Change and Inequality in Toronto’s Junction Neighbourhood

• A Windshield Assessment, By Carolyn Gibson Smith

• University of Windsor Social Work Practice with Organizations and Communities

• August 6, 2017

This paper assesses the Junction area in Toronto’s West End. Through a variety of research methodologies, one can understand its strengths and challenges: some unique, and some not. In particular the paper will identify issues of interest to social workers operating within an anti-oppressive framework, and make two related macro-level recommendations to support more egalitarian development in the area. Finally, the author will provide a personal reflection on how this work has changed her impression of the neighbourhood.

Theory

Junction streetscape

Considering the Junction neighbourhood through an anti-oppressive lens allows one to connect observations from direct social work or research to structural inequality. Anti-oppressive practice (AOP) helps identify groups subject to oppression, defined by unequal access to the determinants of wealth and social power (Danso, 2007). Intersectionality suggests each individual will be uniquely impacted. Lena Dominelli, a leading practitioner of AOP, says that AOP social workers must address inequality and the impact on clients by supporting them in identifying the structural bases of their individual challenges. Social workers at the community level can initiate research, much like that in this paper. The resulting knowledge gives clients the data needed to empower themselves through social action (Dominelli & Campling, 2002).

AOP encourages the consideration of how factors including patriarchy, globalization, and capitalism relate to the more tangible types of oppression experienced at the cultural and personal levels (Danso, 2007). This is relevant at the level of an urban neighbourhood, a geographical entity encompassing many different communities jointly impacted by higher-level trends (Parada, Barnoff, Homan & Moffatt, 2011). To translate awareness into change, AOP encourages social workers to engage in self-reflection in order to understand their roles in an inherently “oppressive, caring profession” (Dominelli & Campling, 2002, p. 28).

While AOP can be criticized for not providing practice models at the micro/individual levels, it is well-suited to work at the macro and exosystem levels (Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). Proponents encourage the use of group work and organization to inspire collective action, and connections with community advocacy groups to work toward economic and social justice. Instead of accommodating scarce funding for social services, social workers should hold governments to account for adequate resourcing (Dominelli & Campling, 2002). While some may feel AOP’s time has come and gone, given trends toward intolerance in global politics it may be more relevant than ever. Lena Dominelli calls for AOP practitioners to build empathy among those in the dominant majority, though they may also struggle, toward those who are truly suffering disadvantage on a variety of social indices (Dominelli, 2017).

The Junction Assessment

We used the Windshield Survey methodology described by Community Toolbox (n.d.) for this assessment. We travelled by foot, bike and car to gain an impression of current retail, residential and other terrains. We mapped the assets of the community along our routes using the MyMaps tool in Google, organized roughly by the social determinants of health such as schools, parks, community projects, housing, food security, medical/dental, culture/leisure/recreation, support services and spiritual care (after Parada, et al., 2011). We interviewed a non-representative selection of stakeholders (residential, business and not-for-profit), and political staffers, and conducted a literature review and online searches in the news media. For a full assessment, see Appendix A. Here we will explore the history (without which it would be difficult to understand the change the area has experienced), overall impressions, and findings relevant to this assessment’s recommendations.

The Junction is a mature neighbourhood in the West End of Toronto, formerly known as the city of West Toronto. Founded in 1888, the area had been populated by First Nations as early as 400 AD (Remiz, 2015). While having various boundaries over the years, it has always been centred primarily around the junction of railway lines at Dundas and Keele streets, and is bounded roughly by the railway tracks to the east, and Runnymede Avenue to the west. Realtors shaped the popular definition of the neighbourhood as north of Annette St. and south of the tracks. However, the official boundaries in the City of Toronto’s 2011 neighbourhood profile extend both further south and north than that. The city describes a neighbourhood that is 7.91 km in diameter and 2.71 km2 in area (see Neighbourhood Map, Appendix B), comprised of residential, retail, commercial and light industrial areas (see Land Use Map, Appendix C). The population is 14,010 people, of whom 6,805 are male and 7,205 are female; most are of working age (City of Toronto, 2011).

