City
Will the mayoral race once again be defined by the "urban" vs. "suburban" split?
Despite a lack of consensus on its origin or boundary, much has been made in the past of Toronto's putative East/West divide. But, though it's quite common to hear residents claim the superiority of one side over the other, I suspect the staying power of the debate is that no one really takes it all that seriously. It's enjoyable to discuss where the better restaurants and amenities are located in relation to Yonge Street (or, as some would have it, the Don Valley) precisely because the stakes aren't particularly high. After all, does anyone really believe there's a deep-rooted ideological opposition between those who live in the East and those who live in the West? I doubt it.
But what about a North vs. South, urban vs. suburban divide?
With Rob Ford's ascent to front-runner status in the 2010 mayoral race, much is once again being made of the oppositional voting preferences of those who reside in old (urban) Toronto and what were once the suburbs that sprouted up around the core of the city. I say "what were once the suburbs" because post-amalgamation it makes little sense to use this terminology to describe areas like Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke.
But, forgetting this terminological inaccuracy, there's compelling evidence -- at the very least from a political perspective -- to suggest that the old city and its former suburbs have never aligned ideologically.
I'm going to take a closer look at the lasting opposition to amalgamation in a later post, but there are plenty of reasons one can cite to support the idea that such a divide exists. Over and above the rather obvious voting split revealed in the results of the the 1997 (above) and 2003 (below) elections, it's worth pointing out that opposition to the province's plans to amalgamate the municipalities of Metro was enormous from the very beginning. Citizens were concerned about a myriad of issues, but on a general level it was a fear of under-representation that fueled the fight against amalgamation. As Mel Lastman proclaimed back in 1997, "You won't find North York anywhere on the map! North York is gone!"
But even though Barbara Hall, Lastman's competition in the mayoral race that year, was also against amalgamation, it's not really a surprise that the results of the election were split between north and south. Regardless of their stance against the province's decision to amalgamate, the deed had been done, and each candidate was affiliated with the municipality he/she formerly governed. Hall was the lefty from old Toronto, while Lastman's position on the right struck a chord with voters in other formerly suburban municipalities beyond just North York (e.g. Etobicoke and Scarborough).
None of this is really news. But it does at least partially explain Rob Ford's recent polling success. I can recall a number of occasions over the last few weeks in which I confidently proclaimed that Ford's popularity will be checked once the mayoral race kicks into high gear post-Labour Day. It wasn't a particularly sophisticated argument I was making. At bottom, I merely believed that Ford's views on a host of issues -- be it immigration, same-sex marriage, city spending or reducing the number of city councillors -- don't jive with the values of the average Torontonian.
But, alas, there's a basic fallacy that informs this stance, one that these maps and recent polls show rather well. It's not really possible to speak of average or typical citizens when it comes to Toronto politics (if it ever is). In the wake of amalgamation in particular, the nature of the issues at play in municipal politics tends to galvanize groups of people who share a common geography.
When David Miller won in 2003, he made significant inroads with voters in areas that Barbara Hall did not in 1997. So the question for the upcoming election is whether or not any of the centre to left wing candidates can do the same. It certainly doesn't appear this way at present -- and if that remains the case, we're likely to see a similar looking voting breakdown in October.
Maps sourced from the Wikimedia Commons.


Discussion
52 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
What a strange and backward characterization to make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_mayor_-_2006.PNG
I'd argue we're not as different as everyone makes us out to be.
Given the elections in 97, 03 and the current polls, 06 is the exception (for reasons I've just explained). And, to be a bit more firm, your inherent humanism obviously impairs your ability to appreciate that a young, car-less urban renter has very different needs/wants from his municipal government than a well established, homeowner who relies on a vehicle for the bulk of his transportation.
Two words: bike lanes!
The issue with the bike lanes angering the "suburban" voters is kinda hilarious, since the bike lanes are all downtown, where the "young, car-less urban" types live.
To equal things out, I suggest the Downtowners get all upset next time they open another Smart Centre out in the middle of the sprawling "suburbs".
