Toronto's dirty secret, the suburban slum

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

When I first viewed this thread, only Steely Dan had made a comment yet. I assumed he was mistaken in thinking Mike actually believed his photos depicted a slum. I figured Mike was just being facetious with the thread title. Now that I've seen the follow-up responses, I realize *I* was mistaken.

Mike, I think you need to pay closer attention to the type of words you use. You could maybe get away with referring to this area as more run-down or maybe even somewhat decayed (by 1st world country standards), but it doesn't seem to even remotely fit the category of "slum" when you think about areas of the less developed world.

Ohioguy I know the neighbourhood is not a slum slum. All I was saying was that many people do consider it slummy. If you talk to people who actually live in the area they do consider it a slum.

Example I was talking with someone in the area and they asked what I was doing. And I said we had to go down to Markham and Eglinton to do a project.
And they were "ohh that slum".

I fully understand it is not a slum in the real world.
But the area is run down and needs to be cleaned up.

Niwell, I am all for affortable housing. However the state these buildings are in is not good and I see no reason why we should turn a blind eye and act like everything is great and not press to get these buildings cleaned up. I am sorry, but there is no excuse to have broken lights and rusted childrens playgrounds, and act like this is great because the apartments are cheap.

The fact is that I would bet everyone of us on this site would not live in these buildings if given the chance, unless as a last resort. Because we all know the conditions are crappy.

Providing a suitable place to live without bugs, and without broken elevators, lights, etc does not mean the place has to become expensive. Believe me the yuppies will not be moving to Markham and Eglinton no matter how nice the buildings are. It is just not in the trendy circle at all and too far from the core.

You guys are aware it is the residents of these buildings themselves who want them cleaned up don't you? We were not asked to document the issues in this neighbourhood for nothing. The neighbourhood actually came to us because they want to see change.
They want safe pedestrian connections, clean buildings, and better park space, etc.

I will state again that I know this area is not a slum by world conditions. I have been to real slums and know what they are. I understand this is just a neighbourhood that has fallen into some decay and just needs some guiding help. All I am stating is that many residents do consider it a slum. If you actually lived out here in Scarborough and interacted with residents who live out here like I do, you would know that. Most residents can't stand the high-rise housing. Many view them as third world living conditions, whether that is true or not.
I have many friends who grew up in buildings like this and believe me they have horror stories. We should not have buildings in such poor condition in a first world country. I don't see why you guys think it is weird the community wants to clean these buildings up. If you lived in these buildings under what many do consider slum conditions(I did not say it but many people do say this), than you would want to clean it up to.

[Thundertubs]

Moral of the story: Threads with leading or overly editorialized titles, especially when negative, will always cause a stir. We've seen this plenty of times here (a certain infamous Arkansas thread...). It never promotes the kind of meaningful discussion this site is capable of, but struggles to achieve sometimes.

[Phil McAvity]

So Mike, are you saying that the people that live there consider it a slum?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

Moral of the story: Threads with leading or overly editorialized titles, especially when negative, will always cause a stir. We've seen this plenty of times here (a certain infamous Arkansas thread...). It never promotes the kind of meaningful discussion this site is capable of, but struggles to achieve sometimes.

That might be true, but I don't know that I'd characterize it as the "moral of the story". I'd say the moral is that a lot of people are not interested in hearing anything negative about high-rise buildings or densely populated urban areas (perhaps it's just when they're in certain cities, like Toronto, that are sacred to the urbano-densist cause). I also think that there's a rationalist emphasis on quantification on the Forum that is somewhat suspicious of Miketoronto's qualitative and empiricist approach. In other words, if in order truly to understand and evaluate even one place (e.g. Toronto or Scarborough) we have to make the effort that Mike does to actually be out on the street watching what's going on and asking questions and thinking about the experiences of the real people who live there (people that he actually goes to the trouble of knowing) -- if we have to do all that before we can form a well-founded opinion of even one place, then what becomes of all the fun arguments about cities that seem so easy when they're reduced to lists of building heights and population figures and numbers of condos under construction etc.?

Anyway, it's too beautiful a day in my part of T.O. to stay indoors worrying about this. Interesting discussion.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Niwell, I am all for affortable housing. However the state these buildings are in is not good and I see no reason why we should turn a blind eye and act like everything is great and not press to get these buildings cleaned up. I am sorry, but there is no excuse to have broken lights and rusted childrens playgrounds, and act like this is great because the apartments are cheap.

The fact is that I would bet everyone of us on this site would not live in these buildings if given the chance, unless as a last resort. Because we all know the conditions are crappy.

