SOME PERSPECTIVES ON THE TORONTO HOUSING

MARKET: A REVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES

Philip W. Brown

Major Report No. 8

Connaught Project

on

Urban Housing Markets

January 1977

PREFACE

This paper was commissioned as part of a series of initial back­

ground studies for an interdisciplinary research program on Urban

Housing Markets. This project has as its empirical focus the analysis

of trends and relationships in the housing market of metropolitan

Toronto and its tributary region. The project is supported by a three­

year grant from the Connaught Fund of the University of Toronto. This

support is gratefully acknowledged.

In the present paper Philip Brown reviews recently published

studies on the Toronto housing market with a view to assessing their

contribution to: 1) understanding how that market is defined and how

the studies conceptualize its operation; and 2) in setting the policy

alternatives. The emphasis is on policy studies and related planning

documents since it is these which set the basis for future political

decisions on housing market regulation.

L.S. Bourne

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

DEFINITIONS Housing Markets

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Urban Housing Markets

THE TORONTO HOUSING MARKET: CURRENT TRENDS AND THE INCREASING ROLE OF GOVERNMENT Federal Provincial Metropolitan Municipal

MUNICIPAL HOUSING REPORTS

REVIEW Data Base Assumptions

DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS

'METROPOLITAN HOUSING REPORT

REVIEW DISCUSSION

HOUSING NEEDS REPORTS

REVIEW DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS

ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON THE-TORONT02HOUSI~G--MARKET

HOUSING MARKET OUTCOME STUDIES Changes in Relative House Prices The Effect of Subway Construction on House Prices Determinants of Apartment Location Discussion

HOUSEHOLD MOBILITY .AND THE HOUSING MARKET

RELATED STUDIES

CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

REFERENCES

Page No.

1

3

3 3 7

10

15 16 17 19

24

25 25 26

27 31

32

33 35

37

37 40 43

44

45 45 47 48 49

50

52

SJ

59

SOME PERSPECTIVES ON THE TORONTO HOUSING

MARKET: A REVIEW OF RECENT STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a summary and critical review of a sel­

ection of recent reports and studies which focus on the Toronto

housing market. All of the studies reviewed have been published

within the last ten years and they represent a cross-section of

the output of a wide range of government bodies, academic insti­

tutions and consulting firms over this period.

The objective of this paper is to document, in the light of

these studies, the extent of our knowledge of and the variety of

perspectives on housing markets in general and the Toronto housing

market in particular. What do we presently know about the Toronto

housing market?. What 'commodities' are involved, who are the actors,

how does the market operate and, perhaps more importantly, how is it

perceived to operate? What do researchers and planners regard as

the Toronto housing market?

To accomplish this objective at least five basic questions

were asked of each report or study:

1) what particular aspects of the urban housing market have been

studied?

2) what assumptions have been made regarding the operation of the

housing market?

- 2 -

3) at what spatial scale has the market been studied?

4) what data sources have been utilized in the analysis?

5) what are the principal limitations of each study?

The Toronto housing market has experienced many rapid changes

in recent years and consequently it would be unjust to review these

reports without some reference to the general context in which they

were written. Accordingly, a brief review of past and current trends

in the Toronto housing market is presented as a basis for comment.

Emphasis in this discussion is placed upon the increasing role that

all four levels of government (city or borough, metropolitan, pro­

vincial, federal) have played in the operation of the Toronto hous­

ing market.

This paper does not claim to be a comprehensive bibliographic

review of every study which has, in some way, touched upon the Toronto

housing market. Rather it is a discussion of the major themes, issues

and data problems which emerged from an examination of selected re­

ports. In this manner the review seeks to identify those aspects

of the housing market which have been studied and those which have

received very little attention.

The review is divided into six parts. Part one provides a work­

ing definition of a housing market and an urban housing market as a

basis for reviewing the reports together with a brief discussion of

current trends in the Toronto housing market with emphasis on the

increasing role played by government. Part two reviews and provides

- 3 -

a discussion of several municipal housing reports. Part three pre­

sents a review and discussion of one Metropolitan housing report,

Part four a review and discussion of two housing needs studies,

and Part five a review and discussion of academic research on the

Toronto housing market. Finally, Part six presents some conclusions

and research implications.

BACKGROUND

DEFINITIONS

Before proceeding with the review it is perhaps germane to

adopt a simple working definition of what constitutes both a housing

market and an urban housing market, and who the principal actors are

in those markets. These definitions provide a useful common view­

point from which to examine the housing studies selected for review.

Housing Markets

Central to the concept of a housing market is the individual

housing market transaction. Smith (1970, 41) defines this transaction

as "an individual event involving one item of real property and two

principals (at least)". The five principals most often involved in

the transaction of real property are listed in Figure 1. The first

four principals (land owner, lender, equity investor and construction

firm) are usually involved in the supply of housing services. The

fifth principal, the housing user, demands the housing services.

PRINCIPALS

Land Owner

Lender

Equity Investor

Construction Firm

Housing User

Price Service Income

- 4 -

MARKET

Transaction

Change in use

Change in stock

OUTCOME

INSTITUTIONS

Legal Real property Contract Agency

Professional Broker Appraiser Lawyer Architect Manager

Government Land and building regulation Financial regulation Public utility regulation

Quasi-Public Ratepayer association Community group Business association Conservation group

Change in value

External effects

Figure 1: The Housing Sector - a Microeconomic View (After Smith, 1970, 42).

- 5 -

An individual, however, (for example, a family, bank or government)

may act as any one of these principals in a particular transaction.

Thus in one transaction an individual may act as one principal

while in another the same individual may act as a different princi­

pal. For example, banks and other financial institutions act as

lenders in some transactions yet act as equity investors in others.

An individual may also act as more than one principal in the same

transaction. For example, developers often act as land owners and

equity investors in the same transaction as in the case of apart­

ment construction.

A transaction can involve any interest in real property. Some

examples are the purchase of an existing house by a family, the con­

struction of a new residential structure by a financial institution

or the purchase of vacant lots by a developer.

Each real property transaction is influenced by numerous laws

concerning real property rights and responsibilities in addition to

a host of government regulations. Professional institutions such

as brokers, appraisers, lawyers, architects, and managers may mediate

or assist in the real property transaction. This is the institt1ional

side of the housing market and is depicted in Figure 1.

Each real property transaction results in a set of outcomes

such as those listed at the base of Figure 1. The construction of

an apartment block, for example, results in the addition of new

- 6 -

rental units at a certain price to the existing stock of rental

units in the urban area as well as in the flow of service income

to the equity investor. The apartment block may also have a nega­

tive externality effect on the price of surrounding residential rental

properties. From this simple example it is clear that the changing

socio-economic and physical structure of an urban centred region

may be viewed in part as an outcome of the many transactbns of real

property taking place in the housing market. Thus in order to com­

prehend how households are allocated to dwellings in general, and

phenomena such as neighbourhood change and intra-urban migration

in particular, one needs to understand how and why real property

transactions are made. This, in turn, requires a knowledge of the

process of decision-making in the housing market.

