Social investment in the inner city: community and capital in West Broadway, Winnipeg (1).
Substantial efforts in housing and community development have been focussed onto the West Broadway neighbourhood of inner city Winnipeg in order to stem processes of decline. This paper focuses on the effects of housing work in which residential buildings have been purchased and / or renovated with the support of public or philanthropic resources. Beyond the upgrading of housing stock and the provision of improved quality accommodation, the impacts of such housing work are poorly understood. The paper seeks to document and interpret the relationship in space and time between supported housing work and improvement to the stock undertaken without support. It finds that in some cases in West Broadway, assisted housing work appears to have had a stabilizing influence on the local area and in others there are indications that private sector activity has concentrated near assisted interventions. Indications of gentrification pose particular tasks for community development workers and funding agencies in West Broadway and provide lessons for this work in other areas.
Keywords: Urban revitalization, Low-cost housing, Inner city, Gentrification, Housing policy
Le quartier central West Broadway de Winnipeg a ete temoin d'efforts substantiels en ce qui concerne le developpement de la communaute et du logement afin de ralentir les processus de declin. Cet article examine les effets de la construction et la renovation de logement, en particulier les batiments residentiels qui ont ete achetes et ou renoves avec l'appui de fonds publics ou philanthropiques. Les impacts d'un tel developpement communautaire residentiel demeurent peu etudies encore aujourd'hui. L'article cherche a analyser et interpreter le rapport, dans le temps et l'espace, entre le developpement residentiel supporte par la communaute et celui du secteur prive. L'on constate que, dans certains cas, le developpement du logement appuye par la communaute semble avoir eu une influence de stabilisation dans le secteur. Dans d'autres cas, l'on a constate que l'activite du secteur prive est concentree pres des residences renovees avec l'appui de fonds publics ou philanthropiques. Toutefois, le processus d'embourgeoisement continue de poser un defi pour ceux et celles qui assistent au developpement de la communaute et les agences de financement de West Broadway
Mots cles: revitalisation urbaine, embourgeoisement, politique d'habitation, logements modiques
The West Broadway neighbourhood of inner city Winnipeg, Canada has had a socially and economically mixed population over several years, with streets of apartments and rooming houses, and other streets of predominantly single detached housing. Over the years leading into the early 1990s the neighbourhood was in decline, showing signs of physical deterioration and social malaise. Its proximity to the central business district and to the upscale neighbourhood of Armstrong Point posed further threats of redevelopment and gentrification (see Figure 1). From the mid 1990s considerable amounts of volunteer energy, public funding, and philanthropic resources have been expended in the name of neighbourhood stabilization, with programs focusing on community development, employment, community art, housing and other themes. Physical upgrading of the stock has been widely recognized and anecdotal evidence abounds that social change has been rapid in the area.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Since the summer of 2003, a team of community and academic research workers funded by the Winnipeg Inner City Research Alliance has been taking stock of changes in the neighbourhood. Social changes were documented through analysis of Census data as a first step. Then the study attempted to elaborate relationships between residential real estate investment by public and philanthropic organizations and investment by private agents. Its overall goal has been to determine whether neighbourhood change can be attributed to philanthropic housing work and to interpret any consequences for community development strategies. The study focuses on the slice of time between 1999, when revitalization interventions were gaining momentum, and July 2003, when the data gathering phase was underway. The time frame is narrow, though nonetheless it appears to have captured certain neighbourhood dynamics as they were unfolding.
The present paper first provides a discussion of neighbourhood change and gentrification, based on a review of literature drawn principally from the USA and the UK, and the caution must be entered that transferability to Canadian cities is not direct. It then outlines neighbourhood change in West Broadway as seen through Census data, showing that a period of decline has been followed by a period in which indications of gentrification can be seen. The next section describes the main housing interventions that have been implemented in West Broadway by public and community organizations. The paper then explores relationships between these interventions and real estate improvements in the area as indicated by permits for residential construction and modification to be undertaken without direct public or organized community support. Finally, consequences of the study for community development theory and practice are outlined.