Historically, the Junction welcomed waves of new immigrants with employment and housing. It was working-class, and subject to booms and busts in manufacturing and the meat industry in the neighbourhood’s industrial lands to the north and east. The housing mix suits this, with a higher-than-city-average proportion of residents living in apartments of less than 5 storeys in height (43% Junction vs 16 % Toronto-wide), and 35% in semi-detached homes, row-houses or duplexes. As of the most recent census numbers, single family detached homes are in the minority compared to the city as a whole (City of Toronto, 2011). Such a housing mix, should it survive gentrification, is a strong anti-oppressive asset in that it can support residents to age-in-place, with the support of organizations such as West Toronto Seniors Services (WTSS.ca), which provide visiting, shopping, adult day programs, and meals-on-wheels services.

Traditionally known for its Maltese community, ethnic diversity is now less-than-average for the city, with visible minorities making up only 29% of the community versus 49% for the city as a whole (City of Toronto, 2011). Indeed, during our Windshield Survey, we noted mostly Caucasians on the streets along with some Asian, Philipino and South East Asian people. Once affordable to immigrants, the area is now primarily populated by multi-generational Canadians. This shift leads one to question the ways in which the dynamics of class intersect with “the logics and practices of structural racism,” (Rankin & McLean, 2015, p.217). We could see how the area was made more appealing for new, affluent buyers by the redevelopment of the stockyards in 1993, and a major, municipally-funded facelift of the main commercial strip, Dundas West, in the late 1990s (Hui, 2012). Starting in the late 1990s, the end of a longstanding alcohol ban; housing price pressure in central areas in Toronto (Murdie & Teixeira, 2011); and a drop in the crime rate (Toronto Police Service, 2016), which peaked in the 1970s and 80s (Johnston, 2002) all served to make the area more appealing for new buyers.

Our impression in our survey was one of an almost-fully gentrified community. Murdie & Teixeira (2011) define gentrification as the production and consumption of space by a new, more affluent population. Rankin & McLean (2015) ask us to consider gentrification as displacement pressure, arguing that marginalized people are made to feel unwelcome by improvements such as those we saw, and move quickly rather than wait to be displaced. Most streets are now well-kept and treed, and the commercial street is attractive and well-populated, both by pedestrians, and, unfortunately, car traffic. Yet we also saw signs of a neighbourhood that used to serve a more marginal demographic on both commercial and residential streets: unauthorized graffiti, dirty windows, and rundown buildings, alongside contemporary renovations, redevelopments and new developments. Gentrification has caused sufficient friction to make the news. Hui (2012) recounts how longtime resident Felice Scala and his son Ralph terrorized gentrifiers through property damage and harassment, until they were arrested in 2009.

In addition to the variety of housing forms, one of the Junction’s assets is lower- to no-cost housing. From the co-op on St. Clair, to Options for Homes condos on Heintzman Avenue, to community living and the second-largest women’s shelter in the city, Evangeline’s. A new, 50+ bed men’s shelter will open on the old Goodwill site on Runnymede Avenue. The area hosts one of Toronto’s few remaining low-cost rooming houses, the Peacock Hotel. With an AOP lens, one could ask if what are classified here as strong community assets are seen as liabilities by the new residents. In fact, one resident identified the rooming house as a gentrification target along the lines of the now-upscale Drake and Gladstone Hotels, likely displacing precariously-housed residents. Two residents identified Not In My Backyard-ism (NIMBY-ism), and low cohesion between long-term and new residents as issues. And the new men’s shelter has incited sufficient community opposition to reach the news (e.g. Pagliaro, 2017; Torstar News Service, 2017 ).

Like many Torontonians, Junction residents are experiencing the effects of oppressive structural issues in the housing sector. Housing costs continue to rise dramatically — over 40.6% for home purchases over the past year (Zolo, 2017), and 30% for new rentals in the six months ending April, 2017 (Tencer, 2017). Taxation follows these trends. One resident who purchased her home four years ago after a divorce said she’d never be able to buy there now. Economically-marginal residents see housing costs escalating beyond what they can afford with income from employment or social services, leading to potential displacement of populations of the elderly, single parents, and other low- or fixed- income residents.

