The New City Donut

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But in the U.S., practically everyone has a car. Saying an area is isolated because it's car oriented kind of misses the point. A place in the U.S. is more isolated, most of the time, if it isn't car oriented. Jobs, amenities, and increasingly social services, are in the fringe, not the core.

The rising poverty in American suburbia is just the "hole" of the donut pushing further out. It isn't some "death of the suburbs" it's usually the undesirable zone just moving further out due to core gentrification and suburban aging housing stock.

Just because practically everyone has a car, doesn't mean that the fact that you have access to very little if you don't have a car isn't a problem.

I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm overestimating how much of a burden car ownership is for low wage workers. But just because they have a car, doesn't mean they can afford it, just like how many people got a mortgage during the bubble but that didn't mean they could afford it. Maybe the low-wage workers have to make big sacrifices to keep those cars like cuts to home maintenance, working multiple part time jobs and not having time to raise their kids.

It's true that the "donut hole" has been expanding outwards pretty much ever since American cities reached a size where they had more than just a few neighbourhoods. Still it would be worth asking if it's expanding faster than it used to, like with gentrification for example.

I'm also wondering if we'll reach a tipping point where the size of the middle to upper class suburban ring beyond the ring of declining suburbs will start to shrink. That mostly has to do with the competition between the appeal of urban cores vs outer suburbs - and also between more close in SFH neighbourhoods and outer suburbs. There's also the question of how well the suburban job centres will be able to replace the urban ones (and close in "suburban" ones like Uptown Houston). Increasingly that's the only way to go for the outer suburbs because even if they're "only" a 30-40min drive to the core without traffic, it could be double or triple that during peak times.

[mhays]

Even if most jobs aren't in the core, most white collar jobs might be, in some cities. And if you live in the core, most of the rest of those white collar job are at least pretty convenient by transit, as are most other big draws like stadiums, airports, etc. I find life easy living in the core without a car.

[memph]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The mixed income housing which was built throughout the inner suburbs of Toronto has been very successful at mixing incomes. This tends to produce lower family income stats, because the housing is so mixed. The newer suburbs have not built mixed income housing to the same degree. So what you get in the new suburbs, is just middle to upper middle income families.

This is why income levels tend to be much more even across large swaths of the now City of Toronto, but then you see a big spike in income levels in the outer suburbs. Mainly because they don't mix incomes as much, except in a couple older areas which also had mixed income housing built at that time.

For example, my inner suburban neighborhood. We have single family houses, townhouses, condos, apartments. The median family income is low if you look at the whole census tract, with I believe a median or average family income of around $40,000. However if you take just the single family areas, like my subdivisions, and the condos, then the average family income shoots up to over $105,000 about.

So the mixed incomes tend to hide very wealthy areas. Another area being South East Scarborough. The average family income in many parts of South East Scarborough approaches almost $200,000 a year. However it gets covered up by the mixed incomes, which brings down the average and median.

So overall, it is way better to be mixed. And maybe in struggling American city regions, inner suburbs are declining. But in growing and prosperous regions, inner suburbs are some of the most coveted real estate.

Well...

If you scroll down to page 11
http://knowledgex.camh.net/researche...2012%20ppt.pdf

You'll find that one of the changes since 2000 is that you're starting to see some "very low income" census tracts that are basically just SFH. Those are still pretty rare but there's also definitely large areas of SFHs that are "low income" too. As for the 416 it's very much non-uniform, a lot of high-income areas along the Bayview-Yonge corridor and Central Etobicoke while the NW and NE quadrants are lower income. Those lower income areas aren't uniform within individual census tracts, but I suspect that in the more far flung neighbourhoods the SFH housing is much more middle income than upper-middle class.

SE Scarborough and the Kingston Rd corridor does have some wealthier areas, but Scarborough and Etobicoke North of the 401 (except maybe Tam O'Shanter-Sullivan) or North York west of Keele I think the SFH areas are middle income maybe even lower-middle income with low-income apartments and townhouses and TCHC housing mixed in. If we're talking Henry Farm or Parkwoods then yeah you'll have pretty much the full range of incomes.