Neighbourhood Change and Gentrification
The viability and stability of inner city neighbourhoods have received the attention of urban analysts for generations. Early work of human ecologists in the Chicago School (see Keating and Smith 1996) examined processes of neighbourhood change, such as invasion-succession in which the movement of disadvantaged groups into relatively affluent neighbourhoods precipitates the exodus of earlier residents; and filtering in which neighbourhoods are abandoned by relatively affluent groups and occupied by disadvantaged groups (Baer and Williamson 1988). Grigsby and others pursued this work in the post-war period (Galster 1996; Grigsby et al. 1987) producing an extensive body of knowledge on residential real estate markets, setting out expected effects of factors such as changing incomes, population shifts and government policy.
Others have focused on typologies of neighbourhoods; for example, the Canadian Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA) categorized neighbourhoods into states of decline, stability, revitalization and massive redevelopment (McLemore et al. 1975). Similarly the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the USA used a five-stage model to characterize the life cycle of neighbourhoods, as healthy areas with homogeneous housing passed through ageing processes, eventually to abandonment (Birch 1971); and Goetze and Colton (1980) linked housing conditions in three categories to market perception in four categories to create a detailed schema of neighbourhood types. Processes identified by the human ecologists such as filtering and invasion-succession were implicitly or explicitly considered to be what would cause a neighbourhood to change its characterization, through activity in markets for housing.
Critics have pointed out that much of this work was conditioned by its contemporary experiences and expectations. For example, Metzger (2000) argued (not without controversy--see Galster 2000) that theories of neighbourhood change took the forms they did because they reflected the racial oppression prevalent in cities in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, the MSUA categorization emerged from contemporary urban experience with concern for deteriorating neighbourhoods and for the many neighbourhoods experiencing large-scale redevelopment by public and private proponents throughout urban Canada.
Another criticism was that work on processes of change and neighbourhood categories became, in effect, self-fulfilling in terms of its consequences for neighbourhood change (Metzger 2000). For example, the designation of a neighbourhood in a negative category could prompt urban underwriters such as insurance companies and mortgage lenders to pull out of an otherwise viable residential area, starving it of capital and thrusting it towards decline.
Life cycle imagery suggests a tendency towards decline as an area ages, though contemporary work on urban decline probably will avoid the problem of anticipating an inexorable trend towards deterioration by examining decline as a complex outcome of inter-related processes (Carter and Polevychok 2003). However, casting back almost a couple of generations, the proclivity of urban theory for the anticipation of decline was underscored when a counter-tendency was recognized in the 1960s. Urban sociologist Ruth Glass noticed the reoccupation of run-down, inner city housing in the inner London borough of Islington by relatively affluent populations, and the consequent displacement of less affluent populations. This process of gentrification has been observed in many settings since (for a useful review see Lees 2000) and as Lyons (2001) notes, in many instances it appears to exhibit similar characteristics, such as:
* Displacement or replacement of a marginalized resident group by a higher status group;
* Renovation of previously downgraded buildings for residential use;
* Uneven occurrence, found in some areas but not others; and
* Staged development.
Gentrification contrasted starkly with predominant urban knowledge by showing that areas could recover from deterioration, and its "discovery" therefore led to a substantial rethinking of urban theory and practice. It has been the subject of heated debate in both academic and community activist circles. Due to its significance in urban theory, academics have disputed the causes of gentrification--the very understanding of basic processes within contemporary cities is at stake. Due to the significant consequences of gentrification, the concern for academics and activists has been divided, with one strand of opinion appreciating the reinvestment in housing and consequent reversal of the trend towards deterioration of the urban fabric (Freeman and Braconi 2004; Sumka 1979); and another lamenting the adverse effects on residents inevitably displaced as they become priced out of the housing market (Hartman 1979; Slater 2004).
