.71
TO 45950 6826 14.8 187708 30335 7.0 31800 6.23
Zone of Middle Class Resettlement
Van 55950 13455 24.0 127499 26218 12.6 4680 4.88
Wpg 12830 4955 38.9 78886 28431 33.3 1520 2.78
TO 168215 65644 38.6 143196 37392 16.0 43605 3.86
Inner City Suburbs
Van 98685 63015 63.8 151488 36275 64.2 2850 4.19
Wpg 23690 15876 65.2 73752 34481 69.5 2160 2.14
TO 38999 27630 71.0 214567 57880 36.8 12500 3.75
Transition Zone
Wpg 37345 20520 54.0 47905 23375 59.4 2712 2.04
Underclass Landscapes
Van 8020 600 7.4 140871 11381 6.5 2640 12.70
Wpg 9275 2685 28.9 43417 16571 59.9 1400 2.68
Inner City
Van 186195 78940 42.4 150540 32403 37.6 29405 4.80
Wpg 91125 43246 47.2 62272 26657 48.3 15022 2.38
TO 253155 100080 39.5 165983 39118 18.1 87905 4.23
Inner Suburbs
Van 156340 87165 55.7 124059 37046 49.3 16465 3.35
Wpg 115555 72190 62.6 81728 35482 60.8 12209 2.31
TO 683310 389995 56.9 137252 42060 41.5 223180 3.26
Outer Suburbs
Van 161775 115840 71.4 103213 35116 72.6 2155 2.94
Wpg 26790 19910 73.0 84225 37452 65.3 2704 2.27
TO 281335 209295 74.3 143338 59359 66.5 25415 2.42
Exurbia – Inner Ring
Van 26400 18260 69.2 182816 49910 61.5 3775 3.71
Wpg 9180 8450 92.0 88035 37690 100.0 0.00 2.37
TO 281335 209295 74.3 143338 59359 187225 25413 2.42
1996
DU Own % $DU $Hsld SD Apart DR
CMA
Van 692960 411400 59.4 318127 54055 45.5 36.1 5.88
Wpg 261915 167320 63.9 97824 45707 61.6S 28.7 2.14
TO 1488370 869570 58.4 238511 60110 43.4 38.3 3.96
Core
Van 41451 6235 15.0 228960 34318 0.06 97.5 6.70
Wpg 17860 2320 12.9 78362 27476 5.80 88.2 2.88
TO 61460 10825 16.3 222304 41613 16.3 86.8 5.40
Zone of Middle Class Resettlement
Van 62850 20090 24.0 277315 42417 8.0 79.0 6.59
Wpg 12205 5085 41.6 101596 38184 41.7 47.4 2.60
TO 184335 76070 41.3 241882 531640 16.8 50.5 4.54
Inner City Suburbs
Van 111860 65155 58.2 460652 56480 53.3 22.5 8.20
Wpg 23775 15935 67.0 89184 46235 65.2 26.0 1.93
TO 40500 18445 45.0 437552 93618 35.0 52.5 4.69
Transition Zone
Wpg 38990 21145 54.0 57518 29420 15900 6055 1.96
Underclass Landscapes
Van 10410 735 7.0 229391 17200 4.7 87.3 13.4
Opp 3970 60 1.5 196621 12485 1.4 94.3 16.3
To/rp 6560 410 6.2 185000 24300 1.2 80.8 7.7
Wpg 8210 2195 26.7 46235 18079 33.4 67.4 2.6
Inner City
Van 218540 91480 41.9 405946 48087 29.8 53.2 8.40
Wpg 92157 47235 51.0 74990 34723 48.9 40.2 2.17
TO 286295 105340 36.7 275411 56014 16.4 58.3 4.91
Inner Suburbs
Van 190575 114240 60.0 318758 53465 45.7 37.8 6.00
Wpg 110608 70210 63.6 96852 49725 61.8 29.0 1.95
TO 789595 437855 55.3 228127 55527 39.6 55.3 3.93
Outer Suburbs
Van 247140 180660 72.8 254834 56691 60.3 18.6 4.49
Wpg 43410 35250 81.3 116345 56319 72.0 13.9 2.07
To 412480 326375 79.1 242052 72815 68.4 14.3 3.36
Exurbia Inner Ring
Van 34170 23700 69.3 451620 75500 52.9 32.3 6.00
Wpg 15740 14625 92.9 123888 57750 94.6 0.08 2.15
TO 412480 326375 79.1 242052 72815 282260 59965 3.36
Definitions: CMA = Census Metropolitan Area; Core = Central Business District and adjacent residential neighbourhoods; Zone of Middle Class Resettlement = Transition Zone which has been transformed into an area of Middle Class Resettlement; Inner City Suburbs = suburban areas within the Inner City; Transition Zone = hold over from the modern era. This zone has disappeared in Vancouver and Toronto but still predominates in Winnipeg’s Inner City; Inner Suburbs = Suburban areas mostly developed as greenfield areas between 1945 and 1986. In the 1960’s considerable high-rise densification took place here as well. Outer Suburbs – Suburban areas that have largely developed since 1986; Exurbia, Inner Ring = suburban areas located past the outer suburbs, but contained with CMA boundaries. In the case of Toronto exurbia and the Outer Suburbs are identical.
Notes: In the Case of Winnipeg, the exurban zone for the 1971, only refers to East and West St Paul, while in the 1986 and 1996 Census this area has been greatly expanded. Except for CMA’s and the Old City of Toronto and the City of Vancouver, household incomes and the average value of a dwelling unit are given only as estimates and approximations. Similarly all figures for the inner suburbs of Winnipeg are approximations as well. To see a map of the various neighbourhoods which make up the Downtown Eastside consult a map supplied by the City of Vancouver in the Fig files.

Sources: Vancouver Local Areas Planning Department, City of Vancouver (for 1971 and 1976), April 1979;1971 Census, Series A, Vancouver, 95-728, May 1973; 1971 Census, Series B, Toronto, 95-751, September, 1974; 1971 Census, Series B, Toronto, 95-751 September 1974; 1971 Census, Series A, Toronto, 95-72, May 1973; 1971 Census, Series B, Winnipeg, 95-753, July 1974; 1971 Census, Series A, Winnipeg, 95-723, March 1973; Vancouver Local Areas 1971-1981, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, August 1985;1986 Census, Toronto Part One, 95-163, January 1988; 1986 Census, Toronto Part Two, 95-164, December1988; 1986 Census, Vancouver Part One, 95-167,January 1988; 1986 Census, Vancouver, Part Two, 95-168, December 1988; 1986 Census, British Columbia, Part One, 94-119; 1986 Census, British Columbia, Part Two, 94-120, September 1988; 1986 Census, Ontario, Part One, 94-111, 1986 Census, Ontario, Part Two, 94-112, September 1988; Vancouver Local Areas 1986, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, June 1989; Vancouver Local Areas 1986, Planning Department, City of Vancouver, October 1988; Census 1986, Winnipeg, Part One, 95-173, January 1988; 1986 Census, Winnipeg, Part Two, 95-174, December 1988; 1996, profile of Census Tracts in Winnipeg,95-207-XPB, Vancouver Local Areas 1996, Community Services, City of Vancouver, March 1999;Profile of Census Division and Subdivisions in Ontario, Vol 2,95-187-XPB,March 1999, 1996 Census, Profile of Census Tracts in Abbotsford andVancouver, 95-213-XPB, March 1999; Profile of Census Tracts in Toronto, Vol 1, 95-206-XPB, March 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.3.2 – The Evolution of the regulatory culture in the Postmodern era

By looking at how the regulatory culture has evolved in the postmodern era it is possible to assess the impact of the local state on the evolution of the city. From this it is also possible to see how larger forces of change are muffled or amplified by local circumstances. Furthermore, as with densification, it is also possible to see how these regulatory shifts feed back into the creation of a new social ecology.

Moreover, to fully understand the evolution of the regulatory culture of the postmodern city in North America it is first necessary to look at the political and cultural ramifications which followed from the emergence and expansion of the new middle class.

As pointed out earlier, there are four main attributes which set the new middle class apart from the traditional middle class. The first attribute has to do with geography. The second with the non-family orientation of the new middle class. The third has to do with their location in the division of labour. Finally the fourth has to do with cycles in the modernization process. In North America the perceptual space of the traditional middle took shape when bureaucratic rule and the military mindset were ascendant. In contrast to this the outlook and attitudes of the new middle class were fashioned by the declining influence of the military mindset and the relative retreat of bureaucratic rule in relation to the rising influence of the market.

Beginning with geography, we see that one of the defining features of the new middle class is its strong identification with the inner city and the unique material culture which was created there. Smaller pockets of the new middle class also reside in high amenity areas situated in exurbia. As with the inner city this has resulted in the gentrification of working class landscapes.

During the modern era the majority of the middle class clearly preferred the suburbs. But with the debut of a new fraction of the middle class in the 1960’s, this orientation to the suburbs is reversed by this new middle class strata.

One way of measuring the size and influence of this new class can be determined by looking at the growth of the adult population in the inner city with some university education. In 1971 there was a rough parity between Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg (Table 28. Table 27 ) For instance, 17 per cent of the adult population in Vancouver had some university education. In Toronto the percentage was 15.9 and in Winnipeg 13.5. Twenty-five years later we see that the number of university educated adults increased to 41.7 of the adult population. For Vancouver there was a dramatic increase as well, with the number of university educated adults accounting in the inner city accounting for 39.6 per cent of the adult population. By contrast, if we look at Winnipeg the increase is much smaller Here the university educated population only made up 27.1 per cent of the adult population. In 1971 there was a 4 to 5 per cent gap between the middle class population in Winnipeg and Toronto and Vancouver. However by 1996 this had increased to between 12 and 13 percent.

For Toronto and Vancouver, what these shifting percentages demonstrate is the rising political and social influence of the new middle class. Conversely, the widening gap between Winnipeg and the two other cities can be interpreted as evidence of the truncated development of this class.