This is one of the most dangerous ideas out there. If Rob Ford was elected (i'm not voting), even he (if you don't like him) would look like a saint (or at least not bad). People need to take a few seconds and think of what they say. Hopefully all the people who dislike Ford can acknowledge that taxes only going yo your neighbourhood would be much worse.
I'm legitimately scared this is more popular than it should be.
The harsh lines that everyone likes to divide the city on have been eroded by 10 years of forced marriage. Moreover, your stereotypical characterization of residents in the urban core and the inner suburbs does not apply. The demographic facts, particularly in Scarborough, means that not everyone is a "well established homeowner who relies on a vehicle for the bulk of his transportation".
More often than not, its the built form and clear separation of uses that forces residents of the inner suburbs into a vehicle. With time, the city official plan and the new harmonized zoning by-laws will result in a slow but steady shift. Add in some much needed infrastructure investment and you'll notice the emergence of living and commuting options that today, are only available downtown.
Of course this will, and should, take time - everyone deserves to have time to adapt to new realities. Yet this election is an important milestone in the transition towards such a common future. If feeling that way is being blinded by inherent humanism, i wouldn't want it any other way.
http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/847825
Ultimately this argument about north vs south, east vs west, left vs right is pointless and wasteful. These things don't exist the way they are portrayed to exist.
We perceive to see a divide between East and West or North and South, and our local politicians play this up, so does the media, but in the end we are all Torontonians. The 905 plays an important role in this discussion too as the divide between 416 and 905 is also a fabrication. In this case, even with the 905, we're all still Torontonians whether you agree or not.
We share a common geography and collective history that an area code or pretend border can't dissolve.
No one south of Bloor or north of Eglinton has the market cornered on what being a Torontonian is even if many disagree with the political leanings of people (for the most part) in these areas.
Ultimately, regardless of where you live, I think it's fair to say we all want to live in a safe city with safe neighbourhoods, good fiscal management, fairness and equality for all with good schools, nightlife and other entertainment options. We should want to build a community and make this the best place in the world to live.
Yeah, so things aren't perfect. And, sure, things could be better...a lot better; but, it's up to us to make it better. We need to strive to make it perfect. Name-calling and petty squabbles only serve to divide us and we all lose in the end because politicians seek to expose this divide for their own gains.
We need to hold our politicians and public servants accountable to ensure we get the Toronto we want. It also wouldn't hurt to have someone with vision lead this city, and no even Mayor Miller doesn't qualify for this, nor does Ford, Tory and the whole cabal of mayoral candidates.
www.realjohnson.com
People prefer to live in dense cities, where everything is nearby and you don't have to burn half a gallon of gas to buy half a gallon of milk. Unfortunately, the media (which is mostly funded by ads from big box stores and automobile companies) tries to convince us that conservative politicians, like Rob Ford, will fix everything because the government wastes money so we should let the private sector do everything. The problem with that is if you let the private sector run everything you end up with a city like Scarborough, or even worse, Vaughn, were private interests triumph the public good (think private 407 highway, or your downtown being just a shopping mall where instead of being a citizen you are merely a consumer expected to buy goods and go back to your home and get your election coverage from the Toronto Sun).
Also, we've got to do something about the electoral system in Canada. There's no way on earth politicians like Rob Ford or Stephen Harper win an election, except for the fact that vote is split by their opponents. The system allows someone who is only supported by ~30% of voters to win, even though the other 60-70% would rather have anyone else. Until we fix the system, we're gonna have right wing nuts sneak into power with less than 2/5 of the vote.
It might be fun to go back to the days of Metro Toronto.
Also, re the comment above shlepster:
That offers comedic value, but really nothing else. The suburbs aren't "designed by corporations" any more than the old city of Toronto is. Its just a matter of being designed at different times. None of Toronto's buildings were put up by utopian entities who were acting selflessly to better the lives of people a century later. But hey, apparently the "fight the man" routine is still fun...
We're seeing this displayed on threads right here. There is no 'north-south' divide. Some people prefer to live in a house with a nice lawn; whether that is a 60 year old, 1,200 sq ft bungalow in East York, or a 3,000 sq ft home near the Rouge, it's all about choices and options. However, on pages like these, we see a lot of petty people who are all about ramming their visions of utopia down other people's throats: that is what socialists do. Socialists stake a position, then find other people to pay for it.