During the early period of gentrification research it was recognized that the phenomenon was related to a number of factors: the post war baby boom was heating up housing markets; incomes were rising and household formation was at high levels; and immigration was placing pressure on the cities. It was noted that gentrification could come about when the initiative of real estate speculators or of a particular social group changes expectations or opportunities in a local housing market. Studies found, for example, that gentrification could be associated with the settlement of an inner city neighbourhood by artists, gays, lesbians or other groups seeking to carve out a liberating niche in the city. The staged aspect of gentrification is that late newcomers in a gentrifying area may differ from the early proponents: they are likely more risk averse, conservative and mainstream; and in fact early gentrifiers may leave. This reflects the changes in the local market brought about in the early stage of gentrification.
As research matured and thinking about gentrification became more theoretically grounded, the debate about its causes centred around two themes: one focussing on supply-side economic arguments and the other on cultural factors, or what could be called the demand side. Supply side arguments, largely attributed to Neil Smith, focus on the rent gap, the difference between actual and potential revenues produced at a site. Initially invoking a life-cycle idea of neighbourhood change, these arguments hold that as a neighbourhood ages, disinvestment by individual owners through neglected repairs, by private urban underwriters through redlining of mortgages and insurance, and by the public sector through under-funding of public services, will lower the ground rent produced at a given location. The neighbourhood filters down. When the gap between the actual and the potential ground rents is large enough, then reinvestment might precipitate a process of gentrification. The market-led side of gentrification prompted Smith to characterise the phenomenon as a "back to the city movement by capital, not people" (1979: 538).
Ley has been a major proponent of the cultural or demand side arguments. In essence, the view is that cultural shifts have led to changing tastes, including a preference for inner city living. These shifts have been traced to economic restructuring, which itself can lead to revitalization activity in the CBD, and to the emergence of the post-industrial society; the gentrifiers are thought to be affluent, professional workers in high-end services. While one rationale for gentrification is based on the preferences of this emerging group, others have pointed out that for women, downtown living is required in order to secure access to work and services (Rose 1984).
A number of commentators have argued that the supply side arguments provide partial but not necessary conditions for gentrification to occur. By the late 1980s the relationships between the two broad lines of reasoning around gentrification became apparent as a result of theoretical developments in the social sciences. We can talk, for example, about the expression of the preferences of the new middle class in restructuring cities through gentrification, but it is economic restructuring itself, the emergence of the post-industrial economy, that gives rise to the new middle class in the first place. Marxist understandings of the profound effects that capital has on urban areas enabled critics to frame supply side arguments in terms of structural forces in society. Cultural issues came to be associated with human agency--the capability of people to act independently of structural forces. Both elements have mounted pressure on the inner city as a place of residence, and, linking economic and cultural influences, have "imposed gentrification upon certain neighbourhoods" (Redfern 1997: 1280; italics original). It has become apparent that gentrification may come about in certain circumstances, but also that it is a contingent, not necessary, outcome in a "tension between accumulation and community" (Beauregard 1990:856).
Contingency in neighbourhood outcomes has confounded efforts to anticipate effects of revitalization programs. A recent literature review (Serge and Montfort 1995) suggested that in under-invested rental housing markets, relatively low multipliers could be expected. Empirical work examining building permits in the vicinity of renovations through the Rental Housing Acquisition Program in Montreal, however, did identify spin offs in some neighbourhoods, and the small scale of the program in relation to decline was cited as a possible limitation (op. cit.)
The possibility that neighbourhood revitalization can alter local housing markets and thereby create conditions for gentrification has been a concern because of the potential for displacement. Strategies to protect neighbourhoods from gentrification are elusive, as market dynamics can be difficult to apprehend. A possible defence is to build community cohesion through enhancing social capital (Temkin and Rohe 1998). Temkin and Rohe invoke the analogy of cheesecloth, where tight social weaving in a cohesive community is impervious to unwanted change and a loose weave leaves a neighbourhood at threat (1996).
Contemporary community development strategies attempt to address two contingencies--community and housing market issues--by engaging in service provision, organising and participatory planning, on one side, and house buyers' education, house owner support for renovation and maintenance and mortgage finance (Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 2004), on the other. These strategies recognise that community development has to embrace the rein components of building social inclusion and of upgrading and stabilization of the housing stock. Yet even well laid plans can founder in their attempts to arrest gentrification once it comes into play, and market forces tend to undermine community cohesion (Peterman 2000). We now turn to an overview of social change in West Broadway to provide context for the ensuing examination of changes in the housing stock.