The non-family orientation of the new middle class is another feature which sets it apart from the traditional middle class. This became most evident between 1971 and 1981 when the transformation of the Transition Zones of Vancouver and Toronto experienced a dramatic increase non-family households. For example in 1971 non-family households only made up 45.2 per cent of all households in Vancouver’s transition area. Family households therefore constituted the majority of households. However by 1981 the number of non-family households increased to 58.8, rising further to 61 per cent in 1996. Although the number of non-family households grew in Winnipeg’s Transitional Zone, only 44.7 per cent of all households were non-family.

From the previous discussion about the economy of the urban spectacle the importance of non-family households was shown to be central to the second phase of the postmodern transformation of the city. However, because the prevalence of family households in Winnipeg, this development was arrested. Rather than the market creating this material culture, government intervention in places like The Forks was required. With nearly 60 per cent of all households in Winnipeg’s Transition Area made up of family households this was a sharply contrasted with the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in Vancouver where 60 per cent of households were non-family Although the percentage of non-family households in Toronto’s inner city was a bit higher than Winnipeg’s but significantly less than that found in Vancouver, the decline of family households was, non the less, striking. For example in 1971 most household were overwhelmingly oriented to families, with 70 per cent of households taken up by families and only 30 per cent accounted for by non-family households. Meanwhile, if we look at Winnipeg we see that like Toronto, approximately 70 per cent of all households were family households. While the proportion of family households only declined by 10 per cent in Winnipeg, in Toronto there was a 24 per cent drop in the proportion of family. As with Vancouver, this shift from family to non-family households resulted in a sharp population drop in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. As a result, in Toronto the population of the emergent Zone of Middle Class Resettlement dropped from 537226 to 428100 between 1971 and 1981. Even the loss of population was much greater than Vancouver, this did not signify decline but, rather, the substitution of a working class and immigrant based population by one that was middle class one which was less oriented to the family. As with Vancouver, this shows up the growth of dwelling units. Hence between 1971 and 1986 there was a net of 8610 dwelling units in Toronto’s Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Likewise for Vancouver the same patterns appears. Although the population of the newly emergent Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in Vancouver had fallen by 4,660 between 1971 and 1981. Still, as with Toronto there was considerable expansion of the housing stock, with 8,435 new units added between 1971 and 1981 (Table 26).

The third point of differentiation has to do with the division of labour. With the rapid expansion of the entertainment and education sectors a new layer of middle class professionals emerged whose work entailed a more informal approach to work. In turn, this loosened up the social culture of part of the middle class. Whereas advancement and rewards for the traditional middle class were often defined by the capacity for self discipline and restraint, with rise of new fields of endeavour which the new middle occupied worked according to a different ethos. Rather than restraint, the exploration of desire became an important means for advancement. Out of this a highly sexualized culture emerged, something which the advance of market rule further amplified. The most clearly visible manifestation became apparent in the evolution of marketing strategies and the rise of prominent gay consumer culture entirely organized sexual expression and the play of desire. It is also something which has become apparent in the high tech sector, where the sharp divide between work and play has been diluted. Middle class culture therefore became more hedonistic. Not surprising, this shift in attitude finds expression the dramatic expansion of the drug culture. In the modern era involvement in the drug economy was a mark of social marginalization. But in the mid 60’s this all changed as drug use for the middle class became socially acceptable (Table 27).

The fourth point can be related to the one that has just been covered. Because of the larger cyclical shifts from bureaucratic to market rule which moved the modernization process forward in the 1960’s, and the concomitant shift from military to civilian rule which the 19th century sociologist, Herbert Spencer, so effectively traced the consequences of, different attitudes to authority arose, which, as the review of the history of Vancouver’s Planning Department so clearly shows, forced planners to move from monological to dialogical planning.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Variations in the Regulatory Culture of the Postmodern City
Table 27
New Middle Class in the Inner City
1971 % 1986 % 1996 %
Van 58465 17.0 110060 30.1 233050 39.6
Wpg 27616 13.5 40025 22.8 45443 27.1
TO 89500 15.9 171205 33.1 2299570 41.7
Planning in the Postmodern City
Livable City Era Urban Spectacle
Van Postmodern norms adopted Modified Postmodern Norms persist
Wpg Modern norms remain in place Modern Norms persist
TO Postmodern norms adopted Modified Postmodern Norms persist
Control of Urban Reformers over City Council
Van First reformers elected 1972 Reformers Lose Power
Wpg Old Guard Remains First Reformers elected 1998
TO First reformers elected 1972 Reformers In and Out
Two Sociological Dimensions to the Postmodern Regulation of the City
The Jewish Dimension
1971 % 1986 % 1996 %
Canada 276025 1.2 343505 1.3 351705 1.2
V CMA 8940 .8 18925 1.3 22225 1.2
V Inn 6910 1.6 NA NA 11340 2.1
W CMA 18315 3.3 17130 3.1 14145 2.1
W Inn 10255 3.8 6236 2.9 5630 2.7
T CMA 103735 3.9 142095 3.1 156300 3.6
T Inner 22445 3.0 NA NA 33335 5.1
The Homosexual Dimension
Era of the Livable City Era of the Urban Spectacle
Van Communitarian Phase Commercial Village Emerges
Wpg Communitarian Phase No Commercial Node Appears
TO Communtarian Phase Commercial Village Emerges

Definitions: Communitarian phase refers to a period when the informal economy represented by non profits, co-ops and volunteer groups were the which were the most prominent park of the Homesexual community outside the bars. Livable City represents the phase of the postmodern transformation of the city. This period stands in contrast to the age of the Urban Spectacle, where polarization and commercialization became more prominent. Each phase also embodies different politics and economics. While the period of the livable city was marked a strong reaction against high-rises, and an abiding anti-corporatism, this changes during the age of the urban spectacles, when the new middle class more closely aligns it self with corporatist interests. This is also reflected in the change in attitude towards hig-rise, which are greeted with far less opposition than was the case during the era of the livable city, when medium rather than high-rise dwelling units were the preferred house form.
Notes
Sources: Information about the homosexual community was obtained by looking at back issues of Body Politic, a Toronto based Magazine which was published in the 1970’s For Vancouver, information was provided by Angles, a new defunct gay newspaper. As well, gay guides, such as Gay lesbian Business Directory for Vancouver, were used to construct a picture of the non-profit and commercial parts of this community in each city; 1986 Census, Profile of Ethnic Groups, Dimensions, 93-154, Feburary1989;1986 Census of Canada, Ethnic origin unpublished counts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Together, these four attributes would create a new political and social calculus which would be reflect in the rise of the urban reform movement and the transformation of the planning department’s in Toronto and Vancouver, but not Winnipeg. Hence, during the first phase of the postmodern transformation, Vancouver and Toronto successfully adopted a postmodern framework for the regulation of space, something most clearly seen in the expansion of transit and the end of major freeway projects and the increased emphasis given to the pedestrian. This did not happen in Winnipeg. Instead of pushing the transit option the city allowed transit to atrophy. And rather than stop the construction of a new freeway system a clandestine strategy of building new freeways was adopted which continues to the present. While the planning department’s of Vancouver were forced to open up to dialogue with the public, more authoritarian practices held sway over the planning department of Winnipeg. While information sharing became an important part of the bureaucratic culture of Vancouver and Toronto, Winnipeg remained anchored in modern ways of doing things. Consequently there was far less information sharing with the public.
One reason for the difference had to do with the differences in the urban reform movement in each city. In Winnipeg, not only was the influence of the new middle class reduced by its arrested development, this weakness was further amplified by the re-organization of local government, which took place with the advent of unicity in the early 70’s. If the City of Vancouver and the City of Toronto had been re-organized in the same way, it would have been much harder for urban reformers to take control of the local state. Here the presence of a stronger middle class and the existence of favourable boundaries allowed reforms to come to power in 1972. Winnipeg would have to wait to 1998 for this to happen. And because of the dilution of the middle class agenda which necessarily followed from having just one city, realizing the postmodern agenda in Winnipeg remains a much greater challenge, something that is further hampered by the weak real estate market which inclines politicians and planners to pay more attention to the needs of the real estate industry rather than reign it in whenever it violates the goals of reform. The difference in the planning culture can not be discerned by looking at the documents produced over the past twenty years. It is only by looking at the actual practice of planners and politicians that fiction and reality can separated. All the buzz words found in the postmodern planning protocols of Toronto and Vancouver, can be found in Winnipeg. But what sets Winnipeg apart from Toronto and Vancouver, is that most of these protocols were debased or simply ignored. Unlike Toronto and Vancouver, words did not lead to action.

There is an important social dimension to the creation of a new regulatory culture which has to do with two particular sub-cultures. In an essay entitled “Notes on Camp,” which was published in Against Interpretation, a collection of essays on Modern Culture, released in the mid-60’s Susan Sontag noted:

“Jews and Homosexuals are the outstanding creative minorities in contemporary Culture, Creative, that is, in the truest sense, they are creators of new sensibilities. The two pioneering aspects of a modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism (and irony) (Sontag1966)

Further to this point, almost 20 years later, in the postmodern rather than modern age, Kurt Anderson, a reporter for Time Magazine would remark:

“In such a city, thick with gays and yuppies (San Francisco), the similarity between those two demographic subset is striking. An unexpected notion occurs. Yuppies are, in a sense, heterosexual gays. Among middle class people, after all, gays formed the original two income household and were the original gentrifiers, the original body cultists and dapper health club devotees, the trendy homemakers, the refined childless world travellers. Yuppies merely appended the term lifestyle and put a conventional sexual spin on things.”