I say we should put bike lanes and other flash points in this election on a referendum. I wonder why the left controlled media is so terrified of a referendum? Is anything more democratic than putting a direct question to the people to vote for or against? Of course, despite their blustering, the left media knows what the answers will be and they don't like it.
If the city insists on putting all its showcase venues downtown (the ACC, new opera house, Rogers Center), how dare it then turn around and make it virtually unreachable by the people (largely from the suburbs) to get to it. Lastman was right when he proposed some of those venues should have gone up to Downsview. What sense does it make to jam everything between Yonge and Spadina, then throw up bicycle lanes just to frustrate everyone in getting there?
Stupid thinking and stupid planning. But anyway, by election day the bicycles will be put away in their storage lockers for the season, yet we will still be stuck with the legacy of empty bicycle lanes everywhere.
@ Jacob - you're an idiot. There are bicycle lanes on Pharmacy, Birchmount and other equally silly places. I've used Birchmount many times and have yet to see a single bicycle on it - even on a gorgeous Sunday in the summer.
This election is not about north vs south or east vs west: it's about stopping the tail from wagging the dog and getting this city back on track to being the great city it once was before it's too late. (If not too late already.)
and also a great way to bring the outer burbs down to squalor....
and then who'll be knocking on the downtown's door??
or will it make it more dangerous for the 20% (and growing) of people who commute to work downtown in them?? you don't LIVE downtown probably.....but a lot more people live downtown that anywhere else in this city. so why should you get a say on our mode of transportation??? why don't you try biking? I bet you haven't done it in decades! It might help relieve some of your grouchiness.
and re: referendums......when you have this, you get Prop 8 bullshit denying a large group of people freedom in their ability to marry whomever they choose because one group (mormons, conservatives) was more effective in fundraising and scaring the living shit out of everyone. Where was your precious left wing media then?
Referendums could then trump our constitution, which thank god the supreme court of the US has said won't fly (even though their decisions aren't directly introducable in our court system)..nonetheless....you also get that whole rick mercer/stockwell day/doris day stuff....which was absolutely hilarious.
Recent immigrants tend to trend both fiscal and social conservative and come from countries where taxation rates are much lower. For instance, there are quite a few churches in North York which are actively campaigning against Smitherman because of his sexual orientation, and I've actually met a surprising number of recent immigrants who said they're voting for Ford as well. I wonder if this has something to do with this north/south divide as well - it would be interesting to see a poll of how immigrants vote, since half of Toronto was born outside of the country, y'know.
Are you so stupid to think that just because someone rents that somehow some of that money ain't going to pay property taxes? Actually, people who live in rentals pay higher property taxes than people who own homes. In fact, on average, about 20% of a person's rent goes towards property taxes. The City loves apartment dwellers because they take in more revenue from apartments than they do for the same number of homes.
David Miller was able to do this with little pain as he had a high number of councillors who voted with him carte-blanche. For most votes, he only needed to pick up between six and eight additional votes. Mel Lastman found it much more challenging as he only had 10-12 councillors who would support him regardless - the same scenario we'd see with any mayor today.
I think that to gain a true understanding of the impact of this race, blogTO should create a map that compares councillors and their percentage of votes that were the same as the mayor's. Then, compare the incumbents that are running, who most likely will win again, to a potential right-winged, centrist and left-wing mayor. That would give a truer reflection of the impact of the election and what the city could end up going through.
The difference is, I have lived in and around this city most of my life, with brief stints in North York, Bolton, Collingwood and 4 years in Vancouver. I went to Northview Heights, Lawrence Park Collegiate and Jarvis Collegiate, back when they still had grade 13. I lived in St. Jamestown before it became a sh#thole. I had friends in Thorncliffe Park and Crescent Town before they became sh$tholes. My parents grew up in Malton and Rexdale before they became sh$tholes. I am sick of watching this city slide, year after year, into oblivion while the usual suspect crow about more dollars for their social programs du jour, and major infrastructure gets neglected to the point of third world status. But if that is who is moving here, that is what they will tolerate.