Social Change in West Broadway
West Broadway is a mixed neighbourhood of about 5,000 people exhibiting many characteristics typical of Prairie inner cities in Canada. (Further details can be found in Anderson 2004.) The dominant single ethnic origin in the 2001 Census was European at over 20%, and the number of people reporting an Aboriginal ethnic origin was 27.5% compared to an inner city figure of 19.2%. West Broadway was built up as a middle class area, and while many streets filtered down as suburbanization drew affluent populations away, some streets retained middle class residents. As seen in Figure 2, over the period from 1971 to 1981 the population dropped by close to 30%, with a strong recovery by 1986 and a levelling off following a decline to 1991. The trend in occupied dwellings is similar, probably reflecting conversion of single-family units to apartments and rooming houses in the mid 1980s. In the most recent inter-Census period (1996 to 2001) the number of dwelling units increased slightly, contrasting with the slight population decrease, suggesting occupation at lower densities.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Rates of owner occupation dropped from over 10% in the 1970s to about 6% in the mid 1980s, reflecting the middle class exodus and stock conversion. Demand for rental units is strong and there are many large investors holding rental stock in the area. In the most recent inter-Census period, owner occupation increased. Also in this period, average household income in West Broadway rose 29.1% to about $21,000, while the increase in the City was more modest, by 18.3% to about $53,000. The rising income coincides with indications of marginalization, such as a high incidence of low-income households (65%) and individuals (70%); suggesting that a group of residents with incomes considerably above the mean are raising the neighbourhood average. While time series data on low income have not been tabulated at the neighbourhood scale, the figures above suggest that the contrast in the neighbourhood between the middle class and poor groups is substantial, and suggestive of the social polarization noted elsewhere (Walks 2001). Furthermore, the growth in income and owner occupation points to gentrification.
Housing Strategies in West Broadway
In late 1996 and early 1997, a number of residents, community based organizations, housing organizations, planners, and representatives from all levels of government came together as the West Broadway Alliance with a mission "to renew and revitalize West Broadway through the responsible leadership and participation of the people who live, work and play in the neighbourhood." West Broadway Development Corporation (WBDC) formed in May 1997 as the legal arm of the Alliance with a mandate to coordinate revitalization activities, invite new partners and develop programs where gaps were identified. Community development corporations, widely used in the USA for some time (Stoecker 1997; Vidal 1992), are a recent innovation in Canada. Alliance member groups and WBDC initiated projects and programs in a range of areas including greening, education and employment, family resource centres and programs for youth. In terms of housing, Westminster Housing Society focused on developing affordable rental housing opportunities, while Lions Club of Winnipeg concentrated on renovation and restoration for home ownership. West Broadway Neighbourhood Housing Resource Centre began the TLC (Tenant Landlord Cooperation) program that identified quality rental opportunities in the neighbourhood. Several programs included a specific component of making improvements to the housing stock and the locations of these are mapped in Figure 3.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The housing intervention of the Lions Club, a service organization with large seniors' residences just north of the neighbourhood, was focussed on Langside St. where housing decay had set in (though owner abandonment was not common in the neighbourhood) and marginalized populations had concentrated. Beginning in 1997 Lions bought and renovated 13 dilapidated houses that had been converted to rooming houses and apartments, and sold them as single-family dwellings in the $75,000 price range. Westminster Housing Society, a local non-profit developer, has been active in the area since the mid 1990s and has developed 16 properties, encompassing about 63 units, currently utilising resources from donations, foundations and public programs. The Community Land Trust (CLT) was formed through a partnership between WBDC and Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation (WHRC), the municipal non-profit.