[Docere]

The thing about Toronto is that the city periphery (like say Queens and Staten Island) and inner ring suburbs are basically the same thing. And it developed that way under Metro, it isn't just a result of amalgamation.

[Raraavis]

In most cities I have seen, the wealthier street car neighborhoods that were the wealth suburbs before cars became ubiquitous have held up very well and are still very desirable locations. They are in most cases urban neighborhoods now because cities have grown so much since.

Most urban neighborhoods were independent cities in the distant past and usually maintain a core business district. This districts in most cities are seeing the same kind of mixed use developments that were once limited to downtown areas. This usually involves lots of gentrification but makes the single family homes in the area more desirable and you see lots of upgrades and remodels.

Also the Suburban Flight of the second half of the 20th Century wasn't limited to working class neighborhoods. Upper middle class and wealthy neighborhoods in the inner suburbs often maintain their value much more and their more central location make them more desirable than the exburbs. In addition Business Parks in the inner suburbs remain strong job centers in most cities.

I think you will see some inner suburban areas become poor while others thrive.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Raraavis

I think you will see some inner suburban areas become poor while others thrive.

Isn't that already happening?

The inner suburbs resemble the cities in that respect.

[Docere]

This NYT article from a few years ago talks about the shift away from outer suburbs/exurbs

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/op...burb.html?_r=1

However, I'm not so sure if I agree with the premise that outer suburbs were the most expensive in the 90s. It seems to me the wealthiest suburbs in most US metros are older, close-in suburbs. Though outer suburbs/exurbs are more homogeneous and have higher median incomes.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by memph

Old Doughnut
Hamilton
Winnipeg and Quebec City
Montreal
Ottawa and Edmonton
Toronto and Vancouver
Calgary
Reverse Doughnut

Here's an income map for 8 CMAs

http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/docume...-cmas-2012.pdf

[memph]

Originally Posted by Docere

Here's an income map for 8 CMAs

http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/docume...-cmas-2012.pdf

I guess I shouldn't expect too much of a trend just from 2010 to 2012, but you do notice a few patterns.

Incomes went up a bit in Toronto's urban core with lower income census tracts moving to higher income levels (mostly to middle income), mainly in the west end like Bloor West, St Clair W, Eglinton W areas and a bit in Parkdale too. They also went up a bit in Mississauga, with some census tracts reversing earlier declines and returning to middle income status, as well as a bit of gentrification around Lakeview.

They declined in the northwest quadrant including North Etobicoke, Brampton, and a couple census tracts around York University and Downsview, as well as in Milliken. Overall though the number and % of census tracts that were middle income seems to have increased from 2010 to 2012 which is reassuring although we'll see how long that trend holds for. It's good to see Oshawa on the maps now too.

Calgary turns out to be much more segregated than I expected. I knew the main low income area was the NE suburbs, but I didn't expect they'd be that much below the average and that the low income areas would be that concentrated in just that one section of the city. My suspicion of it having the strongest "reverse donut" pattern is confirmed. It's not a perfect reverse donut since there's still wealth in the western suburbs, but it is more of a reverse donut than any other Canadian city.

Hamilton and Winnipeg are still very much following the "old donut" pattern, even more so than Toronto was in the 60s-70s.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by memph

Calgary turns out to be much more segregated than I expected. I knew the main low income area was the NE suburbs, but I didn't expect they'd be that much below the average and that the low income areas would be that concentrated in just that one section of the city. My suspicion of it having the strongest "reverse donut" pattern is confirmed. It's not a perfect reverse donut since there's still wealth in the western suburbs, but it is more of a reverse donut than any other Canadian city.

Calgary is really the best example of a "wedge."

[memph]

Here's a map of low income areas of Austin based of per capita income (2013 estimates, from city-data's maps).