Although Jews make up less than two per cent of the population. they play an inordinate role in the cultural industries which were previously referred to. In this regard it is no surprise to find out that one of the largest media concerns in the nation is controlled by a Winnipeg Jew, Izzy Asper. Nor is it surprising to find that a large number of Jews were involved in the urban reform movement. The same can be said of urbanists such as Phyllis Lambert who stands out as one of the most prominent reformers in Montreal. This even applies to the planning profession. Hence, in Toronto we find that many of the key planners who became influential when reformers came to power were of Jewish origin. While many of these planners moved out of planning into the corporate sector as the era of the livable city was growing weaker and the forces propelling the era of the urban spectacle gained momentum, these public sector planners moved into the private sector (with Olympia York being one of the most noteworthy destinations for this group) In these and other ways Jews become one of most active ideological agents with regard the articulation and advocacy of the postmodern agenda. As well, except for the homosexual population which is even more concentrated in the inner city than the Jewish population, probably no other minority culture has become so closely identified with the city as Canada’s Jewish population. That is why 84 per cent of the Jewish population resides in just five cities, with Toronto accounting for almost half of the entire population. Because of this urban orientation, what happens to this group provides an important bellwether with regard to the larger development of the new middle class.

In slow growing cities the health of the new middle class can be measured by looking at what happened to this sub-culture. For example in Winnipeg number of Jews dropped from 19,000 to 14,000 between 1971 and 1996. Even more significant, is the decline of the Jewish population in the inner city (Table 27) as the number of Jews declined by 45 per cent. Meanwhile the Jewish population residing in the inner city of Toronto and Vancouver grew respectively by 49 and 64 per cent. Furthermore, in cities such as Calgary and Ottawa, were the new middle class has become a significant force, the overall Jewish population in each of these cities has doubled over the past 25 years.

Over the same time period Montreal’s Jewish population fell from 109,485 to 89,905 – a drop of 18 per cent. But as with Winnipeg the decline in the inner city was even steeper with the number of Jews residing in the inner falling from 50,160 in 1971, to 27,000 in 1996 – a 56 per cent drop. For Montreal as well as Winnipeg these downward demographic movements can be used to evince the overall state of the new middle class in each city. From what happened to this sub-culture it is possible to make an inference about about urban reform and speculate why reformers came to power in 1972 in Vancouver and Toronto. and why they did not in Montreal until the mid 80’s. While the anglophone population, to which Montreal Jews belonged, was decimated by a stagnant economy and the threat of separation, the fact that Montreal held a monopoly over Franco-phone culture stabilized and help expand the Franco-phone new middle class. Consequently Montreal was able to belately create a discernable Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in Montreal’s Transitional Zone, with the Plateau being the most notable example of this. Winnipeg did not have the advantage of such a cultural monopoly. Here the rapid decline in the Jewish population became a bellwether for the entire new middle class. That is why reformers had to wait until 1998 to gain control over the local state. This is also why the middle class was unable to expand into the Transition Zone.

Finally there is the homosexual population. (Table 27) The outlines of this sub-culture closely follow that of the Jewish population. But as Sontag has noted its inflluence on the new middle class was not identical to that that of Jewish population. While Jews were accepted and well integrated into the social and cultural mainstream during the modern era, this was not the case for the homosexual population. While it is possible to point to distinct and visible Jewish neighbourhoods in the modern era, this could not be said of the homosexual community which was rendered invisible at this time. However, this changes dramatically in the postmodern era. Definable neigbhourhoods start to emerge in the late 70,s. For Vancouver, this happened in the West End. Here the shift in the gender balance between 1971 and 1981 presents unmistakable evidence of the emergence of a visible gay community, a development which would be further reinforced by the rise of a commercial district along Davie Street in the mid-80’s. In Toronto the Church and Wellseley area also emerged. Not surprisingly Montreal had to wait until the late 80’s before a definable Gay neighourhood arose in a former working class area of Montreal’s Core. Non of this happened in Winnipeg. Although there are notable concentrations of homosexuals in the Fort Rouge and Wolseley areas, the critical mass required for a distinct neighourhood to arise was not present. As with Winnipeg’s Jewish population, there was a massive outflow of middle class homosexuals, who largely moved to Toronto or Vancouver. This also explains why no gay commercial village has developed in Winnipeg.

What is also interesting to observe about the evolution of the homosexual community is how closely it reflects the political and ideological shifts within the larger middle class population. As with other members of the new middle class during the era of the Livable City, self expression took form in the creation of co-ops, non-profits and volunteer groups. As a result, there was considerable stress on communitarian values. On this level Winnipeg was able to hold its own with Vancouver and Toronto in the 1970’s. The outflow of the new middle class and the movement of homosexuals out of the city prevented the further development of this community. As a result of this no open commercialization took place. While hundreds of entries for gay businesses and services can be found in directories published for Vancouver and Toronto, a look at the directory for Winnipeg in the late 90’s showed only about 20 listings. While the homosexual communities in Vancouver and Vancouver were to become the most visible and active part of the consumer culture that arose with the advance of market rule during the age of the urban spectacle, the Winnipeg community remained in a state of arrested development.

6.3.3.-- Social Ecology

Finally, significant difference in the development paths of each city become apparent when we look at how the social ecology of each city changed over the postmodern era. (Table 28)

As already mentioned, the most obvious change was the transformation of the Transitional Zone into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. With this development there was a significant shift in the working class geography of the city. In addition to this, densification, combined with gentrification, moved the centre of gravity for immigrants to the suburbs. Unlike the Caucasian new middle class who moved from the suburbs to the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, just the opposite occurs with the newly arrived Asian middle class, as this new fraction of the middle class settles mostly in the inner suburbs. Unlike the new middle class this foreign fraction of the middle class subscribes more to modern rather than postmodern norms. Conservation and the preservation of the existing built environment is therefore far less important to this group. Similarly, this Asian middle class shows a much stronger affinity to a family-centred society than the new middle class. No doubt this became a factor in their movement to the suburbs, where more family-oriented housing was available.

Interestingly enough it is only the Blue Collar workforce, dominated by East Indians that we find the Zone of Asian Resettlement extending into the outer suburbs, with the North West part of Surrey and the North Eastern part of Delta becoming the demographic centre for Vancouver’s Punjabi population.

In Toronto a similar shift takes place with the focal point for immigrants shifting from out of the old City of Toronto, to the inner suburbs.

This did not happen in Winnipeg. While a significant number of immigrants moved to the suburbs, the inner city still remained the most important immigrant portal in the city.

A truncated Zone of Middle Class Resettlement appeared in Winnipeg, but except for the Mulvey neighourhood, there was no intrusion of the middle class into the Transitional Zone. In fact quite the opposite occurred, as former middle class neighbourhoods, such as West Broadway became contested ground for the urban underclass and the new middle class, as can be seen in the 50 per cent decline in residential property values between 1996 and 1999.. If the transformation of social space in Winnipeg had followed the pattern that emerged in Toronto or Vancouver, this area would have been fully gentrified by the early 1980’s. But as the sharp fall in housing prices reveals, this would not be the case.

Not only were there few inroads by the new middle class into the Transition Zone, at the other end of the social spectrum a more ominous development gathered steam between 1986 and 1996, when an underclass formation took root in the Transitional Zone and parts of the Core.

Furthermore, when a comparison between Vancouver and Toronto is made, significant differences in the settlement geography of immigrants develop over the postmodern era. Between 1986 and 1996 the inner city of Vancouver no longer remained the most important catchment space for immigrants in the region. Instead the inner suburbs took on this role. In Toronto a slightly different configuration emerges, with most immigrants displaced outside the old City of Toronto to the inner suburbs made up of the other municipalities which were part of the Corporation of Metropolitan Toronto (also including Mississauga). Because immigration into Toronto was more diverse and not as rapid paced as Vancouver between 1986 and 1996, a Zone of Asian Resettlement did not appear. While a high proportion of immigrants in Vancouver were middle class, the greater influx of refugees and working class immigrants into the Toronto meant that the inner suburbs lost some of their status as traditional middle class settlement Zone, which was not the case with Vancouver where the inner suburbs became more middle class.