I think you completely missed what I was trying to say. Despite the exaggerations I'm pretty much on board with what you're saying regarding priority neighbourhoods such as this. You need to realize though that things are a bit more complicated than just saying "oh, we need to clean this place up!". These are privately owned buildings which are in the state they are (and charge the rents they do) because of the level of attention the owners give to them. TCHC is a different story of course, but if these conditions are to be addressed, where is the money coming from?

And induced gentrification as a by-product of building retrofits is a very real thing. If you're a building owner and decide to pour a bunch of money into fixing things up (and though the fixes may look minimal, I guarantee you they are not for large buildings of this age) you're going to want to get some return on your investment, right? That's the whole catch-22 of the tower renewal project, though as I said most proponents are acutely aware of this. I'm surprised you haven't talked about it at Ryerson if you're looking at such areas. We're not talking an influx of yuppies, but even a minimal rent increase has the potential to price many people out of these areas.

The residents of this particular area might be actively seeking change, but I know for a fact (based on empirical research done by a friend) other areas are wary of any change for the reasons cited above.

EDIT: And I'm using the word gentrification as a very general term here. Not in the classic "return of the gentry" sense but more the broad approach that's being taken but contemporary researchers such as Slater, Lees et al.

[WhipperSnapper]

http://www.homefinder.ca/listing/det...oronto-ontario

http://www.torontorentals.com/3434Eg.../exterior.html
http://www.torontorentals.com/3434Eg...houseTour.html

http://www.torontorentals.com/3400Eg.../exterior.html
http://www.torontorentals.com/3400Eg...houseTour.html

Bed bugs are everywhere.

The owner of the retail plaza also has plans to redevelop it into a 2000 unit condo community and will only sign short term leases. This is more of a reason for the deterioration of tenant quality than anything else. The fact the developer is even contemplating this plan puts into question your impressions that the area is undesirable

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by niwell

I think you completely missed what I was trying to say. Despite the exaggerations I'm pretty much on board with what you're saying regarding priority neighbourhoods such as this. You need to realize though that things are a bit more complicated than just saying "oh, we need to clean this place up!". These are privately owned buildings which are in the state they are (and charge the rents they do) because of the level of attention the owners give to them. TCHC is a different story of course, but if these conditions are to be addressed, where is the money coming from?

I understand this is a complicated issue.
We are actually going to be interviewing the building owners to try and hear from them what challenges they face either financial or other in maintaining their properties. We want to hear from everyone.

For example, CapReit which owns one of the buildings in this area, has done amazing things with the buildings they own just a couple km up the road at Markham and Ellesmere. These buildings have been vastly improved over the past couple years. Their rents are slightly higher than the buildings at Markham and Eglinton. But they house the same kind of families as the buildings at Markham and Eglinton.

And induced gentrification as a by-product of building retrofits is a very real thing. If you're a building owner and decide to pour a bunch of money into fixing things up (and though the fixes may look minimal, I guarantee you they are not for large buildings of this age) you're going to want to get some return on your investment, right? That's the whole catch-22 of the tower renewal project, though as I said most proponents are acutely aware of this. I'm surprised you haven't talked about it at Ryerson if you're looking at such areas. We're not talking an influx of yuppies, but even a minimal rent increase has the potential to price many people out of these areas.

We are going to be talking with tower renewal and yes we have considered the issue of higher rents.

However at some point you have to say "enough is enough" and we can't continue to let the area fall.

Overall we really have no control over the private property. But we can help in making the public realm better and improving pedestrian connections, etc. This is a priority for residents, and they need someone to just bring all the stakeholders together to discuss.
The constant cycle of residents breaking fences and making informal paths, and then the mangement companies putting up a new fence, and then the residents breaking it again, etc. This cycle has to be addressed and proper walking paths created.

Other ideas such as bus super stops, etc. Just small things that would make a difference.

And as for the buildings, they are a whole other issue. But at the same time they should not be allowed to keep rusted broken lights on their driveways. I am sorry but it does not cost that much to put a light bulb in and new light cover.

Another problem is city fines are not high enough so the building owners just pay the city fine for not fixing their property, instead of spending the money to fix the issue.
We were told that is an issue. It is not like the city does not have standards.

[llamaorama]

I think real poverty can exist in decrepit suburban areas.

I guess there's a question of whether or not living conditions have gone below what society believes is acceptable, or if its a matter of "undesirable" kinds of people or economic activities having to live/be somewhere and the biased opinions of people in the community.