It is important to note, however, that the decision to trans­

act real property is often influenced by the current state of the

housing market and by the socio-economic, physical and spatial

structure of the urban centred region. Any changes in this structure

which are brought about by the transaction of real property will, in

turn, influence subsequent transaction decisions.

The above conceptualization of a housing market incorporates

the wide range of actors involved in the operation of the housing

market and recognizes the many impacts which the operation of the

housing market has on the urban area as a whole. Many of the studies

- 7 -

reviewed below, however, adopt a partial view of the housing market

and focus on particular actors or principals in the market or on a

few outcomes of its operation. Although this is not intended as

a criticism, since it is clearly not possible to examine every

aspect of the housing market in one study, it is important, in re­

viewing these studies, to make explicit those aspects of the market

which have been studied and those aspects which have not been studied.

The conceptual schema, depicted in Figure 1, is therefore useful in

placing the studies selected for review in the context of the housing

market as a whole.

In addition to their partial view of the housing market, in

terms of actors and outcomes, several studies make implicit and

sometimes questionable assumptions about how the market operates,

that is, about how transactions are made. Few studies make these

assumptions explicit. This paper attempts to do so.

Urban Housing Markets

A housing market operates in a manner similar to any other

commodity market in which the allocation of scarce resources takes

place through the price mechanism. What makes the housing market

so distinctive, however, are the peculiar characteristics of the com­

modity being allocated. Real property is extremely heterogeneous,

highly durable, relatively expensive and is highly valued as a social

good or commodity. Perhaps most important, it is fixed in location

- 8 -

1 (Berridge, 1971, 5). A real property transaction therefore in-

volves not only the transaction of a plot of land or a residential

property but also the transaction of an absolute and relative

location (Smith, 1970; Harvey, 1975). In many cases it is the

absolute and relative locations which are of importance in a trans-

action of real property and not the physical character of the land

nor the improvements upon it.

Since the housing market has no physical market place, because

of the immobility of the commodity involved, an urban housing market

2 cannot be defined in a traditional manner. An urban housing market

must therefore be defined in spatial terms, as well as in convention-

al terms of house type or value, in order to encompass all the resi-

dential real property which periodically enters the market. An

urban housing market therefore operates within the total stock of

real property located in an urban centred region. The boundary of

the urban housing market is that locus of points where the transaction

1we exclude from consideration here the mobile home which has yet to have a major impact on the large Canadian city.

2Berridge, for example, notes that for other consumer durables the supply of a particular commodity is generally located at a place of high demand accessibility (1971, 5, footnote 2).

- 9 -

of real property is not influenced by, and in turn does not in-

fluence, the transaction of real property in the urban centred

. 1 region.

This broad definition, although difficult to define oper-

ationally, is conceptually appealing since it suggests that

transactions in suburbia and exurbia are just as much a part of

the urban housing market as are transactions in the central city.

Moreover transactions in suburbia and exurbia are not independent

of transactions in the centre. The definition also allows for

the areal expansion of an urban housing market as real property at

the periphery comes under the influence of the growing urban area.

In operational terms one might define the geographical extent

of the Toronto urban housing market as the 1971 Toronto Census Metro-

politan Area (CMA). Given that much of the available data for any

research project comes from the Census, this would seem to be a

reasonable assumption. Given the increase in demand for real property in

1This definition differs from the one suggested by Sharpe (1976), following Grigsby (1963), that the spatial extent of an urban housing market is the entire area within which households view dwelling units as substitutes for one another. Such a definition considers only a small part of the urban housing market and omits important components such as land transactions.

- 10 -

Metropolitan Toronto and its environs since 1972, however, it is

becoming increasingly apparent that such an areal definition will

not suffice. 1 Transactions of real property in places such as

Oshawa, Barrie and Hamilton, outside of the CMA, are no longer in-

dependent of transactions of real property in the Toronto CMA. A

more appropriate area of analysis might therefore be the Toronto-

centred region or TARMS area which includes these places, but un-

fortunately little housing information is available for these re-

gions (Hill, 1976). The 1971 Toronto CMA showing municipal and

regional boundaries is depicted in Figure 2.

THE TORONTO HOUSING MARKET: CURRENT TRENDS AND THE INCREASING ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

In recent years the housing issue in the Toronto region has been

the subject of much public concern. Rapid economic growth

and heavy immigration from abroad have generated very high

levels of housing demand (Richmond, 1974). Thus it is hardly sur-

prising that a rapid escalation in house prices has taken place since

the late sixties with a concomitant increasing shortage of single

family homes for everyone except the wealthy. Apartment vacancy

rates, too, have plunged to record lows although it is only since

1971 that rents have started to escalate. In response to the shortage

~ote that Sharpe (1976) in his study of the Toronto housing market between 1970 and 1971 added the Census Agglomeration of Oshawa to the 1971 Toronto CMA in order to define his study area in light of the growing importance of the Oshawa housing market with regard to Toronto-employed homeowners.

FIGURE 2: 1971 TORONTO CENSUS METROPOLITAN AREA /f

I I I I

I I I I

.,,,.""' I ,.,,,, 1,.-----, _, ITOWN OF

~--------- ------- /NEWMARKEl-------1

\ 1----1 ' I

' ALBION KING I TOWN OF I TOWN OF I \ I AURORA I WHITCHURCH- I

\ I _J STOUFFVILLE I Coledon <"\ r - - I I

Eaot -~ lo~~ I R r" I ,,,. \ "' "' ---------o:i .i ••••••

~ ···················'(················,···············= ,,,. \ <(. I TOWN f- - - - - -,,,. \ OF I

,,,.,,,."" <(. \ //" JRICHMOND/ ,,,. \ / I Hill I ,,,. ~ / I

(* '(TORONTO I ,,.,,,. \ GORE TOWN OF I __J TOWN OF

; \ VAUGHAN LT-;-' CHINGUACOUSY \ I

;-' \ ;-'<"'Acton /J,romptOft \_.::"

• <" "' ,.. ""' / \ r-\ \ \ \'- <' ~

\ """" '"\ \ ? ( .A4 \ Geor9etowft \,, '(,} V\\ r'lf" \ ~~ ' ~- .

\ ESOUESI NG <'° TOWN OF

\ <"' MISSISSAUGA

\ ,,-:> \ H A L J/ 0 I \str••ttvill•

' "',..:' l., >

\

\\ ' I

NORTH YORK

1 MElROPOLITAN TORONTO r'- ..... , r'' : \ ol r' I I <-----r_j I ~- 1 I

; YORK ... ., L.1 \ J'- I r J,'-J"- I rJ '-- 'LJ l r' L_'::r \FAST YORK I I ,..i f' I '- l.1''"'- -,. I rJ ~J'~

\ C IH OF TOR ON TO I I

MARKHAM

SCARBOROUGH

._ ... _.....,. __ ,. ... .., J

PICKERING I ~

0 N T A R I oi

LEGEND

i I t

\ ..-".:('Ml lton \,_; ---- 1971 Toronto C.M.A.