Thus, in Toronto a much more polyglot picture took shape in the inner suburbs. If an underclass formation emerges in Toronto, it will likely appear in number of pockets located in this zone, which is quite different from what may happen in Vancouver, where the outer suburbs are more likely to produce pockets of underclass settlement. However, unlike Winnipeg where the existence of an underclass has become a fact, so far, in both Vancouver and Toronto, this possibility still remains a possibility rather than a fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table: 28 Variation in the Social Ecology of the Postmodern City
km Pop 86 Pop 96 86-98 NMC Imm Asian Incid
CMA
Van 2820.7 1362445 1831665 +34.4 30.5 34.9 19.6 23.3
Wpg 4077.6 625304 660450 +5.6 28.0 16.8 5.1 23.0
TO 5867.7 3427168 4263757 +24.3 30.0 41.5 15.1 19.1
Core
Km Pop 86 Pop 96 86-96 NMC Imm Asian Incid
Van 6.75 45730 61757 +35.5 39.6 33.3 12.0 41.6
Wpg 7.33 32747 32506 -1.0 32.1 26.4 12.3 52.7
TO 25.02 100760 124492 +24.0 46.6 45.1 23.2 41.2
ZMCRS
Van 19.85 104565 124348 +19.2 43.7 34.6 18.5 36.2
Wpg 6.40 27659 25354 -7.7 45.3 14.7 2.6 40.9
TO 55.7 428100 441839 +3.0 36.8 43.7 13.3 28.7
Transitional Zone
Wpg 38.64 99125 95251 -4.0 15.2 22.5 10.5 41.7
Underclass Landscapes
Van 4.67 14797 16275 +9.9 17.6 44.1 34.5 68.2
Opp 0.4 3910 5262 +34.5 19.6 37.9 26.0 81.0
To/rp 0.96 15539 15832 +.1 21.0 52.6 29.2 70.7
WPG 6.29 24528 20779 -15.3 12.8 27.3 16.5 70.8
Inner City
Van 113.09 425910 514008 +20.9 37.5 44.3 28.9 31.0
Wpg 68.39 217919 207728 -4.7 27.3 20.0 7.7 37.9
TO 97.15 612286 653734 +6.6 41.7 41.5 14.0 29.0
Inner City Suburbs
Van 86.49 275615 327903 +18.9 33.5 50.1 36.1 27.9
Wpg 19.28 58431 54444 -7.0 34.0 14.1 2.2 22.2
TO 16.34 83068 87406 +4.8 60.9 24.1 5.7 11.4
Inner Suburbs
Van 400.36 397564 499319 +25.6 31.6 38.6 22.4 24.1
Wpg 103.0 287798 272 345 -5..4 29.0 21.6 6.5 20.2
TO 806.80 1954437 2276069 +16.4 28.1 47.8 18.4 23.7
Outer Suburbs
Van 182.00 384650 604306 +57.2 22.4 25.5 11.6 18.1
Wpg 291.89 88839 134860 +52.2 30.0 18.6 7.4 12.2
TO 4963.78 860442 1333932 +55.0 27.1 30.9 9.9 11.4
Exurbia
Van In 2125.94 154330 214032 +38.9 33.2 22.8 7.2 11.5
Van Ex 4530.00 38961 61239 +60.5 26.5 16.3 2.2 14.8
T Exurb 6655.94 193291 275271 +42.4 31.9 21.8 5.8 12.3
Wpg In 3614.00 30753 48730 +60.0 20.8 7.5 .5 6.7
Wpg Ex 3512.00 NA 40185 NA 18.6 NA NA 9.8
T Exurb 7126.00 NA 88915 NA 19.8 NA NA 8.1
TO 4963.78 860442 1333932 +55.0 27.1 30.9 9.9 11.4
Definitions: The Core: When looking at the organization of the built environment in the Core, a remarkable convergence between Vancouver, Winnipeg and Toronto can be observed, which can be found in the organization of other major core areas in the country.. Within each city the Core is anchored by a Central Business District. Similarly the area around the Central Business District, has a residential and commercial frame which surrounds the Central Business District.. In all three cities the frame can be divided up into two distinct sub areas. On one side of the Central Business District there is a working class area. On the other side there is a middle class zone. In Toronto and Vancouver this alignment runs East and West, while in Winnipeg this same continuum runs North to South.. In the middle class areas a high-rise precinct has evolved in all three cities. In Vancouver this can be seen in the West End, In Winnipeg, Fort Rouge, And in Toronto, the equivalent area can be found between Yonge and Parliament Streets. The Zone of Middle Class Resettlement:: Because of falling population, lack of investment, and declining social status this part of the city functioned as a transitional zone during the modern period. Zoning regulations also set this space apart from other neighbourhoods. Although zoning was more restrictive than in the Core, it was more flexible than the RS-1 zoning for single-detached homes, which predominated in the inner and outer suburbs for most of the modern period. Unlike, the Core, strong resistance to high-rise development by the new middle class limited the expansion of high-rises into the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. Instead of a high-rise landscape emerging a compromise was arrived at, with medium-rise structures acting as the main template for new development. At the same time, the mixture of land uses set this zone apart from the monochrome single-detached suburbs which made up the next settlement zone In the modern era this mix was regarded as being problematic. However, in the postmodern era this format has become the basis for much of the new urbanism. With the popularization of this form of urbanity, there has been a remarkable turnaround in investment since the late 60’s, all of which, has been helped along with the emergence of a new middle class and its migration into this zone. The boundaries for this zone were therefore determined by looking at those areas which experienced decline between 1945 and 1970, but which later underwent a revival because of the arrival of the new middle class.. The Transitional Zone: In the modern era this zone was present in all three cities, but only now exists in Winnipeg. In the modern era this space served largely as a working settlement space, but this function has begun to change in the postmodern era. Rather than housing a transient working class population, in Winnipeg this space is increasingly becoming identified with the formation of a rapidly expanding urban underclass. Underclass Landscapes: This landscape has so far only appeared in Winnipeg. It is a settlement zone marked by extreme impoverishment. In Winnipeg, this Zone spans both the Transitional Zone and the Core. As well, a finger of this underclass landscape extends into the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement where the Furby/Langside corrider between Broadway and Portage Avenue functions as part of contiguous zone of impoverishment that runs from Broadway to Church Street in the North End. Because information from West Broadway could not be disaggregated to reflect this underclass extension, data from this area was not included in the overall profile for Winnipeg. As with all underclass landscapes it is not just extreme poverty, but the presence of an ethnic dimension and lack of participation in the labour market which sets this space apart from other low-income working class spaces. Although Vancouver doesn’t really have an underclass landscape such as Winnipeg’s, it is included in this study since it bears many attributes of an underclass space that exists in Winnipeg. Only the Oppenheimer neighbourhood actually functions as an underclass landscape. But Compared to Winnipeg’s underclass space which covers over 6.2 square kilometres, Oppenheimer only covers about .5 square kilometres or just about 15 per cent of the area in Winnipeg. However this neighb ourhood only accounts for 32 per cent of population located in the Downtown Eastside. With the incidence of poverty standing at 80.9 per cent of the population in private households and only 12.9 per cent of population in the Oppenhiemer made up of middle class adults, this in the only part of the Downtown Eastside that reflects the demographic and economic dynamics that can be found in Winnipeg. This is further amplified by the relatively large native population which gives an ethnic dimesion to the underclass which is absent in the rest of the Downtown Eastside. Inner City Suburbs: Besides the Core and Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, there is a residual space in the inner city which did undergo significant decline in the modern period and, with the exception of Vancouver, remains largely unchanged in the postmodern era. Using the typology that Burgess employs to divide up the city, this space would correspond to the Space of Working Class Home’s and the Zone of Middle Class Homes. Although most of this residual space is taken up by the traditional middle class, segment s of stable working class population can be found here as well. In Vancouver this working class space would correspond to the East End Suburbs, which now make up part of the inner ring of the Zone of Asian Resettlement. In Winnipeg old St Boniface, Riverview East, and the Northern reaches of the North End would be included in this inner city zone. Because most of the existing working class spaces in the inner city of Toronto have been placed in the Core or the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, there is no significant working class presence in this residual space within the inner city of Toronto. The Inner Suburbs: This settlement space mostly refers to parts of the region which were developed as greenfield sites between 1945 and 1986.. In Winnipeg this would include all areas outside the old City of Winnipeg that are now situated within the new and expanded boundaries of the present city. In Vancouver, this Zone would take in the outer ring of the Zone of Asian resettlement, and the inner ring of the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement and would include the suburbs of Burnaby, and Richmond. For Toronto this Zone includes the City of Mississauga and the old Borough of East York, the old City of York, North York and Scarborough. For most of the modern period low-rise development predominated in this zone, but with the advent of the densification process, in the 1960s a substantial number of high-rises were constructed which make this zone stand out from suburban areas further out, In Toronto a more mixed picture has emerged, with powerful forces of investment and disivestment operating in the same zone. Toronto, but have yet to surface in a significant way in Winnipeg or Vancouver. The Outer Suburbs:: This refers to areas that have experienced most of their growth since the 1980’s, With the notable exception of Vancouver, which has evolved differently because of the generalized impact of the densification process, development in the outer suburbs has been marked by the prevalence of low-rise development. In Toronto this zone includes the regional municipalities of Peel, Halton and Durham. Since the built environment and social profile of City of Missaussaga have more in common with the inner suburbs than the outer suburbs it has been included in the inner rather than outer suburban zone.. In Vancouver, this area largely corresponds to the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement, including the City of Surrey, the City of Coquitlam, Port Coquiltlam, Port Moody, Maple Ridge, Delta Exurbia: As already stated, in Toronto Exurbia corresponds to the outer suburbs, but is deemed to be a distinct and separate zone in Winnipeg and Vancouver. For Winnipeg this space ranges over all parts of the Winnipeg Capital Region (which subsumes the Census Metropolitan boundary) taking in all areas located outside the City of Winnipe. In the Case of Vancouver exurbia takes in an inner ring, ( which includes Lions Bay, Bowen Island, West Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, the District of Langley) and an outer ring made up of the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast, Whistler, Squamish and Pemberton.
Notes: This breakdown of settlement boundaries is complementary but not identical to the more detailed scheme used in the previous chapter for Vancouver. While the boundaries in the previous scheme were constructed to show how population movements have created distinctive postmodern settlement zones, in this more generalized scheme (with the exception of the Core, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, Inner City) boundaries were partially reshaped to highlight how shifts in investment within the built environment have also helped to mold urban space in the postmodern era. Another difference between this overview and the more detailed examination of settlement zones carried out in the previous chapter is that only Census Divisions and Sub-divisions were used to demarcate boundaries, while a finer textured analysis, using census tracts was the building block used to construct zones in the other scheme for the region. Note as well except for size and population figures the percentage for immigration, Asian immigration, the middle class, and incidence of poverty was calculated upon Census Division rather than Census Tracts for the outer suburbs. Consequently there is some overlap with exurban figures for Maple Ridge and the District of Langley
Notes: Looking at Underclass formations in Toronto, that is where the incidence of low-income is over 60 per cent – less intense than either Vancouver and Winnipeg. In the inner suburbs of Toronto this area takes in about 5.4 square Kilometres. However this zone is scattered over three areas, the largest being in Scarborough where this zone takes in 3.1 Kilometres. In 1996 this zone had a population of 19,881. 78.9 per cent of the population is made up of immigrants. And about 48 per cent of this population was Asian. The two largest visible minorities were South Asian, accounting for over 31 per cent of the population, and the Black population, accounting for 29.9 per cent of the population. To see a map of the various neighbourhoods which make up the Downtown Eastside consult a map supplied by the City of Vancouver in the Fig files.
Sources: Census Tracts Toronto, Part 1, 1986 Census, 95-163, January 1988; Census tracts, Toronto Part Two, 95-164, December 1988 Census Divisions and Sub-divisions, Ontario, September 1987; , Part One, 1986 Census,94-111,S September, 1987; Census Tracts Winnipeg, Part One, 95-173, 1986 Census, January 1988; Profile of Census Divisions and Sub-Divisions in Manitoba, 95-188-XPB, March 1999; Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions in Ontario, Vol 2, 95-187-XPB, March, 1999; Profile of Census Tracts in Toronto, Vol. One,95-206-XPB, March 1999. 1996 Census Data for exurban zones provided by the City of Winnipeg.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to a more detailed examination, the differences and similarities that define each settlement zone can now be more clearly outlined. Looking at the Census Metropolitan area for each city provides us with an overview which sets a larger template for what would happen in each of the other ecological zones.