Under this arrangement the WHRC purchases properties, renovates the houses as necessary, sells the houses to individuals through rent-to-own arrangements and turns the land over to the CLT for retention in order to dampen price escalation. Since 2001 the WHRC has bought 17 properties in different states of deterioration creating 22 units. Two of these will continue as rentals and the remainder are rent-to-own units with appraised market values in the $60,000 to $80,000 range. Small grants are available under the Property Improvement Program (PIP) to owner occupants (up to $500) and owners of multiple unit buildings (up to $1000) for assistance in aesthetic improvements. PIP has issued almost 60 grants and is administered by WBDC. Given the heavy demand for funds and the relative short supply, sections of the neighbourhood are eligible on a rotating basis that aims to give every property owner access to PIP funding once a decade. The final housing program is the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) providing up to $18,000 per unit to landlords or owner occupants. For the latter, access is means tested and therefore the specific locations are not a matter of public record. However, it is widely understood that RRAP recipients in West Broadway are clustered around Langside St. Alongside these recent interventions there are over 200 units of public housing in 11 developments administered by Manitoba Housing Authority or WHRC built up since the mid 1970s.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of these interventions intended to improve the housing stock, grouped together, by year and in total, expressed in terms of a density gradient. Raster GIS was used to compute the density of interventions. In order to allow patterns within the neighbourhood to emerge, interventions within 100 metres of any given location were considered in the computation. The resulting range of density values from the cumulative map was used to establish a standardized legend that was then applied to all gradient maps created during the analysis, thus making comparison between maps possible. It can be seen that the density ranges up to 1200 interventions per square kilometre in the cumulative map. Over the years the different housing interventions can be located. The Lions renovations are apparent in 1999 in the centre of the neighbourhood. In 2000 the concentration of PIP grants in the northeast is visible and in the remaining years the CLT and PIP grants are seen in clusters of interventions north of Broadway.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Municipal permits were used to indicate private market activity. One limitation of this indicator is that a property owner might take out a permit without undertaking changes to the property in the time period specified, though this seems to happen rarely because of the absence of repeat permits in the data. Another limitation is that some forms of upgrading, such as replacing windows, do not require a permit. Finally, some property improvements requiring permits might be undertaken without one. With these limitations, the association over space and time between housing interventions and private activity was used to assess whether a causal relation could be seen. Data for alternate tests for example, comparing permits in West Broadway to permits in the inner city; or examining rent increases, were not available. Housing sales were considered as an alternate source, but these can pose difficulties for interpretation as the price and frequency of transactions can reflect different investor behaviours and regional market factors.
Table 1 shows the total number of permits from 1999 through the first half of 2003. Overall, the number of permits taken out dipped slightly in 2001 and 2002, and appears to have recovered by the first half of 2003.
The focus of the present analysis is on residential land use and permits for the other uses were deleted from the data set. Similarly, a number of permits were for demolition or property occupation, and they were also deleted. Table 2 shows the purposes for which permits were taken out on residential property, using the categories adopted by the City. The annual number of residential permits was fairly stable over the time, and the main purposes were interior alteration, accounting for almost one quarter of all permits, and non-structural and structural alterations, together accounting for almost 35%. The number of permits for new construction and additional construction was small, together about 12% of permits.
A distinction was made between permits for private unassisted activity and permits reflecting the interventions included above. Table 3 shows the building type for permits taken by these two types of proponent over the time period. The 46 private permits account for about 40% of all permits and the main building type was single-family housing. Private permitted activity is usually at a lower level than assisted permitted activity and its low in 2001 corresponds with the peak in assisted activity, suggesting that the two may be somewhat out of phase.
Permits taken by private owners for unassisted work are used in this analysis. The density gradient for these permits over the time period can be seen in Figure 5. The number of permits is quite low in some years, particularly in 2001, yet the Figure does give an indication of the localization of private activity. In the area south of Broadway, private activity appears relatively slow to develop. Concentrations can be seen along Spence St, above Broadway, moving north from 1999 to 2000. The concentration in 2000 coincides with a concentration of interventions there in the same year. This suggests that the interventions fostered market activity, because interventions are given dates when the work was completed, but the permits precede market activity.