\. \. ~

" ~. ~

TOWN OF

OAKVILLE

'\. \.

LAKE ONT ARIO

. ........ . 1966 Toronto C.M_A.

County Line

Municipal Boundary

Metropolito" Toronto

2 0 2 ' 6

Seo le of Mil es.

Source: METROPOllTAN TORONTO PLANNING &OARD, iuLv 1911

I-"' I-"'

- 12 -

of medium priced freehold properties the private sector has turned to

the construction of condominium housing. Apartment blocks are also

being converted to condominiums thus exacerbating the shortage of

rental units.

At the same time housing has increasingly been in the lime-

light of political debate. Elections have been won and lost over

issues such as neighbourhood preservation, housing density and the

provision of low income housing. Battles pitting the inner city

neighbourhood group against the developer, with his rezoning appli-

cation for an apartment complex, have also hit the headlines. Bitter

struggles against urban renewal have also taken place. Records of

these controversies are now widely available (Fraser, 1972; Granat-

stein, 1971; Lorimer, 1970, 1972; Lorimer and Phillips, 1971; Sewell,

1971, 1972; Stein, 1972). Many were written by concerned citizens

between 1970 and 1972 when citizen reaction against urban growth in

1 general and urban redevelopment in particular was at its peak.

Over the last few years the Toronto housing market has suffer-

ed the consequences of a period of rapid inflation in the Canadian

economy, especially during 1973 and 1974 when interest rates rose

1Given the increasing importance of citizen and general public parti­cipation in the functioning of the Toronto housing market another category has been added to the institutional side of Smith's con­ceptual scheme in Figure 1 - that of Quasi-Public Institutions (rate­payer associations, community groups, business associations and the like).

- 13 -

sharply and the supply of mortgage funds from private institutional

lenders decreased considerably (A.E. LePage, 1975). Toronto was probably

the first major city in Canada to witness rapid housing price inflation.

The rising cost and decreasing availability of mortgage funds

increased the monthly cost of housing to new homeowners and reduced

housing starts in both the owner and rental sectors. Land and con­

struction costs also rose rapidly. Inflation in the national econo-

my also encouraged speculation in the Toronto housing market during

1973 and 1974 as peoples' expectations of further house price in-

creases continued to rise. Rapid dealings and panic buying in the

residential real estate market during these two years contributed

to a rise in the average price of a house sold through the Multiple

Listing Service. (MLS) from $34,114 in December 1972 to $55,517 in

December 1974. Speculation in real property was effectively curtailed,

however, in April 1974 with the introduction of a Land Transfer Tax and

a Land Speculation Tax by the Ontario Government. Since that time the

Toronto housing market has softened and the rate of inflation in house

prices has fallen (Figure 3).

The last few years has also seen the increasing involvement of

every level of government in the operation of the Toronto housing

market not only in the role of institution but also in the role of

principal (Figure 1). This has been largely a response to the per­

ceived inability of the private sector to produce low and moderate

income housing and also partly in response to public pressure for

more government control over the operation of the housing market

50,000.

lj.0,000

30,000

..

Figure 3: Ave I

e of Hduse

House: I I

Mul ting s 1>01...1.A~ ' Met Toron

Tor nto Rea Estatej Boajrd): Jc}nuary 1~67 -Dec mber 19 6.

Sou ce:

I I I

N ·::t.t.::..,....::c.'J"ci........ :1J;"<)if.I~r-:.:oo-c-. :\.1:""1~J."hDf"• ... i::;-.:.I-. i\.:M4"..n~r--.;c.::::::-1 ·~:"",-:·f"-,....,x;"' . .:f,_r r..:r''ht..t ,;J~-;;,,.J• .. ::.-t'\. CJ :::'!.'.:· 7 <·c.c~- re C'c-rc cc-.-..- cclr-c<.. ,._ c.-: e. .-1- - cc L c C" e: ~· __ ... ~n.-· '·cc-cc .............. - cc c. c ~1,,"c ..,,-....,--

• OO<O«O » M"' •MM lf'"f'Y'rr.rr.rr:f"".f"' f"'l("'.I"" ~ ~..;t.,;t 1.1.r-1:" -..:-:t..;t"' 'JU tJU Ut!:J!UU -L'IL...C:"""'-'..;. .J:..i.,l:.C..,,£

1'14. 7 1 ~ ~~~· l-IL ( •· ._._;;1;._,_._ '"'"lc\13'" l'" ._._._,qi;._,_,_ '"~lc\15" ._,_ ._._._,,;.;;,_._._._

I I I i I I

I-' ~

- 15 ~

in particular and urban growth in general. Many new housing pro­

grams have been introduced, some of which have reflected a change

in policy towards the provision of housing.

Federal

Major changes in federal housing policy occurred in June 1973

with the introduction of Bill C-133 to amend the National Housing

Act (NHA). Several new programs were introduced, the most import­

ant being the Assisted Home-Ownership Program (AHOP), the Residential

Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), the Neighbourhood Improve­

ment Program (NIP) and the modified Non-Profit and Cooperative Hous­

ing Programs. First, these programs represent a change in funding

priority away from low income housing to moderate and middle income

housing. Second, they acknowledge the importance of federal fund­

ing for the conversion and rehabilitation of existing residential

buildings and for the preservation of neighbourhoods. This is in

contrast to the old Urban Renewal Program (1964-1967). Third, they

acknowledge that direct municipal involvement in the assisted hous­

ing market is a necessary component since the initial initiative for,

and the planning and operation of, the NIP, RRAP, Co-op and Non­

Profit Programs rest with the municipality.

- 16 -

Provincial

The Province of Ontario, too, has become increasingly involved

in the operation of the urban housing market. Since August 1964

the Province has been directly involved in the production of housing

through the Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC). In conjunction with

the federal government, OHC has undertaken the production and sub­

sidization of public housing units for both low income families

and senior citizens. Thousands of units have been built or acquired

for public housing use in the Toronto CMA. OHC has also been in­

volved in the acquisition of land. Within Metropolitan Toronto major

land assemblies have taken place at Lawrence Heights, Thistletown,

Edgley and Malvern.

The Province also exerts a powerful regulatory role on the

Toronto housing market since municipal planning in Ontario is reg­

ulated by the Provincial Government through the Planning Act. Agen­

cies such as the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), for example, have

the power to overrule municipal planning decisions. Between January

1971 and January 1974 the Province established a series of regional

governments in the area surrounding Metropolitan Toronto as part of

an overall planning strategy for the Central Ontario Region. De­

spite this reorganization the Province has failed to provide a clear

overall framework for municipal planning activitie~which has re­

strained both housing development and the provision of services

(Klein & Sears, 1975, 39).