Since population growth, the inflow of immigrants, and the movement of the middle class provide the main fuel for changes in the social ecology of the postmodern city, these variables provide us with a means to gauge the intensity of change by examining variations in the demographic make up of each region. Beginning with population, between 1986 and 1996 the population of Toronto increased by 24.3 per cent, and by 34.4 per cent for Vancouver. But in Winnipeg the population only grew by 5.6 per cent (Table 28 ).

When we look at the Core and Inner City of each region the difference become even more obvious. For example, between 1986 and 1996, the population of Vancouver’s Core increased by 35.5 per cent. By contrast, the population of Winnipeg’s Core fell by one per cent. And in Toronto the population of the Core rose by 24 per cent. The same trend becomes apparent if we look at the inner city of each region. For the City of Vancouver the population increased by 20.9 per cent, while Winnipeg’s inner city lost 4.7 per cent of its population. In between there is the old City of Toronto whose population increased by 6.6 per cent.

Except for the Expansion of the Outer Suburbs and the Inner Ring of exurbia, population growth in the inner suburbs of Winnipeg all zones experience population decline. The fact that only these two zones experienced growth provides a graphic demographic illustration of the dispersion rather than concentration which took place between 1986 and 1996. The intense nature of this population dispersion can be seen In fact that the population of the Inner Exurban ring grew by 60.5 per cent between 1986 and 1996, more than ten times the growth rate for the region. Even more interesting is the fact that exurban Winnipeg recorded a far higher rate of growth than Exurbia in Toronto, which only grew by 42.4 per cent, and Vancouver, where the exurban population only grew by 38.4 (Table 28).

In different ways this divergence tells us a great deal about development in each city. For Winnipeg, the fact that exurbia grew faster than Toronto or Vancouver while the population declined in the inner city and the inner suburbs says a great deal about the dispersion of growth and the decline of the inner city. For Vancouver the fact that the exurban population grew less than either Winnipeg or Toronto, tells us something important about the intensity of the densification process. Finally the rapid increase in Toronto’s huge exurban population is strongly suggestive of a bifurcated pattern of development, one that is muted in Vancouver, but far more obvious in Winnipeg.

The migration of the middle class reveals significant variations in each region as well. In Vancouver and Toronto this led to the formation of two Zones of Middle Class Resettlement. However, because of the huge middle class exodus from Winnipeg there was very little expansion into the Transitional Zone. As the small size of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement reveals, this produced a truncated pattern of development. This can be seen in the persistence of the Transitional Zone in Winnipeg and its disappearance in Vancouver and Toronto. This truncated development also becomes visible if we look at the size of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in relation to the Core of each city. Only in Winnipeg is the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement smaller than the Core, with the Zone covering 6.40 Kilometres compared to 7.38 Kilometres for the Core. By contrast, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement covers almost 20 square Kilometres in Vancouver. Hence it is nearly three times larger than the Core, which covers 6.75 square kilometres. Similarly, the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement in Toronto is more than twice the size of the Core. Although Toronto has the largest Core in the Country, it is dwarfed by the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, which covers 55.7 square kilometres compared to 25 Kilometres for the Core.

Looking at the distribution of the middle class in each Zone, for Vancouver a dramatic reconfiguration is revealed. While the middle class population in the City of Vancouver increased from 9.1 per cent of the adult population to 37.5 per cent between 1971 and 1996, what happens as the Transitional Zone is transformed into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement is even more noteworthy. In 1971 middle class residents only made up 15.5 per cent of the adult population, far less than the regional average, and the Core or the City. However, by 1986 the tables are turned. At this time the proportion of the new middle class in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement exceeds both the City and the region. This shift could only have resulted because of the massive inflow of middle class migrants.

Elsewhere, an interesting difference between the outer suburbs of each region becomes noticeable. Unlike Winnipeg or Toronto where the number of middle class residents exceeds the regional average, in Vancouver this is not the case. Here, in the outer suburbs, only 22.4 per cent of the adult population is middle class compared to 30 and 27 per cent for Winnipeg and Toronto. In terms of social status this suggests that Vancouver is structured differently, with a larger working class population residing here than either Toronto or Winnipeg. The lower social status of the outer suburbs is also revealed if we look at differences in the incidence of poverty. In Vancouver’s outer suburbs the incidence of poverty is 18.1 compared to 12.2 for Winnipeg and 11.4 per cent for Toronto.

Not only does this difference tell us something about the higher profile of the working class in Vancouver’s outer suburbs, it also provides insight into the migration of lower status individuals from the inner city and the inner suburbs to the outer suburbs. No doubt, densification played a part in this shift, however the emergence of a Zone of Asian Resettlement likely played a role here as well. As will be shown in the next section, this difference would also contribute to the widening rift between the outer suburbs and the rest of the region, something that not only has to do with the lower economic and social status of this zone but also variation in the ethnic profile of this zone, which has largely been transformed into a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement between 1986 and 1996.

Moving on to Winnipeg, despite the existence of a large underclass we see that like Toronto and Vancouver, the Core retains its status as a middle class space, albeit in a highly polarized fashion. Although the proportion of middle class residents (32.0) is not as high as Toronto (46.6) or Vancouver (39.6), it is still higher than the regional average (28.0).

But if we look at the Transitional Zone in Winnipeg, unlike Vancouver or Toronto there is little evidence of transformation. Between 1971 and 1996 the relative position of the Transitional Zone under goes a precipitous fall. For example, while the proportion of middle class residents in the region increased by approximately 8 per cent, over 25 years there was only a 4.5 per cent increase in the Transitional Zone as the percentage of middle class residents moved from 10.7 in 1971 to 12.4 in 1986, before resting at to 15.2 per cent in 1996, nearly 50 per cent less than the regional average. Although Winnipeg had fewer middle class residents than either Toronto and Vancouver in 1971 the difference was a matter of degree rather than the qualitative in dimension, which it would become in 1996. Hence, in 1971 the percentage gap between Winnipeg and Toronto was 1.5 per cent. For Vancouver there was 6 per cent gap in relation to Winnipeg. However, by 1996 this widened to 21.6 per cent for Toronto, and 28.5 per cent for Vancouver.

For Toronto the reconfiguration of middle class landscapes is just as striking as Vancouver’s. Nevertheless there are some significant differences. Like Vancouver, Toronto’s Transitional Zone has been transformed into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. In 1971 only 12.2 per cent of the adult population was middle class. This stood below the regional average of 13.7 and 13.1 for the inner suburbs. As with Vancouver, things are turned around by 1996, with the percentage of the new middle class increasing to 36.8 per cent of the adult population compared to 30.8 for the region and 28.1 for the Inner Suburbs. While the social status of the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement has risen significantly in relation to the region, it has also surpassed the inner suburbs, which, as already noted, has undergone a modest decline in social status.

Finally, the transformation of the social status of exurbia cannot be ignored. Unlike Vancouver or Winnipeg where the middle class have generally rested above the regional average, for Toronto this was not always the case. With only 11.4 per cent of Exurbia made up of middle class adults in 1971 zone this settlement space had the smallest middle class population in the region. However by 1996 this changes as the proportion of middle class residents approaches the regional average and nearly overtakes the inner suburbs.

Moving on to Immigration we find remarkable variation over time and space. While immigrants play a smaller role in the demographic profile of Winnipeg, the reverse is the case for Vancouver and Toronto. For instance, in 1971 immigrants accounted for nearly 20 per cent of the population in Winnipeg. However by 1996 this had declined to about 17 per cent. Over the same time, rather than falling, we see the demographic impact of immigration rising dramatically in both Toronto and Vancouver.

For example, between 1971 and 1996, the proportion of immigrants in Toronto increased from 33.9 to 41.5. For Vancouver, the relative influence of immigrants increased even more, as the proportion of immigrants moved upward from 26.4 to 39.6 between 1971 and 1996, with largest spike taking place between 1986 and 1996, when the immigrant population increased from 391,845 (28.3)to 633,740 (34.9).

Within the settlement zones of each city there were important internal shifts in the immigrant population as well. Although the Core areas retained their position as important immigrant portals. in Vancouver, the relative importance of the Core for immigrants declines. For instance, in 1971 the proportion of immigrants in the Core was 13 per cent higher than the regional average (Table 28). However, by 1996 but falls below the region by 1996 (34.9) when the proportion of immigrants slides from -- to 33.3 per cent of the Core area’s population. In Toronto the immigrants in the Core remain well above the regional average (45.1 versus 41.8 for the region). As with Toronto, Winnipeg’s Core has the highest relative concentration of immigrants (26.4 versus 16.8 per cent for the region).

When we look at what happened to the Transitional areas in terms of immigration Toronto and Vancouver appear more alike than Winnipeg. Just as with Vancouver, Toronto’s Transitional Zone had the region’s highest proportion of immigrants in 1971. At that time they made up 45.6 per cent of the population, which was even higher than the Core (where the percentage stood at 41.5). However, between 1971 and 1996 we see that the proportion immigrants falls from 45.6 to 43.6. per cent, which was slightly above the regional average but below that of the Core, and far below that of the Inner Suburbs. Thus, while the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement slips to third place in terms of the proportion of immigrants in the Inner Suburbs the number of immigrants increases from 33 per cent to 48 per cent of the population, making the Inner Suburbs the most important immigrant portal for the region, as it moves from third place to first place between 1971 and 1996

No doubt, an important reason for the intensification of immigration in Toronto’s Core, as well as the Inner Suburbs, had a great deal to do with the composition of the housing stock, with both the Core and the Inner Suburbs having more non market units than the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement. For the Core, another reason has to do with the Transformation of the social status of the housing stock in St James Towne. Originally housing in this development was built mostly for upwardly mobile professionals. But this changes in the postmodern era as St James became an immigrant and working class residential space. As a result, between 1971 and 1996 the number of immigrants nearly doubled, moving from 5324 to 10415. Consequently, by 1996 about 17 per cent of all immigrants in the Core resided here, a percentage nearly double the average for the Core.