Comparison of Intervention and Permit Patterns
Comparing Figures 4 and 5, it is evident that the early concentration of interventions along Langside St. did not foster subsequent private investment in the immediate area. These interventions effected a remarkable change along the street, converting dilapidated rooming houses into quality singles and multiples, in a mix of occupancy costs and tenure arrangements; however, the current disposition of housing along this section of Langside would appear to be stable under current market conditions.
Dividing the area along Broadway, Figure 6 (south side) and Figure 7 (north side) enable a closer examination of the relationship between interventions and unassisted permits. Figure 6 shows that private investment appears to develop within the gaps between areas with interventions--private activity on Spence and Furby is most concentrated where interventions are least clustered. Referring back to Figures 4 and 5, it can be seen that most of the unassisted permits were taken out following the interventions; in particular, 2002 is the heaviest year. The relationship between the patterns strongly suggests a multiplier effect on nearby streets, though the effect is not immediately adjacent.
[FIGURES 4-7 OMITTED]
In the north (Figure 7), four clusters can be seen. First, the densest concentration is located in the north-eastern comer, along Balmoral and Spence. Figures 4 and 5 show that the main activity this area in both private permits and assisted activity was in 2000. With the exception of the PIP grants, interventions are dated from when they come on stream, after any physical alterations have taken place, whereas permits are dated prior to the alterations. Therefore it is clear that the unassisted permitted activity was subsequent to the intervention and it is probable that the latter set the conditions enabling the former to take place.
The second cluster in Figure 7 is just above Broadway along Balmoral and Good, with its main year of activity in 1999. This area lies on the fringes of the intervention cluster, and Figure 4 shows that the nearby interventions took place well after, in 2003; therefore the private activity in this cluster was probably not a consequence of the interventions.
The third cluster in Figure 7, on Young and Spence, resulted from a gradual build-up over the years, and it is less intensive than the other clusters. The area had early interventions in public housing and non-profit housing.
The fourth cluster in Figure 7 is the heavy concentration on Langside and Furby. Here, permit taking was evident as early as 1999 and it strengthened considerably in 2002 and 2003 after a hiatus in 2000 and 2001. In 2001 the Community Land Trust was active in the area, suggesting that it stimulated the private permitted activity.
The popularly recognised turnaround in West Broadway can be seen in the investment in housing upgrading by assisted interventions and unassisted market activity. Given the trajectory of the neighbourhood towards deterioration in the years prior to the emergence of the West Broadway Alliance, it seems unlikely that the housing market was positioned to make this change in direction spontaneously. The spatial and temporal relationships documented in the findings reported above show that in many cases the assisted interventions preceded unassisted activity represented by permits, suggesting that the former set conditions for the latter. It is very likely that the interventions have paid off in terms of upgrading the housing stock by fostering additional investment in the area. It can therefore be concluded that the physical component of neighbourhood revitalization has been highly successful.
These findings have to be examined in the context of other developments and theoretical insights. At a general level, the 2001 Census showed indications of gentrification alongside social marginalization, and many of the housing interventions, however apt at bringing about improvements to the housing stock, have likely had the effect of supporting the former process rather than mitigating the latter. This strongly points to an emergent priority for West Broadway in a focus on building social inclusion, where gains have not been as clear. While limited increases to the stock of low-cost rentals have been made, it remains that the mix of programming has been predominantly directed towards owner occupation through assisting home ownership and property improvements. In the absence of sustained funding for low-cost housing, community development corporations faced with the need to upgrade and stabilize the housing stock have had little choice other than to use programs similar to those adopted in West Broadway, although they are inevitably focussed on moderate- rather than low-income people.
A social inclusion focus--and this applies to other areas as well as West Broadway--should include services and facilities such as those provided in local community development work aiming to enable local residents to participate in paid employment and training without barriers. It should also include a major emphasis on low-cost housing options and local one-on-one replacement for anyone displaced by housing upgrading work.