- 17 -

In November 1972 the Province appointed the Ontario Advisory

Task Force on Housing Policy to examine the current housing situation

in Ontario and to make recommendations on the appropriate role of

the Provincial Government in helping to meet the housing needs of

Ontario residents. Following the report and recommendations of the

Task Force in August 19731 the Province set up its own Ministry of

Housing and developed a series of new housing programs to stimulate

housing activity in the Province. 2 The Task Force also recommended

the delegation of responsibility for assisted housing to the munici-

pality.

Finally, in January 1976, the Provincial Government introduced

a Province-wide system of rent control as a temporary measure in-

tended to curb inflation in rent levels which had become particularly

acute in the Toronto region since 1971.

Metropolitan

The role of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in the

operation of the Toronto housing market has been uncertain for some

time. Since 1954, Metro has been involved in the provision of as-

1Province of Ontario Advisory Task Force on Housing Policy (August, 1973), Report of the Task Force on Housing Policy, Eli Comay, Chair­man. Ontario: Queen's Printer.

2see Housing Programs in Ontario, Special Edition of Housing Ontario, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1976.

- 18 -

sisted housing for senior citizens through the Metropolitan Toronto

Housing Company Limited. Metro has also been responsible for the

provision of primary servicing for housing (e.g. roads, water,

sewers) within the Metro area since the Municipality was formed

in 1953. Servicing is now, however, virtually complete.

In 1974 Metro produced an interim housing policy statement

1 which was adopted by Council in February 1975. A housing policy

of shared responsibility for housing, especially assisted housing,

between Metro and the area municipalities was put forward. The need

for an explicit housing policy as part of the emerging Official

Plan (Metroplan) was also stressed. In 1974, too, the Province

amended the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to require

housing policies and by-laws of area municipalities to conform

to the Metropolitan housing policy.

In November 1975 Metro council gained an important regulatory

role in the Toronto housing market when it replaced the Ministry of

Housing as the ultimate approving agency for plans for subdivision

within the Metro area. As the Metro area approaches essentially complete

development, however, this role will be of decreasing importance as new

housing construction spreads increasingly to outlying suburbs.

1office of the Metropolitan Toronto Chairman (May 1974). Interim Metro Housing Policy, Part I, Part II. (Draft). Toronto.

- 19 -

Municipal

In response to federal and provincial incentives and to local

citizen concern the municipalities within the Toronto CMA have be-

gun to develop their own explicit housing policy statements and

programs for action. Most are being developed as part of the larger

1 task of revising municipal Official Plans. Withi~~~etro the ~i~~of

Toronto has taken the initiative in this direction.

During the period 1964 to 1973 the City of Toronto had no ex-

plicit housing policy and was not involved in the direct production

of housing. The City's housing role was primarily regulatory through

its Zoning By-law, Building By-laws and Official Plan. The quali-

tative policy statements on housing in the 1969 Part I Official

2 Plan are of a very general nature. The City was therefore only

able to regulate the density and location of housing development,

and to some extent its quality. Increasing dissatisfaction with the

rate and character of housing construction, however, brought pressure

for the City to re-enter the housing field.

In 1973 a Housing Work Group was established by the City to pre-

pare an interim statement of housing policy. That statement was pub­

lished in December 1973 under the title Living Room. 3 Its re-

1In addition, note that approval of a municipal housing policy statement by the Ministry of Housing is often necessary before a municipality can qualify for loans under certain housing programs in Ontario. One ex­ample is the Municipal Land Development Program which stipulates such prior approval as a necessary qualification. (See Housing Programs in Ontario, Special Edition of Housing Ontario, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1976, pp. 6 and 12).

2city of Toronto Planning Board (1970) Official Plan for the City of Toronto Planning Area. Part I. Toronto.

3Housing Work Group (December 1973) Living Room: An Approach to Home Banking and Land Banking for the City of Toronto. Toronto.

- 20 -

commendations were subsequently adopted by City Council and the

Ontario Ministry of Housing as the basis for an interim housing

policy for the City of Toronto. The Work Group, aware that the

City, either as principal or institution, has very limited powers

with which to affect house prices, recommended a set of modest

policies and programs for the City. Included in these were (i) the

production of new assisted units for low and moderate income house­

holds, a large proportion of which would be family housing, (ii) the

acquisition of existing dwelling units, through a housing corpora­

tion and private non-profit groups, for low and moderate income

households, and (iii) a co-ordinated approach to the rehabilitation

of existing units in need of repair, some of which would be acquired

under (ii).

To this end the Work Group recommended a municipal program of

land assembly and land banking which could take advantage of loans

available for this purpose under Section 42 of the NHA. It also

recommended the creation of a City Non-Profit Housing Corporation

which would become directly involved in the production of new

non-profit housing on assembled lands and in the purchase of exist­

ing units for non-profit rehabilitation purposes. To these ends

the Corporation could attract one hundred per cent loans and ten

per cent grants under Section 15.1 of the NHA (Loans to non-profit

organizations). The Work Group also recommended the creation of

- 21 -

a City Housing Department to plan and implement the land assembly

and non-profit programs and to coordinate the City's housing pro-

gram generally. As a result the City established a Housing De-

partment in May, 1974 and a Non-Profit Housing Corporation in

July, 1974.

Related to the focus of this paper on the operation of the

Toronto housing market are the issues concerning the planning for

and the future development of the central area of Toronto (Figure 4).

In February 1973, the Core Area Task Force was established by City

Council to examine problems of central area transportation. The

Task Force concluded that these problems were related to a number

of other problems and issues associated with rapid growth and

change in the central or core area namely (i) the type and inten-

sity of land use in the core, (ii) movement in the core, (iii) the

future of inner city residential neighbourhoods and (iv) more.gen­

erally, the quality of the environment in the central city. 1 To

slow commercial development while the Task Force investigated

future options for downtown development and more specific criteria

and plans for the area were being developed, the City of Toronto

passed a Holding By-Law in December 1973 which effectively limited

development in most of the central area of the City.

1 Core Area Task Force (June, 1974) Core Area Task Force Report and Recommendations. Toronto. See also Core Area Task Force (September, 1974) Core Area Task Force Technical Appendix.

::c <: 3

" c

~l Lawrence-

Hionwov No. 401

C1tv Lrm1f

Davenport

? ::> ~

" "'

" c 'O 0

(I)

'U a:

'E 0 ., ~ a: c :> 0

::!!

----·-·-

CENTRAL AREA

CORE AREA AS DEFINED BY CORE AREA TASK FORCE

INNER CORE AREA AS DEFINED BY CORE AREA TASK FORCE

CITY LIMITS

O'Connor

N N .. _f~f-hj JJj , .. :,. ..