In Exurban Toronto, several important changes can be noted as well. Between 1971 and 1996 the exurban middle class grows by leaps and bounds. Compared to the outer suburbs and exurbia in Vancouver and Winnipeg in 1996 we find a much higher proportion of immigrants as well. Moreover, in the same period of time there was a very significant increase in the number of Asian immigrants. Although the proportions are still well below the regional average or the Inner Suburbs the fact that nearly 10 per cent of exurbia is made up of Asian immigrants suggest that this zone has become a major destination point for middle class Asian immigrants. By contrast the Core and the Inner Suburbs remain the primary destination points for working class immigrants, Pink-Collar workers and refugees.

Thus the proportion of immigrants in Exurban Toronto rises from about 23 per cent to 31 per cent between 1971 and 1996, far above Vancouver and Winnipeg, where, in 1996, the proportion of immigrants was 23 and 8 per cent respectively. Some interesting changes can also be noted by looking at the proportion of Asian immigrants. In 1971 they made up about .5 per cent of the population of exurban Toronto, however in 1996 this increases to about 10 per cent, a level far higher than the 8 per cent or the .5 per cent levels found in Vancouver and Winnipeg. As already mentioned the relatively high number of Asian immigrants here probably points to the greater role played by middle class Asians in this outer zone. While this falls far below the 36 per cent level to be found in the Inner Ring of Vancouver’s Zone of Asian Resettlement, the Asian presence in exurbia is probably the closest Toronto comes to having a middle class ring of Asian Resettlement.

Within the immigrant population in each region, another significant fact that can be observed is size of the Asian population in each city. Once again Winnipeg stands out as the anomaly. Whereas only 5.1 per cent of the population of Winnipeg is accounted for by Asians, in Toronto the number is 15.1 per cent and 19.6 per cent for Vancouver. Beside the difference in the class make up Asian immigrants in both cities the higher rate of Asian immigration into Vancouver is quite suggestive because it tells us why a Zone of Asian Resettlement appeared in the inner city suburbs of Vancouver and the adjacent inner suburbs of Burnaby and Richmond, but not In Toronto. For example, the Asian population only made up 24 per cent of the population of Toronto’s inner city suburbs, 14 in Winnipeg, but 36 per cent in Vancouver.

Because of the movement of the new middle class into the inner city, it is possible to observe a significant outward shift in immigration. In the Modern era the Transition Zone functioned as the main portal for immigrants. However because of rising housing values and gentrification this ring of immigration was pushed out into the suburbs. For example, in 1971, before Toronto’s Transition Zone was transformed into a Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, 45.6 per cent of the population was made up of immigrants, which made it the main immigrant portal for the region Over the next 25 years this would change, particularly with regard to the Inner Suburbs and the Core. Although the proportion of immigrants rose steadily over this period, the number of immigrants in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement fell from 45.6 per cent to 43.6. By 1996 the percentage of immigrants in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement was still slightly higher than the region, buts its role as the main portal for new immigrants had ended, with the Core and the Inner Suburbs taking over this role. For example, in 1971 the Inner Suburbs had fewer immigrants than the region. At that time both the Transition Zone and the Core had a higher proportion of immigrants. However by 1996 there is a sharp reversal. While the proportion of immigrants fell in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement, the number of immigrants in the Inner Suburbs would rise from 32 to 47 per cent between 1971 and 1996, far above the regional average, and higher than the Core which now had the second highest concentration of immigrants.

A similar pattern takes shape in Vancouver as well. In 1971 Vancouver’s Transition Zone functioned as the main immigrant portal for the region with 39 per cent of the population made up of immigrants. Although 39 per cent of the Core’s population was also made up of immigrants, different population made the Transition Zone the main entry point for immigrants. At any rate both the Core and the Transition Zone were above the regional average. However by 1996 this had been reversed, as the proportion of immigrants in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement had dropped below the regional average (34.6 versus 34.9).

More importantly, the role that this zone played as the regional centre for Asian immigrants was eclipsed by the suburbs. On the one hand this tells us a great deal about class and the middle class Asian aversion to postmodern landscapes. On the other hand, its attraction to the suburbs shows the Asian middle class’s affinity to modernist spatial values. The decline of Asians in the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement also points to the fact that the Zone of Middle Class Resettlement was more popular with Americans and Europeans, who were more inclined to embrace the postmodern material culture which this zone became the cultural hearth for.

In Winnipeg there would be no such shift. In 1971 about 121,000 people lived in the Transition Zone, which meant that it was larger than the same Zone in Vancouver. While the Transition Zones lost their dominance with regard to immigration in Toronto and Vancouver, there was little change in Winnipeg’s. Between 1971 and 1996 the proportion of immigrants in this zone declined from 24 to 23 per cent. However this one per cent drop was less than the three per cent decline for the region as the number of immigrants moved down from 19.8 per cent to 16.8 per cent. Although the proportion of immigrants in Winnipeg’s Core has always been higher than the Transition Zone (27 per cent in 1971 and 27 per cent in 1996). And even though, the Core still had the highest concentration of immigrants in the region, because of the difference in size (32,000 versus 95,000) the Transition area still acts as the main immigrant portal for Winnipeg because of this difference in scale.

What is also interesting to observe about immigration in Winnipeg, is the rising influence of the Filipino population. Between 1986 and 1996 this population increased by 66 per cent while the absolute number of immigrants in the city decreased by 2 per cent. In the Transition Zone the shift is even more striking, with the Filipino population rising from 6275 t0 10,610, an increase of 69 per cent in a settlement space whose population had dropped by 4 per cent.

The rapid increase of this population helped to arrest the further decline of the Transition Zone, particularly in Winnipeg’s West End where the largest number of Filipinos in the inner city lived. Compared to the 72 per cent drop in housing prices in the North End neigbourhood of Lord Selkirk between 1989 and 1999 there was only a 27 per cent drop in the West End. What these figures strongly suggest is that the presence of Filipino immigrants has functioned like a life line for the Transition Zone, helping this area to retain its working class integrity at a time when an underclass formation was emerging in the North End and parts of the Core. Not surprisingly, the Underclass Settlement zone was the only area in the Transition Zone where there was a significant decline in the number of Filipinos.

Another interesting interpretation that can be made of the prominence of Filipino immigrants is that it shows how high the profile of working class and Pink-Collar workers are within the immigrant population of Winnipeg. Once again, this contrasts with Vancouver where a larger proportion of immigrants are made up an Asian middle class who have concentrated more in the White-Collar sectors. Finally, in Toronto, there is a large working class and Pink-Collar sector within the immigrant population. But unlike Winnipeg there is also a large middle class and White-collar immigrant work force as well.


6.3.2.a: The rise of an Urban Underclass

When we look at the emergence of an underclass formation from the perspective of social ecology rather than that of the market, different variables have to be taken into consideration, since social rather than economic variables become more important. And so far it is only in Winnipeg that a full fledged underclass formation can found where both the economic (i.e. the destruction of the built environment) and social dimensions (social breakdown and marginalization) of an underclass formation are present. Looking at the social dimension, the first thing that becomes noticeable is the presence of an ethnic dimension. In both the United States and Canada, the high concentration of a disenfranchised minority is one of most obvious signs of an underclass formation. In the United States this minority is most often associated with the expansion of a Black Underclass. However in Canada the underclass can mostly be located within the country’s fast growing Aboriginal population. Unlike the United States, underclass formations in Canada are much more localized. Also, in contrast to the United States the Canadian underclass developed much later, taking shape from the mid 80’s instead of the mid 40’s, as was the case in the United States. Similarly, whereas underclass formations can be found in most large American cities, in Canada this formation largely shows itself as a Prairie phenomenon, with the most visible manifestation of this underclass formation found in the Transition Zone of Winnipeg.

As with underclass areas in America, this settlement formation is marked by low participation in the Labour force, high unemployment, and dependence upon State transfers. In both Canada and the United States these formations are also a major locus for the underground economy, where drug dealing, prostitution and theft make up a major component of the economic activity of these areas.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Urbanization of Aboriginals
Table: 29
AB 71 % AB 86 % AB 96 %
Canada 312760 1.4 711720 2.8 1096240 3.8
CMA’S 53275 0.4 259023 1.0 408900 2.2
P CMA’S 17830 1.0 92774 3.7 151895 5.4
TO CMA 6475 0.2 34090 1.0 38955 0.9
TO Inner 2990 0.4 NA NA NA NA
WpgCMA 6420 1.1 30305 4.8 51175 7.6
Wpg Inner 5120 1.8 NA NA 30903 14.9
Van CMA 7325 0.6 38980 2.0 46605 2.5
Van Inner 2995 0.7 NA NA 13000e 2.5
Definitions: CMA=Census Metropolitan areas; AB = Aboriginal population P CMA’s = Prairie Census Metropolitan Areas; TO= Toronto; Wpg = Winnipeg; Van = Vancouver; Inner refers to inner city of each city; e = estimate.
Notes: Since the above counts were made by ethnic origin rather than by the lesser tally made for Census Tracts, at a sub metropolitan level 12.2% for Winnipeg and 21% for Vancouver were added to make metropolitan and Census Tract data more compatible. In the case of Toronto the difference was 54%. Because this was far higher than the nation and Winnipeg and Vancouver, no percentage or statistic is provided in the table.
Sources: 1971 Census, Population – Ethnic Groups, 92-723, October 1973;1986 Census, Profile of Ethnic Groups, 93-154, February 1989; 1986 Census, Addendum to the Daily; 1996 Census, Dimension Series of Aboriginal Population, 94F0011XCB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As earlier stated, underclass spaces in Canada are primarily a Prairie phenomenon. Moreover, it is one which is most visible in Winnipeg. There is a large Native presence in Edmonton, Regina, and Saskatoon, but not Calgary where the proportion of Aboriginal is much smaller than other Prairie CMA’s. Calgary is also set apart from other Prairie cities by the distribution of its Aborginal population. Unlike Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Regina, in Calgary the largest concentrations of Aboriginals is to found in in the Eastern and Western suburbs rather than in the inner City (Table 29).