Nowhere near 20% commute via bicycle - that's another BS figure pulled out of someone a$$ to justify the money being spent on our empty bicycle lanes. I can see the Wellesley and Sherbourne intersection from my window - what a joke. You know, a stop action digital camera located at any one of these intersections over a weekly period would quickly lay to rest the BS the cycle lobby spews. Perhaps in certain student infested, welfare controlled neighborhoods, 20% own (probably stolen) bicycles, but in the city AS A WHOLE, those who use bicycles regularly (as in nearly every day) is more like 1-3%. Any idiot can see that.
That is the central issue: THE CITY AS A WHOLE. Jane's 'every neighborhood is precious' dogma assumes each neighborhood operates in a vacuum. It also assumes nobody has a life and never needs to get from point A to C by going through B. There was a time when the suburbs couldn't have existed without Toronto's job base; now, it's the other way around. We just need to all get along, but many downtowners act like this is their sandbox and everyone else can stay the hell out.
As to referendums, California is a dichotomous loony bin. They have some of the richest, most educated people in the world and some of the worst slums. Try to get anyone to agree on anything there is a major challenge. I prefer to put my faith in the public at large. Give them a real queston to a real problem and have faith that the outcome will be positive for the majority.
Socialists don't like referendums because real democracy scares them. Look at gay marriage that you mentioned. Who cares? How many gay couples have bothered to get married? If it doesn't work for straight people, why would the rest of us bother? Statistically, very few gay couples have exercised their 'rights,' and many that have are imports who have come here from other places to get their trophy certificate. Socialists are all about the minority ramming their ideas down other people's throats and making other people pay for it, too.
Don't get me started with our Constitution. Canada has been on a downhill slide ever since that travesty was called into Law.
In Los Angeles & San Jose, GM even managed to remove rail tracks that had already been built http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html. It's not rocket science - the more spread out you build a city, and less transit you make available, the more cars and gas people have to buy.
Most people prefer to live in dense cities where they don't depend on cars. If that wasn't true, why are houses in Scarborough or Markham cheaper than a tiny apartment in Toronto? Why is property near a subway line more expensive than property in suburban sprawl?
Instead of building what people want, for decades our politicians have continued to build more and more sprawl for big business. I don't think most suburbanites choose to live where they are for the "quality-of-life", they live there because there so no more affordable housing left anywhere else.
I feel like this election is just picking the least of the evils and I don't think it's possible to come out with anyone who will be a strong leader, advocate for positive change, unite council oh, and do it on a budget.
Hey Toronto! We're F_ck'd.
so then leave you fucking cry baby. no one cares about your life history. oh did you go to jarvis? lovely fucking beat it. no one is afraid of democracy other than people who have to have their own way whether they are the majority or not. thats not a socialist or capitalist thing. the way you are whining about the way things are happening here in democratic canada it sounds like you are the one who fears democracy.
I don't vote for who I think will get along with everyone the most, I vote for who I think is best for the city (out of this bunch).
The councillors job is to represent their constituency. I'll find it hard to believe every constituency opposes Ford's vision for the city yet still vote him in.
Thanks to a number of more-and-more media savvy politicians, the debates over policy have also become polarized where there is no compromise and no agreement, just positioning based on dogma.
Point in case #1: Denzil Minan-Wong. He disagreed with the wide majority of the David Miller's initiatives, even the ones that were pretty sensible (which were plenty in the first three years and, well, lacking in the last three). The issue with Denzil isn't that he didn't agree with the policies, but that he hunted out certain news outlets (CTV, National Post, Toronto Sun) that were on the "right" and would agree with his stance without prejudice, and of course, report on it.
Point in case #2: Sandra Bussin. She had the opposite problem. It didn't matter what the mayor wanted to have done, she agreed to it and voted for it. Again, dogma overtook common sense. She made a number of gaffes through the past year as well, but if you were to check the "left" media (City until the buyout, NOW, Toronto Star), she was left unscathed. She was (rightfully) skewered by the "right" media for her call into John Tory's radio show, yet the "left" gave her another freebie.