Revitalization work in West Broadway has achieved considerable success in upgrading and stabilising the housing stock. The housing interventions, supported by public programs, foundation money and voluntary activity, have directly provided many units of quality accommodation, and have also fostered unassisted improvements. It is a fair conclusion to say that these interventions have been instrumental in the reversal of the tendency towards decline in the area. This study has demonstrated that new issues emerge as the neighbourhood takes on a different character. As the agenda shifts to social inclusion, certain circumstances should be recognised and some possibilities examined. We suggest that this is a good time to take stock of the situation and offer the following considerations. First, it is important to highlight that the challenges of providing quality housing to economically marginalized people without substantial public subsidy has been demonstrated in West Broadway. The expenditure of collective resources--public and foundation money, and people's time--on stock revitalization clearly appeals to a broad collective interest in maintaining the urban infrastructure. However, the level of resources required to link this collective interest with the further one of mitigating the processes that led to social marginalization is far greater than what has been spent in West Broadway, because many of the strategies adopted have been oriented to owner occupation and therefore must rely on fairly high financial contributions by program recipients. Second, consequences of addressing the physical side of revitalization without fully addressing the social inclusion side, as the literature suggests, encompass the stimulation of the market, the undermining of existing social cohesion and the possible gentrification of the area. Evidence of two of these outcomes is provided by the study. Third, recent projections (Winnipeg 2004) indicate that pressures on inner city real estate markets will intensify over the coming period, and this will intensify tendencies towards gentrification. Fourth, the current situation in West Broadway is that several properties have been improved, and the displacement of sitting tenants has been widely recognised locally. It is likely that rent increases in apartment buildings have followed renovations without permits, and that these have displaced others. Yet the neighbourhood retains a rich diversity in its housing stock, with small scale detached and medium scale multiple buildings in quality conditions ranging from abandoned and condemned, through to amenity levels afforded by the upper middle class. Therefore, while tendencies towards gentrification can be identified, it is clearly not the case that the neighbourhood has already gentrified. A wide range of possibilities is open to West Broadway--but without concerted effort, the default scenario will be that capital will overcome community and the area will give way to gentrification.
Anderson, A. 2004. Neighbourhood change and the inner city: The case of West Broadway. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of City Planning, University of Manitoba.
Baer, W. and C. Williamson. 1988. The filtering of households and housing units. Journal of Planning Literature 3: 127-152.
Beauregard, R.A. 1990. Trajectories of neighborhood change: The case of gentrification. Environment and Planning A 22: 855-874.
Birch, D. 1971. Towards a stage theory of growth. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 37 (2): 78-87.
Butler, T., and G. Robinson. 2001. Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood change in London: A comparison of three South London neighbourhoods. Urban Studies 38 (12): 2145-2162.
Carter, T. and C. Polevychok. 2003. Comprehensive Neighbourhood Studies: Characterizing Decline. Institute of Urban Studies, Winnipeg.
Freeman, L. and F. Braconi. 2004. Gentrification and displacement: New York in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association 70: 39-52.
Galster, G 1996. William Grigsby and the analysis of housing sub-markets and filtering. Urban Studies 33 (10): 1797-1805.
Galster, G.C. 2000. Comment on John T. Metzger's "Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life-cycle theory and national urban policy." Housing Policy Debate 11 (1): 61-66.
Goetze, R. and K.W. Colton. 1980. The dynamics of neighborhood: A fresh approach to understanding housing and neighborhood change. American Institute of Planners Journal 46:184-194.
Grigbsy, W., M. Baratz, G. Galster and D. Maclennan. 1987. The dynamics of neighborhood change and decline. Progress in Planning 28 pt 1: 1-76.
Hartman, C. 1979. Comment on "Neighborhood revitalization and displacement: A review of the evidence." American Planning Association Journal 45: 488-491.
Keating, W.D. and J. Smith. 1996. Neighborhoods in transition. In Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods, ed. W.D. Keating, N. Krumholz and P. Star, 24-38. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Lees, L. 1996. In pursuit of difference: Representations of gentrification. Environment and Planning A 28: 453-470.