Just as in United States, this formation had a great deal to do with the migration from the country into the inner city. By looking at Table --- the localized nature of this development can be sketched out. In 1971 Natives accounted for about .4 per cent of the population in Canada’s Census Metropolitan Areas. By 1996 this had risen to 2.2 per cent. However, if we look at what took place in the Prairie CMA’s this figure rises from one to 5.4 percent between 1971 and 1996, as the number of Natives increases from 17,830 to 151,895, an increase of nearly 800 per cent, far above the overall growth rate of 62 per cent recorded for these Prairies Cities (Table 29).

Because of slow growth the figures are even more striking for Winnipeg. While its population only rose by 25 per cent, between 1971 and 1996, the Aboriginal population increased nearly 800 per cent. In 1971 only 1.1 per cent of the population was Native. However, by 1996 the proportion had risen to 7.6 per cent, more than 40 per cent above the average for all the Prairie metropolitan areas.

When we look at the inner city of Winnipeg the proportion of Natives climbs even more dramatically, moving from 1.8 per cent to nearly 15 per cent between 1971 and 1996. And if we just look at the Underclass Zone that has emerged in Winnipeg the proportion of Natives doubles from that of the inner city, with over 30 per cent of the population made up of Natives. So the link being an urban underclass and the movement of Natives into the inner city is quite pronounced except for Calgary.

This is also the case for the Black underclass in the United States, but the prevalence of natives in Underclass Zones is much smaller than what can be found for Blacks, where it is not uncommon to find the percentages moving as a high as 70 per cent in some American cities.

Another difference between Natives and Blacks has to do with history and the development of the middle class in each group. While the Black experience was framed by slavery, the Aboriginal experience was framed by colonization. If segregation helped trigger the creation of independent Black institutions, the quasi feudal nature of the reserve system in Canada, produced a weak and dependent Native middle class, which has so far been unable to create organizations that are not dependent upon government support.

Researchers such as J Wilson have cited the abandonment of the inner city by the Black middle class as a key factor in the formation of a Black underclass. However because of the miniscule and underdeveloped of the Native middle class this does not really apply to Canada so far In this regard it would be interesting to see whether class segregation is starting to emerge in cities such as Winnipeg, with a Native middle class becoming esconned in the suburbs while the Native underclass remains locked into the inner city

Earlier on, participation in the mainstream labour force, the Unemployment rate and level of involvement in the Underground Economy were cited as indicators which could be used to map out an underclass formation. For Canada as a whole, in 1996 we see that the participation rate for the adult population was 65.5, the unemployment rate was 9.8 and the level of government transfers accounted for 13.8 per cent of all individual incomes. When we look at the same profile for Aboriginals a sobering picture emerges. Here the participation rate was found to be lower, at 58.3 per cent. The unemployment rate was 24 per cent, about 1.5 times the national rate. And with 26.1 per cent of the income of Natives accounted for by government transfers, we see the level of dependence in 1996 was almost twice that of the general population. For those Natives employed, the level of remuneration was also far lower than the national average, with the average employment income for natives standing at $17,382, compared to $26,658 for the general population. As a result employed natives only earned 65 per cent of the national average. An even bleaker picture emerges if we look at the proportion of the adult population earning less than $15,0000 or no income at all. For Canada about 45 per cent of the adult population fell into this category. But when we look at the proportion of Natives earning less than $15,000 this percentage rises to about 70 per cent, nearly 55 per cent above the national average.

Lastly, although it is a crude measure, the incarceration rate of Aboriginals in the prison system can be used as an indicator of Native involvement in the underground economy. Like American Blacks, Natives are grossly over-represented in the prison system of each country.

Having looked at the ethnic dimension it is now time to look at specific neighbourhoods. Although Winnipeg is the only city where an underclass formation has taken root, low income landscapes in Vancouver and Toronto will be examined to provide a foil for the discussion about the emergence of an underclass space in Winnipeg.

Beginning with Winnipeg, demographic and economic indicators show how a working class landscape has been transformed into an underclass space. Although this area has always had the lowest incomes in the City, its metamorphosis from a landscape of poverty into an underclass formation mostly occurred between 1986 and 1996. This shows up if we look at shifts in the incidence of low-income households between 1986 and 1996. While the incidence of low-income for the region rose from 18.6 to 23.3 per cent, over the same time period it rose from about 55 to 70 per cent in the Underclass Settlement Zone. Whereas the rate increased by about 5 per cent for the region it galloped ahead by 15 per cent in the Zone of Underclass settlement.

Looking at the stablizing influence of the migration of Filipinos into the inner city made it possible to show how immigration can counter social and economic decline. While the Filipino population had increased by over 60 per cent in the Transitional Zone, in the Zone of Underclass Settlement this population experienced an absolute decline, falling nearly 10 per cent between 1986 and 1996. The same pattern emerges if we look at the overall proportion of immigrants, which falls from 32 to 27 per cent. With this decline, for the first time we see that the size of the Aboriginal population moves past that of the immigrant population. The social decline of this area can also be read into the fate of the Jewish population. In 1971 over one thousand Jews lived in this Zone. However, by 1986 the number of Jews had fallen to 100. By 1996 this population had almost disappeared when just 85 Jews lived here.

Taken together the relative shift in these three groups reveals an unmistakable sign of decline, with higher social status groups vacating the area while lower status groups move in.

What is striking about this development is how close the profile of the Aboriginal population fits the profile which has been constructed of the Underclass Settlement Zone. For instance if we look at unemployment rates we find that the unemployment rate is about equal for both populations. Even more interestingly the participation rate is even lower than for the overall Aboriginal Population. Similarly, the proportion of middle class residents in the Zone of Underclass Settlement is not that much higher than for the Aboriginal population. Finally, with 70 per cent of the adult Aboriginal population earning less than $15,000, this closely matches the Incidence of low-income, which was 70 per cent in the Zone of Underclass Settlement.
Turning now to Vancouver, if we look at the evolution of the Downtown Eastside it becomes clear that an underclass formation has not developed here. Although the Downtown Eastside registered many signs of decline, with the loss of housing stock and and significant population loss between 1971 and 1981, this dynamic changed between 1986 and 1996. While the decline of Winnipeg’s Underclass Zone accelerated between 1986 and 1996, just the opposite happens in the Downtown Eastside, as gentrification rather than abandonment becomes the defining feature of the community. Thus the 2001 Census should show that the population Downtown Eastside will likely surpass the population found here in 1971. Between 1986 and 1996 there was a turnaround in the incidence of Poverty. Hence for the first time the incidence of poverty falls below that of Winnipeg’s. While collapsing property values establish the market dimension of the Underclass Landscape in Winnipeg; for Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside the opposite situation prevails. This is reflected in the densification ratio for each community. Between 1986 the densification ratio for Winnipeg’s Underclass Settlement Zone actually fell from 2.68 to 2.6, so displacement pressures were not a major factor in the development of this neighbourhood. But if we look at the Downtown Eastside we see that an already high densification moves further upwards, climbing from 12.70 to 13.4 between 1986 and 1996. While a high densifications ratio can be used as a potential measure of displacement, in Winnipeg, very low and falling densification ratios strong the forces of abandonment have become.

Looking at the ethnic dimension, significant differences between Winnipeg and Vancouver appear as well. For example in 1996 about 44 per cent of the Downtown Eastside’s population was made up of immigrants compared to 27 per cent for Winnipeg. The Aboriginal population was also considerably smaller than Winnipeg’s, accounting for about 9 per cent of the population compared to 30 per cent for Winnipeg. Thus most indicators suggest a process completely different from Winnipeg is in operation within the Downtown Eastside.

Actually only part of the Downtown Eastside comes close to fitting the profile which has been drawn for Winnipeg. Covering about 40 hectares, the Oppenheimer neighbourhood takes in just over five per cent of the area covered by Winnipeg’s underclass formation. The size of the population of each area also varies significantly. Whereas Winnipeg has 20,000 residents there are less than 5,000 in the Opphenheimer Neighbourhood. Moreover, even though Oppenheimer’s Aboriginal is double that of the rest of the Downtown Eastside it is still only half that found in Winnipeg’s Underclass Zone. Besides the large Aboriginal population in the Oppenheimer neighbourhood, the rapid influx of a marginalized Caucasian population is another feature which sets this neighbourhood apart from Winnipeg.

Moving on to Toronto, both in its geographic and social construction, the look of poverty is quite different from that found in either Winnipeg or Vancouver. In Toronto, immigrants and Visible Minorities play a much larger role in the shaping of landscapes of poverty and marginality. Unlike Vancouver and Winnipeg, Aboriginals are largely invisible in the areas which have the highest levels of poverty. The geography of poverty is also quite different. Although the Core still houses many low-income people it is in the Inner Suburbs, rather the inner city where the largest concentrations of poverty can be found.