So, really, what's my point in all this? Basically, the media is going to continue to present the facts based on their editorial boards' decisions to stick to an ideological mind frame over one of reporting the facts. They will continue to do so until the populace votes out the politicians who use the media to their advantage and manipulate them into creating this left/right divide.
Separately from that, I do have to agree with you regarding bike lanes, but the problem isn't that they're there, it's where they are in the first place. Just as transit is planned to provide direct connecting routes, so should bike lanes. It makes no sense to me to have a bike lane down Sherbourne & another down Jarvis when neither of them are actually connected to another bike lane in the north. Using some common sense, the reason the Sherbourne lane isn't used has nothing to do with it being on Sherbourne, but more to do with only crossing over other bike lines on Wellesley & Gerrard (if you're going west) or Shuter & the lake (if your'e going east).
I'd imagine that if there were more connections going east/west (rather than north/south), you'd see more traffic on the bike lane on Sherbourne. You should watch the bike lanes on College to see what I mean.
p.s. I was gay in high school when we still had grade 13 too, although I was at NT. Intriguing!
It never amazes me how you 'suburbanites' like to think of yourselves as 'green' and 'earthy', when nothing could be farther from the truth!
Tell me, how do you figure that the suburban model of development based on low density, car orientation where most people drive everywhere in their carbon dioxide machines to giant malls creates fresh air?! Please explain that to me?And b/c your development patterns are so spread out, it means you're paving over WAY more of our earth 'per person' than an urbanite!
Us urbanites walk, bike and take transit while most suburbanites drive. That's a fact! We also consume WAY less land to house ourselves (and our shopping), so that means LESS paving over mother earth for oversized suburban lots and parking and malls and 6 lane roads.
Maybe you should really educate yourself a bit b/f shooting off your ignorant mouth!
As for your assertion about spending, why don't you check the facts b/f making such a ridiculous statement!
You talked about checking the facts. Where are the facts to support your claims?
Get a grip, bud. Getting nasty and personal is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Mike...have you ever thought about checking for yourself what I said, either by researching the issue and/or talking to people who have researched the issues themselves (such as myself).
For your information, my information comes from having a specialization in urban/economic development. If you still don't want to take my word for it - or countless scientific studies, why not just go and see for yourself!
Are you really kidding me in that you DONT believe that most suburbs have low population densities? And that they ARE designed mostly to accomodate the automobile? And that MOST of the commercial activity is corporate dominated in malls, surrounded by parking lots?
Are you really kiddin me?! Go and see for yourself then and do your own research if you don't belive me.
One of the exercises that we had to do when I was back in school studying these things was to do what I'm suggesting you do. In other words, we actually profiled a suburb with an inner city. We compared transportation and land use patterns and the 'economic' geography.
What we found was exactly what I said above. So, unlike yourself AND the person who I originally directed my comment to, I DO know what I'm talking about, and hence my point to the person about 'educating' themselves FIRST so that they could have an INFORMED opinion. I have no problem with people having opinions different from my, so long as they are based on intelligent fact.
If you're still not happy with my response, why not go to ANY of the surrounding suburbs in the GTA, and do 2 things. First, read their 'Official Plans'. You'll see that almost every suburb in the GTA (save a couple in the east) are trying to make their cities LESS like I described and MORE like Toronto (especially downtown), meaning that they are attempting to revilatize their own downtowns and make them more pedestrian oriented and LESS car dependant. This attempted transformation won't be easy nor will it be fast, but over time it WILL happen, b/c the current (and past) wasy of building cities (i.e. the suburban model) is simply UNsustainable.
And the second thing you should do when you go out there is do your own profiling, by going to their websites and urban libraries and checking the facts for yourself...go ahead...check the modal split between car and transit in Toronto versus Richmond Hill for example. Then check the population densities. Then compare both to international cities. ETC, ETC...
PLEASE go do this and you WILL see that some people really don't know what they are talking about. The sad part is that too many people do this and/or follow politicians like Rob Ford who also has very little clue about most of the issues he votes on as his voting patterns are dominated NOT by an informed opinion, but by ideology.
And we ALL suffer when we make decisions this way!
...ANYBODY??? ....anybody??????????