···•··•·· ....... ·T'~t'') ~:it L--+--T- '<!<""'\Of!' 111--~1~ -r ~r ·· ""' . ., • ' \!;

,g ll;j A ~ J I _i,8>'.ill~~ ~

Ill y ~\i; +-· ~ L..........·-~, I J ----+----·-l - ··-- ''----1.·_.. I L Dundas __ -~~~.,--- l l--·-·j-·:7}

i --~ ~ .-~ -: ~~----\- .. ''"~ €·~~ --- -·· 111 I 11 /' ; " .o~

\ ,

'"'" - " -~---!.,~ ,•', ·w,,.'

~--,i · _____ ..,_ -~,- 1,... ...... , .2, .~-,,.,.· •. ,;·· _.-: · -~~ v M - J !!! 1 ~ f. , -- ~. -, -• ·- v "11. .. ---~- . , ~ "' ............ _____ "~''':.·; ·l · ~:"·--t-:: ,, -~· //·~;·"" '~~·····---....... ...,,..__. "" •L,<.l.'.'!-·-·;:~=-. ·,,_ ~--·.:..- -L·~ . ~.~. ~,/p ~, .·,....,~_··>::iu,:_ j=c:::t,L • t: . ·~· ... ··. ·" I <- , · · · · ···1• c .,, n r '· '· :;., -~ ,,r- • ' " .,. " ,_,. ··" . . . ""'""'~·''~.;· . .

~ ~· > •• ,

~~ .·· 1o~b·~·0aP ~ '°" '°'" "

Figure 4

CITY OF TORONTO:

~ .. ··.~. ·· .. (A.· .. · .•• ·.~··~·.·.··.·.·.··.···/,f:"/ . of, Toronto Planhino """"" \...,.) · ~ £~ !ource: City M J,

THE CENTRAL AREA

- 23 -

Following recommendations in Living Room and the Core Area

Task Force Report and Recommendations,the Core Area Housing

1 Study was commissioned to determine ways of increasing the supply

of new housing in the central area and to provide more suitable

guidelines for future residential development than presently

existed. This was followed by a new overall plan for the central

area which incorporated several of the recommendations made in

the Core Area Housing Study, the Core Area Task Force Report and

Recommendations and Living Room. 2

The Central Area Plan was passed

by City Council in January 1976. The expansion of housing in all

of the central area is an essential component of that plan. It

outlines, among other things, the land use policies necessary to

give effect to the City's housing policy. Part I Official Plan

Amendments on Housing have also been drafted. 3 The City of Toronto

1Klein & Sears, Damas & Smith, Ltd. (December 1974a) Core Area Housing Study. Toronto. See also Klein & Sears, Damas & Smith, Ltd., (December 1974b) Core Area Housing Study Appendix. Toronto.

2see City of Toronto Planning Board (October, 1975a) Central Area Plan Review, Part I. General Plan (Proposals). Toronto. See also City of Toronto Planning Board (March 1975) Central Area Plan Re­view: Principles. Toronto.

3city of Toronto Planning Board (October 1975b) Proposed Official Plan Amendments on Housing. Toronto.

- 24 -

has thus become directly involved in the provision of housing

as well as more aggressive in its regulation of housing develop-

ment.

The Boroughs of Scarborough and York have also adopted

1 housing policy statements on the basis of consultants' reports.

The Borough of North York commissioned a housing study but has yet

to adopt its recommendations as policy.2

Other municipalities are

in the process of preparing housing policy statements.

Given the acknowledgement from senior levels of government

that municipalities should have more than a passive regulatory role

in the operation of the housing market, their individual perceptions

of the Toronto housing market are particularly important. The mun-

icipal housing policy studies mentioned above are reviewed in the

following section.

MUNICIPAL HOUSING REPORTS

The comments below are based on a review and discussion of

the following studies: Living Room (1973), Core Area Housing Study

(1974), Central Area Plan Review: Principles (1975), Central Area

1Paterson Planning & Research Ltd., (October 1974a) Study of Interim Housing Policy, Borough of Scarborough. Toronto; Pater­son Planning & Research Ltd., (May 1975) Borough of York. Housing Policy Study. Toronto.

2Paterson Planning & Research Ltd. (November 1975) North York Housing Policy Study. Toronto.

- 25 -

Plan Review, Part I, General Plan Proposals (1975), Prop_osed

Official Plan Amendments on Housing (1975), Study of Interim

Housing Policy, Borough of Scarborough (1974), Borough of York

Housing Policy Study (1975) and North York Housing Policy Study

(1975).

It is not intended to summarise these reports in their entirety.

Only the housing components of the four Central Area Plan documents,

for example, are of direct relevance to this discussion •. Ins~~ad the

aim is to identify and comment upon the major assumptions, both

implicit and explicit, which underly the municipal housing reports.

These assumptions reveal how the auth~rrs of thei;;e studies have perceived

the structure ani:l ope;ration of the Toronto hoµsing markgJ;:_.

REVIEW

Data Base

Apart from a few detailed surveys and case studies all the above

reports are founded upon the three data sources commonly used in an

analysis of the Toronto housing market. These are the 1971 Census, the

Canadian Housing Statistics volume published annually by CMHC and the

House Price Trends volume published annually by the Toronto Real Estate

Board (TREB). Data on assisted housing were obtained from agencies such

as MTHC, CMHC and OHC. Most of these data refer to particular parts of

Metropolitan Toronto and not to the CMA as a whole. The Scarborough,

North York and York housing studies present a comprehensive inventory

- 26 -

of vacant land which is zoned or planned for housing. The Core

Area Housing Study: Appendix also presents an analysis of existing

and residual floor space in the Inner Core (Dec. 1974b, 1-64)

Assumptions

The following general assumptions seem to underlfe•most of-tpe_

mun~ciBal hou~ing poltcy reports and recommendations:

l}- 1 the private sector is not capable of serving the housing

needs of the low and moderate income household,

2/;st the municipality shotllp pJ..ay a more act:hve·Jrele1·,in the operation

of the Toronto housing market,

3)iar:, the municipality has little direct control ovet the demand for

housisgnbuu is able _.eadmflraeao\:) the >ifopply o,t hmuaing withinnits •

badndaries, and

4r."' the municipality can most significantly influence the supply

of housing within its boundaries through the direct provision of

and/or encouragement of ~housing construction.

The stated goal of most municipal housing policies is therefore

the provision of new housing within the municipality for a wide variety

of household and family types. The provision of new assisted housing

is given great emphasis. Each study thus contains an inventory of land

available for residential development together with interim housing

production targets by type, size, density and target income group

based on the past performance of the private sector and the capacity

of the available land to absorb new development. Implementation of the

- 27 -

proposed housing programs is geared to a thorough examination of the

ways in which the municipality might take advantage of the wide range

of senior government initiatives available with respect to housing.

Maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing stock is encouraged

but not considered to be the major priority. The Core Area Housin&

Study, for example, deals exclusively with the provision of new housing.

The municipal housing reports make several assumptions, in

addition to the more general ones above, in formulating their housing

policies and programs. Three of the more contentious, at least from the

purview of this paper, may be summarized as follows:

ii:.} ! .. the housing market within each municipality is essentially

closed,

2).at a balanced heterogeneity or social mix in residential areas

is a valid policy goal, and

B)st the supply of housing in Toronto is not sensitive to exogenous

influences.

These assumptions are discussed in turn below.

DISCUSSION

The stated desire of each municipality to provide a full range of

housing types to accommodate people of all ages, incomes and lifestyles

within its boundaries reflects the desire to create a community within

the municipality which is self sufficient in housing terms and is a

microcosm of the wider metropolitan area. One major assumption under­

lying this objective is that the housing market within each municipality

- 28 -

is essentially closed. A housing problem, however defined, is there-

fore seen largely in municipal terms and not in the context of a

wider housing market. Thus, any 'shortage' of housing in one munici-

pality can only be solved by increased supply in that municipality.

While this is understandable from a political point of view it is

hardly appropriate as a solution to the housing supply problem of a

large metropolitan area.

For example, the Borough of Scarborough, according to their

housing report, is 'deficient' in housing for single adults and small

households compared with other types of accommodation available. The

borough's response is to encourage housing of this type. In contrast the

City of Toronto is 'deficient' in family housing. The Proposed Official

Plan Amendments on Housing note that

Such family housing will be needed for the families formed out of all the young people now mostly living in apartment buildings in the City. (Oct. 1975b, 25)

The City's response is to encourage the construction of family housing.

This quote is, however, predicated on the assumption that each household

will pass through its whole life cycle within the City and will therefore

have to meet all its housing requirements without leaving the City. In

other words it assumes that demand for housing is endogenously determined

and that the allocation of households to dwelling units does not (and

indeed, should not have to) transcend municipal boundaries.

Such a myopic view of the Toronto housing market runs counter to

much empirical evidence that people migrate frequently and freely across

- 29 -

municipal boundaries and indeed over long distances within the

Toronto region to meet their changing housing requirements

(Barrett, 1973; Simmons and Baker, 1973; Simmons, 1974), especially

if they desire new homes (Sharpe, 1976). Certainly few households

are likely to spend their whole lifetime within one municipality.

In addition such a view restricts the range of possible solutions

to any housing problem since it distorts the nature of metropolitan

housing problems, and it excludes the possibility that a 'municipal

housing problem' could be solved by housing activity outside its

boundaries.

The perceived need for 'diversity of life experience' not only

within each municipality, but also within each neighbourhood, is based

on the assumption that diversity or heterogeneity in residential areas

is a good thing. While politicians and local businessmen may think so,

evidence from the residents' point of view is mixed. Although this is

not the place to debate the general issue of homogeneity versus hetero-

geneity in residential neighbourhoods it is worth noting that the

operation of the private housing market has usually resulted in areas

of relative socio-economic homogeneity throughout the urban area, a

phenomenon which social area analysts and factorial ecologists have

described in great detail (Murdie, 1969).1

What concerns the municipal

politicians is the fact that these areas of homogeneity are increasing

in area with the increasing scale of urban development, with the result

1rn this context one might also note the very restrictive zoning policies of municipal governments and the general resistance of neighbourhood groups to housing of a lower ''quality/' thane presently exists, both of which tend to prevent neighbourhood change and reinforce homogeneity in residential neighbourhoods.

- 30 -

that each municipality is becoming one homogeneous 'neighbourhood'

providing a limited range of accommodation for a wider regional housing market.

Another critical assumption underlying the -recommendations in_. these reports!

whieh is most characteE_isti.:trQi t;he 8 E.:a1'"e·A:r:ea Housing Study.and:J:he"Central

Area Plan-.Review; is that .the··pr;Lvate market will ·producer: the. taJ:ge..ted

number of new dwelling units, in the required types, sizes, densities

and locations, even if stricter guidelines for residential development

are in force. This assumption, that the private market will always

supply what is required at the right moment and in the right location

does not recognize the fact that the production of new housing is

more responsive to changes in monetary policy at the national level than

it is to local municipal directives or incentives. The sharp decline

in housing starts in 1974 reflected the fact that new construction, par-

ticularl~-::qfarental.1 apartments, was increasingly unprofitable in spite

of the great demand still unsatisfied in the Toronto CMA. This is

acknowledged in the Core Area Housing Study in a few places only:

The current economic situation has resulted in a very serious turn down in private sector activity across the country particularly in urban centers and most profoundly in rental accommodation. (p. 39).

It must be assumed that unless there are changes in the economic situation, lending policies or in government regulations, the private sector will provide only condominium housing or luxury rental housing in the City; it will be unable to provide any housing for those of modest means. (p. 39).

If mortgages continue at their current high cost, no large quantities of private sector housing will be constructed, and certainly little rental housing. (p. 66).

If might be noted that the d:J:t>li7ilil cbnunn in housing was more severe in

Toronto than in most other urban areas in Canada, and the up turn has

- 31 -

been slower.

This somewhat untenable assumption, that developers are queueing

up waiting to be told what to build, is only excusable since the ideas

behind the Core Area Housing Study and the Central Area Plan Review

were conceived in a period of high construction activity well before

the economic slowdown in 1974. Those studies written since the slowdown,

such as the York and North York studies for example, make no such

assumptions. On the contrary they are aware that new housing production

is not a "given" and therefore stress the need to make use of every

opportunity to assist in housing production and to make housing more

affordable even if this necessitates a reduction in residential standards

and restrictions. Equally important they stress the need to examine various

ways in which the supply of housing from the existing stock might be

increased, given that the production of sufficient new housing cannot be

guaranteed.

CONCLUSIONS

In concluding this section it might be noted that the plethora of

municipal planning reports and studies pertaining to the Toronto housing

market, while useful in terms of their specific objectives, have added

little to our understanding of how the Toronto housing market operates.

They were, of course, not intended as studies of the 'housing market'

generally. The concern of this review, however, is that few of these

studies give the reader any sense of the kind iof 'housing :?mark'1\t to which their

policy reconnnendations are directed. · Consequently one is left with a

- 32 -

feeling of uncertainty - that the policy objectives are unlikely to be

achieved or if they are achieved we will not know how or why.

While one can understand the desire of the municipality to control

the supply side of the housing market for the benefit of its tax-

payers, it is clear that the ability of the municipality to control

the operation of the housing market is not as great as the policy

recommendations require. The municipality can certainly regulate

housing in terms of design, quality, density and location criteria

through its Zoning By-Laws, Building By-Laws and Official Plan. The

impact of these regulations on the operation and spatial outcome of

an urban housing market are profound yet difficult to measure. The

municipality is not, however, able to directly influence the number

of units constructed (or provided from the existing stock) except, of

course, downward. The initiative for construction is still left largely

to the market place and to the factors which govern the amount of money

channelled into housing - the cost and availability of mortgage financing,

the relative investment potential of other sectors such as commerce and

industry and the economic climate in general (Kellough & Beaton, 1969).

