June 28, 1999
To:Planning and Transportation Committee
From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
Subject:Social Indicators and Priority Areas report.
Purpose:
The Social Indicators and Priority Areas report is the first background report in support of the new Official Plan. It
provides a description of social conditions in the new City of Toronto and focuses attention on indicators of risk, or social
vulnerability, so that planning can be tailored to the unique nature of communities and neighbourhoods within the City.
The analysis contained in the report paints a general picture of social conditions in the City's neighbourhoods, but it also
goes further by presenting indicators of risk for four key population groups: children, youth, seniors and recent immigrants.
Several maps are included which identify priority areas for each of these groups.
Financial Implications:
None.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1.The accompanying Social Indicators and Priority Areas report be received for information.
2.The accompanying Social Indicators and Priority Areas report be forwarded to Senior Staff, the GTA Regions, and
Toronto Public Libraries and that copies be made publicly available at a cost of $20.00.
Background:
The analysis of Social Indicators and Priority Areas was initiated to provide a basis for the development of Official Plan
policies. Since contextual analysis of this nature is of interest to a number of staff divisions in the City, an informal
collaboration of staff from City Planning, Public Health, Childrens Services and Social Development Division resulted in
the development of a common methodology for analysing socio-economic data, which has been employed in this analysis.
Highlights: Social Indicators and Priority Areas report:
The GTA and the City
Some key facts about the GTA context and the City as a whole are presented as a frame for the subsequent smaller scale
analysis. The Social Indicators analysis is presented in map form and identifies priority areas for general socio-economic
indicators, children, youth, and seniors. The areas with the highest share of recent immigrants are also identified.
Priority Areas in every Community
This analysis shows that we have more in common than we have differences - all parts of the City, in all of the former
Metro municipalities, contain priority areas. There is a community of interest throughout the new City, where people living
in neighbourhoods across the City (Mount Olive, University Heights, St James Town, Oakridge, Black Creek, Regent Park,
Eglinton, etc.) are experiencing many of the same pressures and conditions.
The Only Constant is Change
The statistics on income show that between 1991 and 1996, the indications of poverty intensified in most of the areas in the
City where there has historically been a lower income population. The revelation of this Social Indicators and Priority
Areas analysis, however, is that over the past few years, the concentrations of vulnerable groups have broadened to many
more areas of the City. Thus, there is a community of interest across the City, not only in the existing pattern of
distribution, but also in the trend for emerging priority areas.
Beyond Social Housing
The location of vulnerable groups goes beyond the stereotypes, beyond the location of social housing and high-rise
apartments. Some of the ten highest socio-economic indicator priority areas are in census tracts where there is very little
social housing, i.e. they are predominantly private rental accommodation.
Many of these private rental priority areas are not highlighted in the distributions of people or families receiving social
assistance, i.e., there are many employed people, probably often working multiple jobs, that are falling below Statistics
Canada's Low Income Cut-Off in these areas. The indications are that the new, or emerging, priority areas are located in
zones of predominantly private rental stock and there are many more working poor in these areas who have incomes below
the Statistics Canada Low Income Cut-Off.
Beyond High Rise
The stress on existing rental stock is documented. There is no new social housing. Though there is no addition to the rental
stock, demand for rental housing continues to escalate. Currently, the demand for rental housing is not being met by the
supply in the traditional high-rise and social housing stock; unmet demand for rental units is causing an increase in the
number of privately rented houses, and the creation of second suites. There is every indication that tenants are devoting
increasing shares of income to shelter costs, moving into "non-conventional" rentals such as second suites and living in
larger households to meet rent costs. The movement into non-traditional rentals does not exhibit strongly as a concentration
in particular priority areas since it seems to be a trend throughout the City.
Next Steps
The distribution patterns of children, youth and seniors follow on one another to an extent that invites speculation about
succession in a pattern across the City, based upon the date of construction of the ownership housing. The decline in
numbers of the older youth, the "sudden" increase in preschoolers and the heavy concentration of seniors in the 60's and
70's housing of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, are all signals of a breaking wave of change in the lifecycle of
City neighbourhoods. As a subsequent background report for the Official Plan, staff are assessing the potential impact of
neighbourhood lifecycle change on the demographic structure of the City, and also on the potential ramifications for the
use of existing housing stock. The replacement population in this housing stock vacated by seniors will change the nature
of these neighbourhoods and consequently the need for city services. The conclusions of the neighbourhood lifecycle study
will be used to develop and refine population projections for the City as a whole and at the more local level.
The work that is being undertaken by Community Neighbourhood Services Department in preparation of their Social
Development Strategy, particularly the mapping of facilities and services, will complement this analysis of priority areas.
Conclusion:
In essence, the constant feature in the City is change. The trends we see are increasing income disparity within the City and
between the City and the GTA regions; new priority areas emerging; large migrations of people into and out of the City;
impending issues due to a concentration of seniors; rejuvenation in parts of the City that relate in some cases to the highest
priority locations and overall, a dynamic, changing, evolving City. This analysis helps to point out the areas for
intervention and strategic reinvestment.
Contact Name:
Ana Bassios
Manager: Policy and Research
Telephone: (416) 392-9698
Fax: (416) 392-3821
Reviewed by:
Paul J. BedfordVirginia M. West
Executive Director and Chief PlannerCommissioner of Urban Planning
City Planning Divisionand Development Services