Red is per capita income of $12k-$18k
Red-black is per capita income of <$12k


Typical incomes for middle class areas would be around $30k by comparison, areas with a lot of professionals will be around $40k-$50k and the wealthiest neighbourhoods can be $100k+.

$12k-$18k neighbourhoods I would consider to be definitely low income, but not necessarily ghetto. <$12k neighbourhoods usually look noticeably poor and are incomes typical of ghetto neighbourhoods.

So Austin is an example of a city where the core no longer has much low income neighbourhoods. The UT Austin area doesn't really count since student dominated neighbourhoods are rather different from typical low income neighbourhoods. There are a few pockets that look like housing projects, and a few areas in East Austin that haven't gentrified yet.

Otherwise, it's mostly suburban apartment complexes, run down 60s-70s ranch houses, more recent cheap tract housing and mobile home parks. Although some of this is at the suburban-rural fringe, it's in the eastern part of Austin where the fringe starts relatively close to downtown. The far northern suburbs, where commuting by car to downtown is extremely long and commuting by transit is basically out of the question, have relatively few low income neighbourhoods.

[memph]

More zoomed in image of the map around central Austin.




I also looked at Edmonton and Calgary, using the cut-off of $18k median per capita income (CAD, 2011 NHS stats), they don't have any truly low income neighbourhoods like most American cities do. Canadian median incomes in CAD are pretty similar to US median incomes in USD, and the CAD was worth about as much as the USD at that time so I think it's a relatively fair comparison.

The lowest income neighbourhoods of Calgary and Edmonton were around $20-25k per capita income.

For Calgary those were
-East Village; which was mostly just a few older highrise apartments at the time, median incomes must be higher now with all the new condos
-U of Calgary campus/University Heights, probably due to a lot of students
-Forest Lawn between 8th and 17th Ave, probably the most run down looking part of Calgary and the area that has the worst reputation within Calgary

Edmonton had a bit more neighbourhoods in that $20-25k income range than Calgary, but still relatively few, mainly the areas N/NE of Downtown like McCauley, Westwood, Central McDougall, Eastwood and Parkdale

[dc_denizen]

looks like U of T considered a low income neighborhood in that map

[llamaorama]

Great article.

But many cities have "favored quarter" development patterns so the donut analogy doesn't work. Dallas is more like a pizza than a donut, where the north 'slice' is nice all the way from downtown all the way to outer suburbs, while the southeast 'slice' is kind of grungy even in the suburbs.

[memph]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

looks like U of T considered a low income neighborhood in that map

Yes, technically, but as I said, obviously not the typical low income neighbourhood when it's just a matter of having a population dominated by full time students that are not in the workforce. Most student dominated areas will show up as low income on these maps as well.

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Great article.

But many cities have "favored quarter" development patterns so the donut analogy doesn't work. Dallas is more like a pizza than a donut, where the north 'slice' is nice all the way from downtown all the way to outer suburbs, while the southeast 'slice' is kind of grungy even in the suburbs.

Yeah, usually it's a combination of donut and slice/quarter patterns. Still, many cities are experiencing a shift in how wealth is distributed within the respective slices.

With Dallas, currently the southeast slice is poorer in the areas closer to downtown like South Dallas and South Oak Cliff, while the more outlying areas like Mesquite, DeSoto, Lawson and Duncanville are less poor ranging from working class to middle class. The northern slice is distinctly wealthier in the close in parts than Plano or Frisco which are more middle to upper middle class.

In many cities the unfavoured slice is shifting towards middle income in the close in areas, while the more suburban parts get less poorer. So with Austin, East Austin is getting gentrified from low to medium income and the lower income population seems to be getting pushed out to more suburban areas like Windsor Park, North Austin and Southeast Austin, or even being spread out more thinly in more distant suburbs like Round Rock, Pfluggerville, Cedar Park.

[memph]

Portland has relatively few low income neighbourhoods, and what little it does have is mostly outside the core, possibly more so than any other American city.