Lees, L. 2000. A reappraisal of gentrification: Towards a 'geography of gentrification.' Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 389-408.
Lyons, M. 2001. Gentrification, socioeconomic change, and the geography of displacement. Journal of Urban Affairs 18 (1): 39-62.
McLemore, R., C. Aass and P. Keilhofer. 1975. The Changing Canadian Inner City. Information Canada, Ottawa.
Metzger, J.T. 2000. Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life-cycle theory and national urban policy. Housing Policy Debate 11 (1): 7-40.
Neighborhood Renewal Corporation. 2004. http://www.nw.org.
Peterman, W. 2000. Neighborhood Planning and Community-Based Development: The potential and limits of grassroots action. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London and Delhi.
Redfern, P.A. 1997. A new look at gentrification: 1. Gentrification and domestic technologies. Environment and Planning A 29:1275-1296.
Rose, D. 1984. Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2: 47-74.
Serge, L. with M. Montfort. 1995. Impact d'un Programme Paramunicipal sur le Marche du Logement Locatif. CMHC, Ottawa.
Slater, T. 2004. Municipally managed gentrification in South Parkdale, Toronto. Canadian Geographer 48: 303-325.
Smith, N. 1979. Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital, not people. American Planning Association Journal 45: 538-548.
Stoecker, R. 1997. The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs 19: 1-44.
Sumka, H.J. 1979. neighborhood revitalization and displacement. American Planning Association Journal 45: 480-487.
Temkin, K. and W. Rohe. 1996. Neighbourhood change and urban policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15:159-170.
Temkin, K. and W. Rohe. 1998. Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate 9 (1): 61-88.
Vidal, A.C. 1992. Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban Community Development Corporations. Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research, New York.
Walks, R.A. 2001. The social ecology of the post-Fordist/global city? Economic restructuring and socio-spatial polarisation in the Toronto urban region. Urban Studies 38 (3): 407-447.
Winnipeg, 2004. City of Winnipeg Residential Land Supply Study (Draft). http://www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/planning/pdf_folder/reslandsupplystudy.pdf (Accessed 15 October, 2004).
(1.) Research was conducted under the WIRA grant "Housing Investment and Neighbourhood Development," Ian Skelton, Principal Investigator.
University of Manitoba
West Broadway Development Corporation
Table 1. Permits by Land Use by Year Land use 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003/2 Total Residential 34 33 26 31 19 143 Institutional 13 7 7 6 6 39 Commercial 12 22 13 12 7 66 Total 59 62 46 49 32 248 Table 2. Residential permits for building alteration by purpose 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003/2 Total Exterior 3 2 2 5 1 13 alteration Interior 3 6 3 9 8 29 alteration Non-structural 4 3 7 5 2 21 alteration Structural 6 10 3 1 1 21 alteration Fire 4 0 2 3 0 9 Repair New 3 1 2 3 0 9 construction Addition 2 2 0 1 0 5 construction Other 0 2 7 1 1 11 Repair Foundation 0 0 0 0 2 2 repair Demolition & 0 0 0 0 1 1 construction Total 25 26 26 28 16 121 Table 3. Residential Permits by Proponent Type, Year and Building Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003/2 Total I P I P I P I P I P I P Apartment 1 2 1 0 3 0 3 3 2 3 10 8 Rooming 3 3 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 7 house Duplex 2 1 3 1 4 2 3 1 2 1 14 6 Single 6 2 5 4 12 2 5 6 5 1 33 15 Garage 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 Triplex 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 1 Deck 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Boarding 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 house Total 15 10 15 11 22 4 14 14 9 7 75 46 Note: "I" indicates permits for interventions; "P" indicates private, unassisted proponent
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Anderson, Ayoka; Platt James; Skelton, Ian; Butler, Geoff; Chorney, Paul; Funk, Eric; Grant, Brian|
|Publication:||Canadian Journal of Urban Research|
|Date:||Jun 22, 2005|
|Previous Article:||Tackling the challenges of inner city marginalization: a partnership approach.|
|Next Article:||Building community capacity with non-profit boards in the inner city.|