In a big city, some "depreciated" real estate might be a good thing, I would guess. Since makes areas affordable to a more diverse population and set of businesses. Sustainable diversity and thus vibrancy to me would require steady, balanced conditions where there are some old areas, some new areas, some in the middle, etc.

[billpa]

Canadian slums are cute. Some of that "trash" looks like one of those poor attempts by Hollywood to convince movie-goers that they're watching a film made in NYC when in fact they've gone north of the border.
I LOVE Canada and T-O and one of the reasons for that is what you've shown. When that's the "worst" then you know you've got a city that works.

[Coral Builder]

Billpa, it's far from the 'worst', but that being said, Toronto is a beautiful city, and it does appear to be 'working' for now... One thing I do take exception to is the international bias a lot of forumers take when evaluating the opinion of MikeToronto. As if viewing Canadian slums by 'international standards' is reason to dismiss his comments. I for one have no problem refering to this area and many others in Toronto as SLUMS. I wouldn't live there even if I was poor, and I wouldn't stand by while a relative or friend did, without trying to help him/her move out. I don't care what you consider a slum in NYC or Chicago, or Brazil or South Africa for that matter. I don't live there, I live here, and so does MikeToronto. We compare things based on what we know and see around us (there is a little theory about it by a famous German Jew), and so do the residents of these areas, who find themselves surrounded by nicer neighborhoods. It's not like you can go up to any one of them and say "I know you live in this crappy building in this crappy neighborhood, but look on the bright side, it's better than the Nairobi Dam or Soweto". Such a comparison is tantamount to Confucianism and this isn't China.

[doog123]

from the looks of that neighborhood I would have absolutely no problem with living there or letting someone I know live there. It doesn't look bad at all,It's appears to be only slightly run down.

There neighborhoods near where I live that look worse than these photos that are considered by most to be decent neighborhoods.

[billpa]

CoralBuilder, You, I'm sure, know very well what slums look like in other parts of North America and other parts of the world. While this area might be the most or second most slum-like in the GTA, that doesn't make it one.
I mean a broken light? I would imagine in any large city at any given time there will be a broken light somewhere.
Also, the sidewalk...it isn't broken or missing altogether, it's just a bit narrow.
And those 400-thousand dollar homes just one block away? One block?
You guys should be proud that this is a bad "neighborhood".

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Coral Builder

Billpa, it's far from the 'worst', but that being said, Toronto is a beautiful city, and it does appear to be 'working' for now... One thing I do take exception to is the international bias a lot of forumers take when evaluating the opinion of MikeToronto. As if viewing Canadian slums by 'international standards' is reason to dismiss his comments. I for one have no problem refering to this area and many others in Toronto as SLUMS.

These probably aren't slums even by Canadian standards, let alone "international" standards.

Originally Posted by Coral Builder

I wouldn't live there even if I was poor, and I wouldn't stand by while a relative or friend did, without trying to help him/her move out.

You are just being paranoid.

Originally Posted by Coral Builder

I don't care what you consider a slum in NYC or Chicago, or Brazil or South Africa for that matter. I don't live there, I live here, and so does MikeToronto. We compare things based on what we know and see around us (there is a little theory about it by a famous German Jew), and so do the residents of these areas, who find themselves surrounded by nicer neighborhoods.

What MikeToronto photographed isn't surrounded by nice neighbourhoods, it is IN nice neighbourhoods. The residents are part of the surrounding neighbourhood, they are not separate. They go the same schools, the same malls, use the same buses, etc.

[Lenin]

This has turned out to be quite the interesting dialogue. Incidentally, I have a personal story to share....

Just the other night, I was walking alone in the woods when I stumbled upon a pair of golden glasses. Upon putting them on I was astounded to see the sky open up before me in multitudes of psychedelic beams, as both Jesus and the Ghost Of Christmas Future descended unto the earth to share their wisdom with me.

After some small talk they agreed to take me on a brief tour of Heaven - and I'll be damned if every single building in this photo set wasn't up there! Bewildered, I asked JC and his main ghost what the deal was. You can imagine my surprise to learn that this neighbourhood was, indeed, the very worst slum in Heaven. Apparently it's where the passably Heaven - worthy, yet still pretty sleazy folks wind up.

Further questions revealed this very part of town is 87% populated by apathetic city planners and NASCAR fans. The other 13% is inhabited by Canadian skyscraper enthusiasts who have absolutely no grit compass or basic idea of what truly deplorable living conditions are like.

True story - tell your friends!