Attempts to increase the number of housing starts directly through such

organizations as municipal non-profit housing corporations have had

little impact to date.

METROPOLITAN HOUSING REPORT

Metropolitan Toronto's housing policy, as reflected in the Interim

Metro Housing Policy Draft1 , has been called weak and ambivalent by Klein

1office of the Metropolitan Toronto Chairman (May, 1974) Interim Metro Housing Policy. Part I. Part II. (Draft). Toronto.

- 33 -

and Sears (1975, 97) in their review of the role of all levels of

government in the provision and conservation of housing in Metro

Toronto. While the Metro policy statement does, to a larger degree,

extend and broaden existing housing policies of constituent municipalities,

especially those originating in Living Room (1973), it does make several

important points which the municipal policy statements do not. These

points reflect a different perception of the Toronto housing market·

REVIEW

The Interim Metro Housing Policy statement makes the following

general assumptions:

'.!))a r the private sector is not capable of serving the housing

needs of the low and moderate income household,

Q.):, Metro will play a more active role in the operation of the

Toronto housing market,

G,)et the housing problem is primarily a problem of price,

4.)a the most effective way to alleviate high house prices, in the

short run at least, is to increase supply,and

51}:_, Metro has adt·tl~ coot:-r~a_, ON~@ ,.:t:h!\\:t~mrui.d cf:<J>]'.'::o OO~~i-~ :l'l!li~ can

influence new housing 'production within its boundaries at best

marginally.

On the basis of these assumptions the housing policy statement

asserts

liat the housing problem currently experienced in Metro will not be

totally solved within its boundaries,

- 34 -

2} r only the supply of land can be directly influenced by policies

of municipal government, and

B~a' Metro and the area municipalities can have the greatest impact

on the Toronto housing market through the increased production of

assisted housing.

The major policy recommendations which follow from a discussion of

these issues are

l;L Metl:'o .. and the. area municipalities should be jointly responsible

2~dt the production of assisted housing and family housing in Metro

be increased.

To these ends the report specifically recommends

.ahat Metro incorporate a non-profit housing company under the terms

of the Housing Development Act as amended,

b• lt!}iat a Metro Housing Department be formed with the department head

being the general manager of the Metro non-profit housing company,

e'.hat Metro encourages the area municipalities to establish municipal

non-profit corporations and to provide assistance to private non­

profit groups, and

d; Ql},a t the management of assisted units should be delegated from the

provincial to the local government by transferring responsibility

for OHC units to Metro in the first instance, and then to the area

municipalities as requested.

The Metro Housing Policy statement does not contain any empirical

analyses of the Toronto housing market with which to support its views and

- 35 -

recommendations. Appendix II in the report, however, presents a series

of tables on the characteristics of the Metro Toronto housing stock,

including the stock of assisted housing.

DISCUSSION

The policy recommendations put forward in the Metro Housing Policy

statement are 'weak and ambivalent' simply because Metro is quite aware

that, at present, it has very little power with which to control a

regional housing market which transcends both municipal and metropolitan

boundaries. In other words, the Metro report, in making the above modest

recommendations, assumes that the housing market within the Metro area is

open. This may be compared with the municipal housing reports, reviewed

earlier, which assume that the housing market within each municipality

is essentially closed.

As a result of these differing assumptions, the municipal and

metropolitan perception of what constitutes a housing problem also

differs. An area municipality, as was stated in the previous section,

views housing problems largely in terms of the local mix of housing

whereas Metro views the housing problem more generally as one of high

prices throughout the Toronto region. The Metropolitan perception of

the Toronto housing market is clearly more realistic, in terms of our

present knowledge, and is in congruence with the definition of urban

housing markets set out earlier.

- 36 -

The main concern of the Metro housing report is that since most

new housing in the Toronto region will be constructed in the regional

municipalities currently outside Metro's ~isdiction, and since these

regional municipalities still rely heavily on property taxes for their

fiscal viability, then new housing, if it is encouraged at all, will

continue to be built within these municipalities for specific socio-

economic groups with little or no regard for the wider regional housing

supply. Specifically, there will continue to be an understandable bias

towards the production of expensive housing and non-family housing.1

The solution, according to the report, is to expand the municipal

tax base by giving regional and municipal governments access to the more

progressive income tax so that the "competitive thrust of development for

assessment" (Ma"!Y~ 1974, 37) is reduced and a wider variety of new housing,

especially moderate income housing, is encouraged. This is regarded by

the report as a fundamental step towards the solution of the housing

problem (see also Dennis and Fish, 1972).

Throughout the report, both implicitly and sometimes explicitly,

Metro is clearly making a case for municipal reorganisation which extends

the boundaries of Metro Toronto to encompass a larger area of the Toronto

urban housing market. This would, once again, give the Metropolitan govern-

ment some degree of control over the supply of serviceable land and the type

of homes to be built (see Bourne, 1975). It would appear that such an

1The argument that municipalities outside Metro are slow to service land for residential development, to approve housing developments, and only encourage the construction of high priced homes is one which has been vigorously pursued by the development industry in recent years (see for example Kellough and Beaton, 1969; Derkowski, 1971, 1975). For an impartial discussion and analysis see Punter (1974, 129-428).

- 37 -

expansion has, for the present, been thwarted by the establishment of

regional municipalities around Metro. On this iB~ue one .must await_.

the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Metro Toronto.

HOUSING NEEDS REPORTS

The comments in this section are based on a review and discussion

of the following studies by Paterson Planning and Research Ltd.:

Housing Needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (1969a); Housing Needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area: Ap­pendix (1969b); Housing Needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area: A Review (1974b).

The studies were conducted for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board

and the Ontario Housing Corporation.

REVIEW

Paterson Planning and Research (1969a) attempted to quantify the

scale and extent of housing needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning

Area1

for 1961 and 1966. A four variable cross-tabulation housing market

allocation 'model' was calculated for 1961 and 1966 on the basis of

special census tabulations prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics

(now Statistics Canada), data from CMHC and a variety of other sources,

and research undertaken by the consultant. The four market variables are

1 The Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (MTPA) in 1969 was coterminous with the 1966 Toronto CMA except for the following areas: 1) Oakville and Milton were included in the 1966 Toronto CMA but were outside the MTPA, 2) Toronto Gore was included in the MTPA but was outside the 1966 Toronto CMA. With the establishment of the Regional Municipality of York (January 1971) and the Regional Municipalities of Peel and Durham (January 1974), the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area was gradually reduced in area to its present extent (the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto).

