News   Nov 04, 2024
Catching Up on Two Years of Construction at Topped-Off Leaside Commons
 474     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
UrbanToronto Launches New Map Experience – Explore New Features Today!
 726     4 
News   Nov 04, 2024
13 Storeys Proposed on The Queensway East of Kipling
 909     1 

What (new) businesses "spur" gentrification?

tendim

tendim

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
I haven't been able to find anything concrete on any of this, so I thought I'd throw it out to the experts. :D

Which businesses, in everyone's opinion, spur gentrification? Even better, based on geographic footprint? I.e., some areas can support large scale operations (upscale grocery stores), and some can only support small footprint (coffee shops).

Anecdotally I've heard that Starbucks spurs a lot of growth because it has as higher price point, so the type of people that shop there spend more, but those who are low-income can't so they have to go elsewhere. This type of action causes them to move out of an area completely.

Another example was when I was reading the Daniel's Corp. threads about the new developments near Regent Park. There was a lot of talk about how, since Sobey's was there, it would force lower income people out.

But I've been thinking, even if you throw in one new place (I.e., Starbucks), if the rest of the stores around it don't support a high price point or "Starbuck-esque" customers (to use a very broad brush: on average I don't see Starbucks people walking into the "tacky discount stores"), what happens? Does the new business fold, or does it bring in other businesses behind it because someone has taken the chance and lead the way?

Any comments appreciated.

-10d
 
From what gleaned from the past few decades, high profile tech industry corporations and successful tech start ups do like building in older industrial buildings. Look at videogames company Ubisoft in Montreal for an example.
 
In all seriousness I'd have to say trendy art galleries. Outlets like Starbucks don't usually move in until gentrification has begun, though they can be a good indicator that an area is on the rise.
 
Money Marts and Starbucks are indicators but they have little impact on the gentrification itself. I think how properties and the public realm are maintained, perceived safety, transportation, and jobs in the city are more important than what businesses are there. In some parts of the city it seems the condos which went into a neighbourhood at a low price point spurred gentrification that allowed neighbouring properties to be developed at higher price points.
 
EnviroTO said:
Money Marts and Starbucks are indicators but they have little impact on the gentrification itself.
Click to expand...

Proliferation of Money Marts and other such business are indicators of a lack of gentrification. When banks choose not to open branches in an area (such as Regent Park, until very recently), these informal "personal finance" fill the gap. That TD opened a branch in 2006 and RBC is opening in 2010 are positive signs.

Gentrification generally happens in phases, and it all starts with cheap rent. An example:

1) Cheap rent attracts artists, students, and arty/alternative types to live among local riff-raff. Art galleries, music shops, indie cafes and alt businesses open. Starbucks starts poking around. Ex: Parkdale and Riverside now, Cabbagetown circa 1975.
2) Seeking coolness and authenticity, young professionals withour children move in. Rents move up. More upscale businesses open to cater to these types. Banks say it's OK to open a branch. Ex: Leslieville and Trinity-Bellwoods now, Cabbagetown circa 1982.
3) Riff-raff moves on (and some original artists/students get pushed out by higher rent). Couples have kids and stay put. Ex: Cabbagetown post-1990, Riverdale post-1995.

I'm not sure it's possible to say some business are causes of gentrification, and other business are effects of gentrification, unless you consider "phase 1" type businesses the cause and "phase 3" businesses the effect.

In similar news, has anyone been to Queen & Sherbourne lately? The He & She Clothing Gallery has moved away to a much more discreet location. There's a great new thrift shop, a new flower shop, 2 galleries and a tech co. 70% of the businesses there are still sketch, but 70% is the lowest ratio I've ever seen there.

In summary, UNT's rule: Skinny jeans are one of the first signs of gentrification.
 
Last edited:
I think a decent restaurant or nightspot is part of it, too.

Check out the discussion here for more on gentrification. (Scroll down a bit.)
 
Only one thing spurs gentrification: people moving in have more money than people moving out.
 
BobBob said:
Only one thing spurs gentrification: people moving in have more money than people moving out.
Click to expand...

On a macro level that's true (and obvious), but at some point during the overall process there are catalysts that get things going. I think the question is what are some of the businesses that tend to be those catalysts.
 
I think you need to conceptualize this process as a continuous cycle of regeneration. Most of these areas had to be de-gentrified prior to being re-gentrified. When we think of it from this perspective we can see the point of gentrification as an arbitrary point of reference. History would suggest that many of the areas gentrifying now will de-gentrify once again in the future.

In general it is my observation that the residential preceeds the retail or commercial interests. Also, the anchor of the community tends to be a stable population. People observe the transient residents and think that those people define the area (aka the skinny jean comment). In my observation the people who have the most impact are inter-generational long-term residents. The catalyst for change often occurs because of generational change-over and the efforts of the anchor community to enrich themselves by attracting new business and more affluent outsiders.
 
^disagree. In the east end of Toronto at least, the neighbourhoods were primarily working-class folks with relatively low incomes. It had been that way since much of the housing stock was built roughly 90 years ago. While inter-generational residents are still around, they are disappearing. Many of them live there until they move into a retirement home and then they sell to someone who is going to renovate, either young professional types or contractors. That just happened to my neighbour two doors down and it will likely happen to my next door neighbour too. The houses are worth so much more, even on a relative basis, than they were before that no one in the family can afford to buy them.

I would argue that gentrification is indeed primarily a one-way process because prices go up in the long run. Take Manhattan, for example. How many single family homes are left there?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top