[Lenin]

Sorry; I realize that sounds caustic and kinda condescending. But honestly, though I know this issue has been beaten to death, I must say I still find this entire thread to be pretty ridiculous.

To end on a positive note, I did enjoy the photos, though I`m fairly certain they were intended to leave me with the opposite impression of the area than they did.

[Nightsky]

Looks a lot like Swedish or British "commie block suburbs". In Sweden these kind of areas are also situated close to wealthy areas with private residences.

Toronto has for long been known as a clean city with no bad areas, but that is obviously not true anymore. It is still far from "real slum" though, like the ones in Africa, Brazil or Asia.

[Coral Builder]

It is nice to see a distinct point of view on this forum, usually dominated by these somewhat delusional views regarding the state of things. These poeple need a serious re-adjustment in their perspectives if they think this type of accomodation is 'fine', 'Okay' or 'acceptable' here in Canada. It is also a sad commentary on the state of things when Torontonians find comfort in comparing these areas to poorer slums in Brasil, Africa or Asia, instead of insisting that they be improved so that they are better the slums in countries that are leaving us in the dust, like Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Holland. It is true that the standards in Toronto have fallen so very far in recent times. Hopefully, with a new mayor that clearly understands business and economics, instead of government bureaucracy and pandering to immigrants or the poor, Toronto can make strides back to the type of City it was, as opposed to the City it was slowly becoming.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Coral Builder

It is also a sad commentary on the state of things when Torontonians find comfort in comparing these areas to poorer slums in Brasil, Africa or Asia, instead of insisting that they be improved so that they are better the slums in countries that are leaving us in the dust, like Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Holland.

Have you ever seen "slums" in "Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Holland"? Seriously, they look identical. The general demographics, quality of life, crime rates and so on are about the same too.

And the ones comparing these areas to Brazil, Africa, and Asia were not Torontonians, they were people from those places and elsewhere bemused that anyone would refer to this area as a slum.

Toronto can make strides back to the type of City it was

You mean small and boring?

And please, if you think Rob Ford's mayoralty is going to improve the living conditions for the poor in Toronto, THAT is clearly delusional.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Coral Builder

It is nice to see a distinct point of view on this forum, usually dominated by these somewhat delusional views regarding the state of things. These poeple need a serious re-adjustment in their perspectives if they think this type of accomodation is 'fine', 'Okay' or 'acceptable' here in Canada. It is also a sad commentary on the state of things when Torontonians find comfort in comparing these areas to poorer slums in Brasil, Africa or Asia, instead of insisting that they be improved so that they are better the slums in countries that are leaving us in the dust, like Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Holland. It is true that the standards in Toronto have fallen so very far in recent times.

Uhh... most of the ridicule in this thread has come from non-Torontonians and non-Canadians. I would see more of the world, including more of your own city and these places you refer to as "slums".

Originally Posted by Coral Builder

Hopefully, with a new mayor that clearly understands business and economics, instead of government bureaucracy and pandering to immigrants or the poor, Toronto can make strides back to the type of City it was, as opposed to the City it was slowly becoming.

No more "pandering to immigrants, and the poor"? I thought you were interested in helping these people living in these neighbourhoods?

Oh right I see. You are only concerned about the effect these places have on you and your property values. Obviously, Rob Ford's call for a complete ban on immigration to Toronto has resonated with some people.

[Coral Builder]

To be honest that wasn't the best worded comment. By pandering I meant enabling. The word pandering is wrong. I do believe a major source of problems in Toronto is population density, traffic congestion and urban decay that is created as a result of a city which has grown far to quickly, so yes I agree with Rob Ford in his immigration ban. What Toronto needs is urban renewal and better cost control, not additional immigration, growth or more useless beaurocracy to enable the dependency of the poor. I think by now we have all seen how much of an utter disaster government run social housing and government run homeless shelters and social assistance has been. It would be much better dealt with through private non-profit charities. As for travel, I find it ironic that anyone would presume to know my travel experience or think this was a relevant point. Let me assure you of one thing, I would not discuss anything with which I didn't have first hand knowledge, where I felt my contribution might actually be useful, and I'm not talking about the discovery channel here. Lastly, if poverty, violence, cultural stigma and political disenfranchisement are what it takes to qualify as excitment, as opposed to boring old Toronto, I'll take boring, clean and safe any day. And I have a feeling I'm not alone judging by the vote of the largest turn out in recent history yesterday. I would have hoped that that would be clear by now to the intelligent, but I guess denial or delusion is powerful indeed. c