Wealthy areas (not mapped) are mostly on the higher ground west of the Willamette River which is a scenic area and also happens to be fairly centrally located.

[memph]

Toronto


Toronto has relatively few census tracts with <$18k per capita incomes. To be clear, that per person over 15, so children are not included. They are mostly in the $16-18k range, with nothing under $12k. There's also a lot of census tracts in the $18-22k range which didn't make the cut-off.

Those are mostly apartments and public housing for areas in the core - except for Kensington Market (probably lots of room-mates? not sure...). In the NE suburbs it's often SFH neighbourhoods.

NE suburbs are able to cope with low incomes because the larger homes (SFH) allow for more efficient pooling of resources with larger households, and housing costs are also lower than in the core. Of course the core has lower transportation costs.

There aren't any census tracts in NW Toronto that make the cut, not in Jane-Finch, not in Rexdale, not in Weston or Eglinton West. The only exception is the student dominated census tract next to York University. However, this measure of income/poverty does not take into account the burden of child dependents, of which there are more in NW Toronto than in the NE suburbs.

[memph]

Same map for Winnipeg, it does seem to have more concentrated poverty/low income, mainly in the downtown adjacent areas of the north and west end.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by memph

I guess I shouldn't expect too much of a trend just from 2010 to 2012, but you do notice a few patterns.

Incomes went up a bit in Toronto's urban core with lower income census tracts moving to higher income levels (mostly to middle income), mainly in the west end like Bloor West, St Clair W, Eglinton W areas and a bit in Parkdale too. They also went up a bit in Mississauga, with some census tracts reversing earlier declines and returning to middle income status, as well as a bit of gentrification around Lakeview.

They declined in the northwest quadrant including North Etobicoke, Brampton, and a couple census tracts around York University and Downsview, as well as in Milliken. Overall though the number and % of census tracts that were middle income seems to have increased from 2010 to 2012 which is reassuring although we'll see how long that trend holds for. It's good to see Oshawa on the maps now too.

Calgary turns out to be much more segregated than I expected. I knew the main low income area was the NE suburbs, but I didn't expect they'd be that much below the average and that the low income areas would be that concentrated in just that one section of the city. My suspicion of it having the strongest "reverse donut" pattern is confirmed. It's not a perfect reverse donut since there's still wealth in the western suburbs, but it is more of a reverse donut than any other Canadian city.

Hamilton and Winnipeg are still very much following the "old donut" pattern, even more so than Toronto was in the 60s-70s.

Im surprised to see a decline in Millikin seeing as it's heavily Chinese.

Then again, I know a lot of people who've moved from Scarborough to Markham in the last 15 years.

[memph]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Im surprised to see a decline in Millikin seeing as it's heavily Chinese.

Then again, I know a lot of people who've moved from Scarborough to Markham in the last 15 years.

To be clear, it's not about decline but current incomes. Some of these areas were low income in the past too - although in the case of Milliken the stats do show a decline.

There are some differences between Milliken and other low income areas of Toronto though. I compared that area to NW Toronto (ie Jane Finch, Weston, Rexdale, etc) and the CMA as a whole.

1. Yes, Milliken is definitely poorer than average, although whether it is as poor as poor neighbourhood in other areas depends how you measure it. In this case, it was based off income per person aged 15+. Milliken has larger households than other areas, and skews more towards larger households with more elderly, vs NW Toronto which has more single parent families and more children in somewhat smaller households.

2. Yes, unemployment rates are high.

3. Education levels are better than NW Toronto, but still below average. However, english proficiency is not only below average but below that of NW Toronto.

4. Milliken is predominantly Chinese, but also predominantly mainland Chinese, while Markham (at least north of 407) is more mixed Hong Kong and mainland Chinese.

5. This is based off median per capita income, not average per capita income. Chinese in the GTA have the lowest median per capita incomes and highest average per capita incomes of the 4 largest minority groups (South Asians, Chinese, Blacks, Filipinos).
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2...NAMEE=&VNAMEF=