It is important for social workers to understand this is part of a trend at the exosystem level. Research reveals that housing, among other sectors, is being infiltrated by financial practices and strategies that did not previously exist. This is called ‘financialization’ (August & Walks, in press). A house is now seen as an capital-accumulation, investment or wealth-generating vehicle, rather than a place to live and raise a family. Influencing financial vehicles include low interest rates, competitive mortgage lending, and real-estate investment trusts (REITs). The decoupling of real estate value from the purpose of home ownership results in investments in properties based on hoped-for profits from future values, and practices such as “flipping,” where investors buy and renovate to resell at a profit (Massey, 2012).

Financialization is also at work in the rental market, where firms such as Akelius purchase older apartment-housing, renovate with high-end finishes and appliances, raise rents, and displace lower-income renters (August & Walks, in press). Higher home prices encourage the conversion of multi-unit houses into single family homes, resulting in fewer and pricier apartments for rent (Tencer, 2017). These trends leave 36% of Junction residents (and 35% of Torontonians) paying more than 30% of their household income on housing (City of Toronto, 2011). Corporations and well-capitalized homeowners are privileged, while renters, the precariously-housed and homeless face increasing inequality.

With an anti-oppressive perspective, one could ask how this area serves communities in each domain of interest. For example, in the commercial domain, who is being well-served? We saw many newer artisanal breweries, organic shops, boutiques, food-markets, cafés, for-profit fitness centres, after-school care and daycares, centred around the Dundas West strip on both sides of Keele. This retail mix suggests affluent newcomers are well-served, and lower-income residents are increasingly excluded from neighbourhood commercial life. True, these shops and the big-box stores in the Stockyards provide retail-level employment for many. And true, new businesses must be accessible to those with mobility challenges, whereas older businesses are grandfathered. But minimum-wage retail salaries are insufficient to allow employees to live in the neighbourhood. The City of Toronto (2011) indicates that the average after-tax income of Junction residents is $64,158, and minimum wage only nets $19,556 per year. Additionally, the new shops displace less expensive, independent stores that served lower-income residents and provided a livelihood for their owners. Research in adjacent neighbourhoods suggests many of the older stores were run by immigrants (Rankin & McLean, 2015).

Looking at the domain of health-care, we found recently-opened health clinics already at capacity. Many included services not covered by OHIP such as osteopathy, chiropractic and rehab-wellness, which exclude low-income earners and those without health insurance through employers. We didn’t find a hospital, but there is a long-term care facility on Runnymede Avenue. We found no community health clinics or mental health agencies, despite the area’s precariously-housed residents needing this kind of care. We found one walk-in clinic located just outside of the neighbourhood boundaries. Roundhouse Pediatrics on Dundas West offers a weekly walk-in clinic, however adult residents who aren’t already registered with a regular physician need to leave the area to access healthcare. This mix of healthcare offerings privileges those with permanent addresses, access to transportation, and education and mental health levels sufficient to navigate a complex and resource-scarce health care system. The Junction Commons community project hopes to convert the old police station on Mavety Street into a community hub, and could include a community health centre operated by Four Villages (Nagy, 2015).

Recommendations

Housing is the most global challenge in this neighbourhood, variously affecting homeowners, renters, local businesses and the precariously-housed or homeless. Through an AOP lens, we can see that highly-capitalized homeowners, the financial sector servicing transactions and debts, developers and construction firms benefit from the continued rising cost of housing. As is typical, both new and long-term owners welcome area upgrades as a sign of continued appreciation of their assets, and improved quality-of-life (McGirr, Skaburskis & Donegani, 2015). They fail to see, or don’t want to see, the way this system oppresses others. According to Walks (2013) this system is dependent on young people being willing to take on debt risk to achieve home ownership. Yet employment is increasingly contract-based and precarious, and their income cannot be spent locally as it is tied up in servicing their debts. Meanwhile, renters appreciate the changes until their rents go up and they are driven out. Local rental housing stocks are reduced while rents inflate, disadvantaging renters.

Those that benefit from gentrification we’ll call Group A, those that do not, let us call Group B. A force field analysis would demonstrate that Group A often works against Group B, though all would benefit from a neighbourhood well-rated on measures of social determinants of health (Parada et al., 2011). This us versus them, social/emotional community issue is best exemplified in the tension over the new men’s shelter.