Using the incidence of low-income as both a measure of poverty and a measure of its intensity in a specific place, it becomes clear that if any area of the region has a chance of sinking into the levels of marginality that can be seen in Winnipeg or Vancouver’s Oppenheimer Neighbourhood, it would be in two pockets located in Toronto’s Core and the Inner Suburbs.
Using an incidence of poverty rate of 40 per cent (which is about twice the regional average) to identify low-income neighbourhoods, a low- income landscape taking up approximately 74 kilometres can be identified. A more detailed examination reveals that more than 66 kilometers of this low income zone is located in the Inner Suburbs, accounting for about 90 per cent of low-income space that is present in the region. Furthermore, there are over 265,000 people who live here, making up nearly 12 per cent of the population in the Inner Suburbs.
However, if we look at census tracts which have a 60 per cent incidence of poverty, a much smaller population of 33,182 can be identified. Unlike Winnipeg or Vancouver this space is not contiguous. Instead there are several pockets: one in the in the now defunct cities of Scarborough and the North York and two pockets in Toronto’s Core. Within the Core the largest one is located in the Regent Park area, and a smaller one located to the East of Spadina, where another large public housing project was built.
With more than 58 per cent of the population composed of immigrants, they play a much larger role in the creation of these extreme zones of poverty than is the case for Winnipeg or Vancouver. Also the ethnic composition of this Zone is much different than either Winnipeg or Vancouver. While the Aboriginal dimension looms large in Winnipeg and Vancouver, it barely exists in Toronto. Instead Blacks account for 20 per cent of the population (versus 6.4 for the region) and South Asians (in this case mostly likely refugees who make up 7.6 per cent of the region’s population) but account for more than 13 per cent of the population of this Zone of extreme poverty. What also stands out is the larger middle class population. Here Toronto’s Regent Park area leads, with about 21 per cent of the population made up of middle class residents. In the Oppenheimer neighbourhood it almost 20 per cent, Winnipeg trails behind at about 13 per cent.

Summarizing the main points which can be drawn out by the three dimensions of postmodern transformation that have been studies what can be shown is the uneven and non-linear aspect of urban change. Consequently, despite the operation of similar forces, very distinct postmodern landscapes have emerged in each city. Vancouver has settlement zones which do not exist in Toronto and Winnipeg. Similarly, Winnipeg has a growing Underclass formation which has no counterpart in either Toronto or Vancouver. Furthermore, Winnipeg is also set apart by a weak new middle class which has given the settlement geography an entirely different look from that which can be observed in either Vancouver or Toronto. Finally, in case of Toronto, it has been possible to show how the evolution of exurbia and the Inner Suburbs have followed a path that is quite different from Vancouver or Winnipeg.


6.4 Empirical questions raised by the postmodern transformation of Greater Vancouver - and some commentary on the presence of three new fault lines which may decisively influence the outcome of this transformation.

If the creation of a postmodern geography has eliminated the divisions that once dramatically set the inner city apart from the suburbs and the East and West sides of the city into opposing sociiological and political camps; at the same time it has also created a new set of fault lines. Three in particular stand out for comment. As each one has the potential to affect the further evolution of the region. Despite the rapidity of change, up to the present no major social conflicts have erupted, but the possibility of this happening remains if significant imbalances are created in the region because of these new fault lines. As the review of the postmodern transformation of Vancouver in the previous chapter has shown, these fault lines lie alongside the borders of a number of new concentric settlement zones which surfaced in the postmodern era..
With the emergence of these new settlement zones different points of conflict have begun to take shape which did not exist during the modern era. As well, each fault line contains its own singular class and regulatory dynamic.

The first fault line is located within the region's Core. The second fault line lies within the Zone of Asian Resettlement. Finally, a third fault line has emerged between the core and periphery, which is largely centred around the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement.

The first fault actually exists in two different locations: the Core and parts of Exurbia. What primarily defines this fault line is middle- class displacement and controversies over the expansion of the economy of the urban spectacle. With regard to displacement this mostly has to do with the take over of working class spaces by the new middle class. A foretaste of what could happen if this dispersion and breakup of working class space is allowed to proceed can be shown by looking at the postmodern geography of prostitution in Vancouver, and the twenty-year odyssey of displacement and relocation that has now dispersed prostitution throughout the region. The same problem can be seen with regard to the rise of homelessness and the dispersion of this population into the institutional spaces of the city.

The other area of contention involves the negative externalities created by the expansion of the economy of the urban spectacle. Here congestion and the noise created by tourism and the sponsorhip of special events such the annual speed car race or the fireworks competition can be cited.

The second fault line has more to do with aesthetics, ethnicity and class. It is mostly situated in the suburban parts of the City of Vancouver and the inner suburbs and has largely come about as a result of the creation of a Zone of Asian Resettlement. In the City of Vancouver, main struggle remains centred around the traditional Caucasian middle class and a parvenu Asian middle class. Here the struggle over the use of space in the City of Vancouver has largely revolved around aesthetics and feelings of alienation brought about by the rapid influx of middle class Asians. Even though the traditional Caucasian middle class have absorbed fewer postmodern norms than their new middle class brethren, none the less, conservation and preservation of west side residential environments has always been a priority for this class. With massive influx of an Asian Middle Class steeped in the values of hyper-modernism -- where preservation has never been a high priority -- it did not take long for major disputes to arise between the Chinese middle class and the remaining Caucasian middle class. What is interesting to observe about the unfolding of this struggle is the successful use of zoning regulations by the City of Vancouver to diffuse this situation.

In addition to the struggle over aesthetics, ethnic and class divisions make up the two other components of this second fault line. Here animosity between and within existing Asian groups has become a salient feature in the evolution of the Asian community. Particularly for the Chinese population one facet of this has to do with long established immigrants and new immigrants, something that is expressed by the different class standing of each group as well as where each group has settled. The other notable rift within the Asian population has to do with the religious sectarianism within the Punjabi population. As well there appears to be a major rift between the North and South Vietnamese Communities. As one senior social worker noted: along with aboriginal groups the Vietnamese population is responsible for the most intense intervention by social work agencies, which suggests that the Vietnamese and aboriginal populations stand the greatest chance of being transformed into underclass social formations.

Finally anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be some antagonism between Filipino and Chinese immigrants. However, here the rift appears to have more to do with class rather than ethnicity per se. However, except for the sectarianism found in the Punjabi community open antagonism within and between groups has largely been muted. Still, there is always the potential for conflict to break out. For this reason the Asian fact will continue to remain a major fault line in the region.
The third fault line is defined by struggle for dominance of two opposing material cultures: one that is anchored by modern norms and the other by postmodern ones Geographically, it has become manifest in the widening gap between the Core of the Region, with outer suburbs and the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement acting as the major locus for the continuation of a modernist culture based upon the automobile. Similarly, if the inner city remains the fount for urban liberals, then the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement has become the main home for conservatism in the region. Although some postmodern norms have infiltrated the outer suburbs, modern values still hold sway. Thus, while the Core area of the region is becoming increasingly transit oriented, the organization of space in the outer suburbs is still set by the automobile. To appreciate the significance of this difference it is only necessary to look at the recent dispute over car levies which have been proposed by Trans-Link, the region’s new transportation authority, or look at the rukus created in the Outer suburbs by the proposal to purchase trolley buses for the City of Vancouver.

Besides this clash of material cultures, there is also an ethnic dimension to the formation of this third fault line. This has to do with the creation of a Zone of Caucasian Resettlement, which came about with the massive exodus of Caucasians from the suburban areas in the City of Vancouver and the inner suburbs of Richmond and Burnaby. So while the overall population of these two inner city suburbs increased by between 1986 and 1996, the Caucasian population declined by --- per cent. At the same time the Asian population increased by --- per cent.

To conclude, of the three fault lines that have been described only two are very active at this point in time. While fault line that exists in the Zone of Asian Resettlement remains largely dormant, something aided by the slow down in immigration into the region since the mid 90’s, the two other fault lines -- one located in the Core and the other in the Zone of Caucasian Resettlement -- are presently the most active. Although the intense struggle over space in the Core has important regional consequences that have to do with displacement, in the longer term, what happens in the outer suburbs will probably become increasingly more significant with regard to the future evolution of the region.

6.5 – Concluding Remarks on the Conceptual issues raised by this investigation into urban transformation
With the main empirical findings of this study now summarized, some of the conceptual issues touched upon in the preface -- when the Proustian touchstone for this research was introduced --can now be considered in light of this research that has been carried out.

As earlier indicated, one of the reasons for engaging in this study had to do with concerns about the way the future of the City was being framed at a number of conferences. For example, in 1989, a three day conference was held to initiate a new plan for the City of Toronto. At that conference, shrill pronouncements about the inevitable coming of the new global order were made. Similarly a few years later, in the early 1990s, the same doctrine of inevitability appeared when the future of the Vancouver urban region was triggered by a review of the Livable Region Plan.

Again the same premature foreclosure on alternative futures occurred, as many people who represented themselves as experts engaged in fear mongering to have their agenda for the region accepted. Fatalistic exclamations about some inevitable future were made and warnings of the dire consequences that would follow if their voices were not heeded were made. There was also some manipulation by a former history professor (Sarti 1997; Reid 1992), who had camouflaged himself as a planner and economist, who, along with someone that was trained as a planner, released a pamphlet that masqueraded itself as serious research on the subject of urban change and transformation in Vancouver. This was duly picked up by many planners and media types who accepted at face value what was being put forward. Little, if any attention was paid to the weak intellectual foundations for the pronouncements that were made.

Once again the doctrine of inevitability was invoked by these two authors, and the not-so-subliminal message was put out that local decision-makers had no control over the destiny of their cities According to the author’s. the only thing that it was possible to do was to bow down to the external forces that this document claimed were shaping the region.
An antidote to such determinism, was set in place by looking at the evolution of planning culture in the City of Vancouver. By this means it was possible to show how the actions of the local state and urban social movements play a significant part in the evolution of the city. Furthermore, with the help of regulation constructs, many of the contingent aspects of change were brought to the surface.

The case study of the evolution of planning in Vancouver can therefore be viewed as a counterpoint to much of the mainstream literature on urban futures that still views the city as a passive object which is molded completely by external forces. As this study has tried to show, this is a metaphysical conceptualization of the way that cities really function and evolve. Not only are cities transformed by outside macro-forces, as the study of planning in the City of Vancouver indicates, cities are also transformed internally by the people that live in them and the institutions they construct to organize and regulate the production of urban space. This does not discount the effect of technology, demographics and shifts in the larger economy. While these forces shape the city they do not determine the final shape it takes.