Your city's best-looking suburbs

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I think this is actually not too different from what happened in Canada - just at a much more exaggerated scale, as usually seems to be the case. But in Toronto, you still had formerly wealthy neighbourhoods like Parkdale and the Annex that went into decline at the same time that new suburban neighbourhoods like York Mills and Richview were finding popularity amongst much of that same upper-middle class demographic.

I still think there's a major psychological difference between Americans and Canadians.

The rates of decline in the Annex or Parkdale suggest just the economic circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s: most people were renters; there was not much value in property as a place to build wealth; there were few economic incentives to buy old properties and renovate them; there were economic incentives to buy new build homes in the suburbs. What you get is some decline in the inner city, and growth in suburbia, but not a tremendous sea change. If a middle class family moved out, a working class family moved in.

What happened in the US can't be ascribed purely to what I described above. You don't empty out St. Louis to the tune of 175,000 people every decade (27.1% loss from 1970-1980 alone!) just with economic carrots and sticks. There had to be something deeply psychological and endemic to lead so many people to cut and run like that. As I said, racism and the Great Migration was a response, not a cause, because other cultures have dealt with an influx of unwanted outsiders by forcing those outsiders to literally live "on the outside" (i.e. outskirts).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I still think there's a major psychological difference between Americans and Canadians.

The rates of decline in the Annex or Parkdale suggest just the economic circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s: most people were renters; there was not much value in property as a place to build wealth; there were few economic incentives to buy old properties and renovate them; there were economic incentives to buy new build homes in the suburbs. What you get is some decline in the inner city, and growth in suburbia, but not a tremendous sea change. If a middle class family moved out, a working class family moved in.

What happened in the US can't be ascribed purely to what I described above. You don't empty out St. Louis to the tune of 175,000 people every decade (27.1% loss from 1970-1980 alone!) just with economic carrots and sticks. There had to be something deeply psychological and endemic to lead so many people to cut and run like that. As I said, racism and the Great Migration was a response, not a cause, because other cultures have dealt with an influx of unwanted outsiders by forcing those outsiders to literally live "on the outside" (i.e. outskirts).

If you read the history of many American cities, even though the decline of inner cities had begun long before the true "flight" took place, it's astonishing how rapidly things changed when a tipping point was reached. Some streets went from almost all white to almost all black within a year or a couple of years. I guess the zeitgeist of "we gotta get the hell outta here and fast!" was extremely strong at the time.

You're right that nothing of the sort ever happened in Canada.

[GlassCity]

It's a strange phenomenon to imagine. What could possibly have sparked such fear. I mean, if they were worried about sharing a neighbourhood with black people, would all of them staying not deter that?

It's also crazy just how fast it happened. Just the degree to which this was salient that people just could not wait to move. I can't imagine how that could happen.

[SpongeG]

I think it was the car culture, which isn't quite the same here in Canada, yes we love our cars here too but not to the extent that they do in the states.

I've been watching a lot of LRT videos the last few days in various US cities, houston, dallas, minneapolis etc. and it seems only poor people who don't have cars use the trains or people going to a football game on the weekend. They stations look so empty and the trains seem so empty. and they drive for miles through nothingness.

[GlassCity]

But I don't think there's anything inherent about loving cars that gets that many people to flee their homes in such a small period of time. If anything, auto-dependence is a symptom of whatever it was that caused that migration, not a cause.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's a strange phenomenon to imagine. What could possibly have sparked such fear. I mean, if they were worried about sharing a neighbourhood with black people, would all of them staying not deter that?

Many of the first post-war suburbs actually had restrictive covenants that explicitly prevented Blacks and/or Jews from buying properties in the neighbourhood. And in much of America, driving to work from the suburbs was seen/promoted as an exciting privilege one should aspire to, not an inconvenience like it is today. A love of cars might not have been the sole driver of suburbaniztion, but it was part and parcel with the "new, modern way of life" along with detached bungalows, modernist design, the "white picket fence", etc. I think there was also more incentive for car manufactures and related industries to promote car ownership more aggressively in America than Canada because it generated so much wealth for so many (including much of the working class). This didn't really happen the same way in Canada since there weren't any major car manufacturers headquartered here and (AFAIK) only a small handful of cities in a single province had any significant car manufacturing/related sector.

Inner cities by that time (actually several decades earlier) were also generally cramped and polluted and had high rates of crime/disease/fires etc. and were "stale" at best - the suburbs were the new, clean, spacious neighbourhoods where one (in theory) didn't have to deal with all that.

[Pinion]

The TV show Mad Men did an alright job of showing the change in attitude during the 60s. The show takes place across virtually the whole decade and near the end there are frequent sirens etc outside. Nothing super deep but it was interesting to see the cultural shift.

Originally Posted by Hali87

Many of the first post-war suburbs actually had restrictive covenants that explicitly prevented Blacks and/or Jews from buying properties in the neighbourhood.

The deed on my parent's 1945-built place right below Grouse Mountain in North Van said they couldn't sell it to Chinese. They did, of course.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But I don't think there's anything inherent about loving cars that gets that many people to flee their homes in such a small period of time. If anything, auto-dependence is a symptom of whatever it was that caused that migration, not a cause.

I think cars were a part of it, but consider this: many of the abandoned areas of American cities are predominantly SFHs with small lots in fairly auto-friendly areas. They're not the the Plateau in Montreal or Vieux-Québec. Look at the bones of the "urban prairie" blighted areas in Detroit, Buffalo, Chicago, St. Louis. It's mostly blocks of what used to be SFHs that are empty.