In looking to models of community change, Rubin & Rubin describe the development of partnership organizations to define problems to address (Parada et al, 2011), and that is the first macro-level recommendation for community-based social workers with an interest in affordable housing: to bring the Residents’ Association together with allies of and workers in affordable and community housing to develop a new partnership organization. This stakeholders’ group should engage in Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Parada et al., 2011). Discoveries from research would inspire action toward social change as members begin to understand the shared costs of gentrification, and the experiences of others. From there, the group could become a pressure organization, supporting government policies to cool down the housing market, demanding the inclusion of affordable housing-units in new developments through Toronto’s Open Door program (Monsebraaten, 2016), providing tax incentives to encourage owners of homes divided into flats to retain those units, simplifying the permitting process to create new flats, and converting unused municipal lands in the Junction into cooperative housing, to name a few. If efforts to unite various resident stakeholders fail, AOP social workers have an ethical obligation to apply pressure on behalf of those whom the current system is failing, perhaps through the development of a self-help organization like the Parkdale Tenants’ Association.

A second, related macro-level recommendation is squarely focused on creating community cohesion, while meeting several needs we saw within the community. Social workers should support the Junction Commons organization on a volunteer basis to create what Rubin & Rubin call a co-production: working with the provincial government to provide services no longer exclusively provided by government (Parada et al, 2011). The Junction Commons working group identified community health, food, arts and the community as their four pillars (Nagy, 2015), consistent with our findings of need (not all explored in this paper). The organization appears to be working within AOP, with an inclusive vision to “build[ing] civic engagement and encourage[ing] dialogue and communication between residents, community organizations, local businesses and municipal government” (Nagy, 2015). Despite provincial government support for building community hubs (The Premier’s Community Hubs Framework Advisory Group, 2016), this project has not moved ahead significantly in the past two years. Community workers need to identify current obstacles to moving the project ahead, and determine what resources and organizational requirements would make it a success.

Reflection

Self-reflection is a key part of AOP (Parada et al. 2011). Growing up a privileged, middle-class kid in Toronto, I saw the Junction as exotic, scary, and oddly compelling. In mid-2003, when I was fortunate enough to be buying my first home, it still had a marginal air. Our realtor took us to see a house for sale in what was then optimistically termed “Bloor West North.” We discovered the elderly, Polish homeowner living in one room on the main floor, containing a paraffin stove, a toilet, a hand washbasin, a bed, and the smell of urine and old cabbage. If we’d been more mercenary investors, we would have bought it and profited handsomely. But the experience left us shaken, and we didn’t consider it.

In this assessment, I discovered a prettier, better-maintained and more prosperous neighbourhood than I remember. But AOP allowed me to see the inequality stemming from oppressive practices, if relegated to the edges. Perhaps it’s because Evangeline’s residents are left to their own devices during the day, and hang out in a few affordable spots at the fringes of the redeveloped Dundas West retail strip. Perhaps it was the story of the Peacock Hotel resident told to me during a resident interview. Community health services are sufficient to have him bathed daily, but don’t provide him unsoiled clothes, so he puts back on dirty ones after his baths. The driver of the #40 bus knows him on sight, and doesn’t make him pay until he reaches his unknown destination at Dundas West, though his scent drives other riders from the bus. I hope that kind of community spirit and caring is enough to carry the precariously-housed residents, and build empathy in those who are more fortunate for those they are displacing.

Conclusion

Despite the prosperity of the Junction in 2017, there are obvious signs of inequality and displacement, and many tasks for social workers operating within AOP. Dominelli & Campling (2002) remind us that “social development is as critical in high-income communities as low-income ones. It develops not just where people live, but people themselves, through networking and campaigning for social and economic justice…” ( p.131). Many of the needs identified in our assessment could be ameliorated by working toward equity in the housing and rental markets, with particular attention to the needs of lower-income residents, seniors, and the homeless. Increased community cohesion between homeowners and other residents could be ameliorated with the kind of mixed-use space advocated by the Junction Commons group, while improving access to health care, and affordable, healthy food. Once these basic needs have been met, the community can turn to addressing higher-level needs such as the environment (diesel train issue), service improvements to transit, accessibility, arts and culture and others.

Acknowledgements

This work would have been impossible without the tireless efforts of my classmates on the Junction team, Eugenie Steyn and Nicole McKee. 

References

Akelius. (n.d.) Apartment finder. Retrieved from http://www.akelius-properties.ca/

August, M., & Walks, A. (in press). Gentrification, suburban decline, and the financialization of multi-family rental housing: The case of Toronto. Geoforum. Advanced access online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718517300982.

City of Toronto. (2011). Neighbourhood Census / NHS Profile. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=06034074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=1e68f40f9aae0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

City of Toronto. (2013). City-wide Maps and Land Use Charts. Retrieved August, 01, 2017, from https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=905abe4436161410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=2a8a036318061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Danso, R. (2007). Emancipating and empowering de-valued skilled immigrants: What hope does anti-oppressive social work practice offer? British Journal of Social Work, 39(3), 539-555.

Dominelli, L., & Campling, J. (2002). Anti oppressive social work theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Dominelli, L. (2017). Social Work Challenges in the Second Decade of the 21st Century: Against the Bias. Affilia, 32(1), 105-107.

Hui, A. (2012, December 29). The Junction: This up-and-coming neighbourhood wasn't always so trendy. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-junction-this-up-and-coming-neighbourhood-wasnt-always-so-trendy/article6696790/

Johnson, B. (2012). A brief history of booze in The Junction. blogTO. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from http://www.blogto.com/eat_drink/2012/02/a_brief_history_of_booze_in_the_junction/

Massey, J. (2012). Housing and the 99 Percent. Places Journal. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from https://placesjournal.org/article/housing-and-the-99-percent/

McGirr, E., Skaburskis, A., & Donegani, T. S. (2015). Expectations, preferences and satisfaction levels among new and long-term residents in a gentrifying Toronto neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 52(1), 3-19.

Monsebraaten, L. (2016, July 16). Opening doors to affordable housing in Toronto. The Toronto Star. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from

Murdie, R., & Teixeira, C. (2011). The impact of gentrification on ethnic neighbourhoods in Toronto: A case study of Little Portugal. Urban Studies, 48(1), 61-83.

Nagy, L. O. (2015). Junction commons. Retrieved August 02, 2017, from http://junctioncommons.ca/

Pagliaro, J. (2017). Mayor John Tory pushes support for controversial Runnymede shelter in late-night debate. The Toronto Star. June 20, 2017.Retrieved August 02, 2017, from https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/06/20/mayor-john-tory-pushes-support-for-controversial-runnymede-shelter-in-late-night-debate.html

Parada, H., Barnoff, L., Homan, M. S., & Moffatt, K. J. (2011). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world. Nelson Education.

The Premier’s Community Hubs Framework Advisory Group. (2016). Enabling & celebrating
community hubs. Government of Ontario. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from https://files.ontario.ca/communityhubsreport2016-final-web_final-s.pdf

Rankin, K. N., & McLean, H. (2015). Governing the commercial streets of the city: New terrains of disinvestment and gentrification in Toronto's inner suburbs. Antipode, 47(1), 216-239.

Remiz, F. (2015). Junction history. West Toronto Junction Historical Society. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from https://wtjhs.ca/junction-history/

Sakamoto, I., & Pitner, R. O. (2005). Use of critical consciousness in anti-oppressive social work practice: Disentangling power dynamics at personal and structural levels. The British Journal of Social Work, 35(4), 435-452.

Tencer, D. (2017, April 13). Toronto rental prices jump 30% in 6 months, other cities soar too. Huffington Post Canada. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/13/rental-prices-canada-toronto-padmapper_n_15994150.html

Toronto Police Service. (2016). Major crime indicators database. Retrieved August 02, 2017, from http://torontops.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=26e1296004a34f08924bab9547e38da0

Torstar News Service. (2017, June 20). John Tory defends controversial shelter from critics on his executive committee. Metro Toronto. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2017/06/20/john-tory-runnymeade-temporary-shelter.html

Windshield and Walking Surveys. (n.d.). Community Toolbox. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and-resources/windshield-walking-surveys/main

Walks, A. (2013). Mapping the urban debtscape: The geography of household debt in Canadian cities. Urban Geography, 34(2), 153-187.

Wencer, D. (n.d.). The murder that made the Junction go "dry". Cities in Time. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from http://citiesintime.ca/toronto/story/murder-made-/ (LINK NO LONGER ACTIVE)

Zolo (2017). Junction area real estate trends. Retrieved August 01, 2017, from https://www.zolo.ca/toronto-real-estate/junction-area/trends