In a city like Chicago the north side which remained relatively intact and prosperous is actually denser and is more rowhouses than the tragically blighted south side which has more SFHs interspersed with public housing towers in the park.

Many areas with dense row housing in cities like Boston held up quite well, whereas similar areas in cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia... not so much.

[niwell]

It hasn't come up much yet but there were organized efforts to move white families into newer, racially segregated suburbs. Blockbusting was very much a thing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

It hasn't come up much yet but there were organizing efforts to move white families into newer, racially segregated suburbs. Blockbusting was very much a thing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting

Yes, quite true. Many of the homeowners were working class and were manipulated into fearing for the value of the biggest investment they would ever make: their house.

Somewhat tragically, these people who made a "white flight" move did end up on the *right* (sic) side of history. As in most cases the value of the homes in the areas they left behind plummeted dramatically and would not recover in their lifetimes (nor in ours in some cases).

[SpongeG]

also if you use hgtv shows as a gude for home buyers in the states, a main or a big issue for the home hunters is the school district because suburban areas have better schools than those in the city apparently, even moving a few blocks can screw up their ideal district

[Docere]

Yes, people pay a premium price to places like Scarsdale and Chappaqua because of their highly regarded public schools.

The "school catchment area" question has become more prevalent here in Toronto because of the Fraser Institute rankings, which all the realtors use. And that's why certain pockets, like Withrow Park (Riverdale) have a price premium.

The TDSB justifies its "optional attendance" policy - to keep the affluent in the system, but the effect is the further class segregation of students. Hence people fight to have their kids go to Forest Hill CI over Vaughan Road Academy, or Lawrence Park CI over John Polanyi CI.

Still the impact is much more limited in Canada generally because the "worst" public schools are hardly inner city Baltimore.

I mean do that many people move to West Vancouver because of "the schools" really or because they just like the "cache" of West Van?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yes, people pay a premium price to places like Scarsdale and Chappaqua because of their highly regarded public schools.

The "school catchment area" question has become more prevalent here in Toronto because of the Fraser Institute rankings, which all the realtors use. And that's why certain pockets, like Withrow Park (Riverdale) have a price premium.

The TDSB justifies its "optional attendance" policy - to keep the affluent in the system, but the effect is the further class segregation of students. Hence people fight to have their kids go to Forest Hill CI over Vaughan Road Academy, or Lawrence Park CI over John Polanyi CI.

Still the impact is much more limited in Canada generally because the "worst" public schools are hardly inner city Baltimore.

I mean do that many people move to West Vancouver because of "the schools" really or because they just like the "cache" of West Van?

In the U.S. which school district you are in often has a significant impact on how much money your school has per pupil. As a bigger part of their funding comes from local taxes. In Canada all schools in a given province get basically the same amount of funding from the government. (And in some cases, schools with poorer demographics actually get MORE funding. I know it's like that in Quebec for example.)

[Docere]

^ That's very true. There are around 13,000 school districts in the US. There are 125 on Long Island alone, many of which are just a few wealthy villages.

[lrt's friend]

A lot of the problems that have been described in the U.S. relate to the organisation of municipalities. Every major city in the U.S. is surrounded by dozens if not hundreds of independently incorporated municipalities.

This is quite foreign to Canada where the provinces have often imposed annexations and amalgamations. This has proven to be wise choice as it makes sure that taxation is more evenly spent across each greater city. This prevents the rot that was experienced in so many American cities when 'white flight' also took tax dollars out of the inner city and into separate municipalities. The situation in the U.S. provides incentives to wealthy suburbs to resist annexation since they see their tax money supporting better services including schools within their boundaries. If annexed, they see that their tax money going towards the poor and rot and often debt in the inner city, which will cause the public services within their own community to deteriorate as well.

If you look at Detroit, parts of the city is in ruins and abandoned and the population is declining and the city itself bankrupt. But the whole city is surrounded with often wealthy suburbs. This does not promote an easy recovery for Detroit.

[Docere]

West Vancouver council expresses concern about affordability and debates density. I suppose one can wonder whether these concerns are genuine or if they just want a few more places around the edges so their grown children can stay in West Van and there's a few places for the "service class" to live.

http://www.nsnews.com/news/west-vanc...ture-1.2300684

[Docere]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A lot of the problems that have been described in the U.S. relate to the organisation of municipalities. Every major city in the U.S. is surrounded by dozens if not hundreds of independently incorporated municipalities.

That's especially true in the Northeast and Midwest. In the South and West, there's a lot of unincorporated areas directly serviced by the county.

[Rico Rommheim]

West Van is for the most part gorgeous. Vancouver's Westmount-by-the-sea. It's skyline ain't bad either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Docere

That's especially true in the Northeast and Midwest. In the South and West, there's a lot of unincorporated areas directly serviced by the county.

I wonder if there is a taxation incentive for people in communities to have it remain unincorporated.

In some parts of Canada I believe it's advantageous to have an area be unincorporated as local taxes are low and essential services are provided by the province. Therefore borne by all province's taxpayers, most of whom are already also paying higher taxes as a result of being residents of *incorporated* municipalities.

[Docere]

Seems to be a lot of love for West Van here.

Would people here given the choice - money being no object - opt for West Van over the tony west side neighborhoods like Dunbar, Point Grey or Shaughnessy?