- 38 -

family size, income, shelter cost and shelter quality. Various

techniques are devised to estimate those cross-tabulations for which

specific data were not available.

Housing need is measured in terms of both dwelling units, as

defined by the Census, and shelter units. A shelter unit is defined as

the accommodation occupied by a family or a non-family individual. The

number of shelter units in an urban area is therefore equal to the

number of occupied dwelling units plus the number of lodging families

and lodging non-family individuals (1969a, 6).

Families and non-family individuals are defined as in need of

shelter if they pay too much of their income for shelter, if they reside

in inadequate shelter, or if they experience both of these situations.

Four categories of inadequate shelter are defined (i969a, 20-21):

a) inadequacy due to poor condition alone, or poor condition accompan­

ied by overcrowding,

b) inadequacy due to poor condition accompanied by sharing of the

dwelling by two or more families, either with or without over­

crowding,

c) inadequacy due to sharing of a dwelling by two or more families

either with or without overcrowding,

d) inadequacy due to overcrowding alone.

Families and non-family indiilviduals were defined as paying too

much of their income for shelter if their rent-to-income ratio ~eocceeil.ed

- 39 -

that specified in the OHC scale for the same income for a four person

family1 • On the basis of these operational definitions the~~~~sumeq it was

possible to evaluate the scale and extent of housing need by identifying,

through the cross-tabulations, those families and non-family individuals

whose housing is too costly, inadequate or both.

The Paterson Planning and Research study also specifies a normative

'model' of perfect housing market allocation for 1981 in which all

housing needs are eliminated. In the 1981 model there are no shelter

units which are inadequate or too costly or both and there are no family

lodgers, only non-family lodging individuals.2

The total housing

requirement for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area between 1966 and

1981 is then calculated on the basis of this normative model taking into

account inflation in shelter costs and incomes. The size and cost dis-

tribution of new residential construction required to relieve the 1966

backlog of housing need, estimated population growth between 1966 and

1981, losses to the 1966 housing stock (demolitions, etc.), and a reduction

in the number of individual lodgers in the surviving housing stock is cal-

culated.

1 A rent-to-income scale was adopted by OHC early in 1967 in order to determine rents for public housing units. The scale was developed with reference to a specially prepared three variable cross-tabulation of 1961 Census information for tenant families in the Toronto CMA showing gross rent by total income by family size. The data for four-person families were used and the scale designed to yield rents that lower income families could afford. The OHC rent scale is reproduced in Paterson Planning and Research (1969a, 15) and (1974b, 171). Armitage and Audain (1972, 47 footnote 19) note that a new rent scale was in­troduced in 1970 that has a rent ceiling of 25 per cent of gross family income which is 5 per cent less than the rent ceiling in the OHC scale used here. The new OHC rent scale is reproduced in Paterson Planning and Research (1974b, 172).

2Note that the latter are not included in the operational definitions of inadequacy.

- 40 -

DISCUSSION

Despite the conceptual neatness of this study, major problems

are encountered in operationalizing the models and several criticisms

may be made of the assumptions underlying the generation of the 1961

and 1966 cross-tabulations. This is not our focus, however, as de­

tailed critiques are available elsewhere (Armitage and Audain, 1972,

43-57). Rather we question the assumptions made concerning the in­

creasing efficiency of the housing market allocation process between

1966 and 1981. The study tells us clearly what the (normative) objectives

are but not how to reach them.

In order for housing needs to be eliminated by 1981 the study i~licit-

11.y ass-umas an allocation process whereby each family and non-family

individual is willing and able to move anywhere within the Metropolitan

Toronto Planning Area to whatever type and tenure of dwelling, whether

publicly or privately owm:ed.~(1, in order to maintain the rent-to-income

ratio defined by OHC for its particular income.

This applies to all families and non-family individuals whether they

are underspending or overspending on housing in 1966. In other words the

major criterion on which housing demand (and hence the allocation process)

is based is the maintenance of an 'acceptable' rent-to-income ratio. Other

factors such as neighbourhood ties, employment and journey-to-work

considerations and local services such as schools which may off set the

'hardship' of a high shelter-to-income ratio~ for example, are not

considered to be important in the allocation pro~ess. Individual preferences

(some people prefer to pay more for housing) are also ignored.

- 41 -

The other major criterion on which housing demand (and hence the

allocation process) is assumed to be based is the need to reduce over­

crowding, that is, the desire on the part of a family to reduce the

density of occupancy to below the standard index of one person per

room. Thus any addition to a family which raised the density of occupancy

above one person per room, for example, would result in a relocation to

another larger dwelling which not only allowed the same percentage of

family income to be spent on housing but also reduced the density of

occupancy to below one person per room.

Worthy of note, too, is the assumption that there is no family

demand for shelter units which are not structurally separate. This is a

necessary assumption if the sharing of dwellings by two or more families

is to be eliminated by 1981.

All the above assumptions about the allocation process in turn

assume complete knowledge of the market by each family and nonfamily

individual as well as a high degree of mobility. Most of these

assumptions are at variance with what is presently known about house­

hold preferences, motivation and mobility (Barrett, 1973, Simmons,1974).

Those families and non-family individuals who are not able to find

accommodation in the existing stock according to the above allocation

criteria are assumed to be supplied by new residential construction of

the right size and cost. These assumptions contrast strongly with the

more restricted assumptions about mobility and the allocation of house­

holds to dwelling uni ts made ,by the municipal housing policy studies.

- 42 -

The Paterson study also assumes explicitly that the housing

market is homogeneous with no spatial or aspatial submarkets. The

owner-renter dichotomy, for example, takes on a minor role in the study

given that the major differentiating characteristic between the two

submarkets - that of equity - is ignored (1969a, 12-13). Distinction

is made between new and existing housing although the interrelation­

ships between these two are never really made clear.

With respect to the existing stock another major assumption is

made in order to ensure that the need for lower priced housing could

be met largely by the surviving stock. The assumption is stated that

"average incomes increase faster than the average costs of the surviving

1966 housing stock" (1969a, 64) since "no justification could be found

for assuming a faster rise in the cost of the surviving 1966 housing

stock than would take place in consumer prices generally" (1969a, 51).

The experience of the Toronto housing market since 1969 has shown this

assumption to be quesittiiouable.

Finally it is assumed that new construction is the only way in

which structurally separate dwelling units are added to the existing

1966 housing stock. Rehabilitation and structural conversion of the

existing stock are not assigned any role since all structures in need of major

repair,incll_96f)· are assumed to be demolished and repfh.:?-Cl:Uiwb§l":_newrcon$t:nruction.

The urban renewal ethic was clearly still very much alive at the time

this report was written.

In their most recent report, Paterson Planning and Research (1974b)

develop a housing market allocation 'model' for Toronto for 1971, based

- 43 -

on tabulations, specially prepared by Statistics Canada from the 1971

Census. In order that the model might be comparable with those for 1961

and 1966 (Paterson Planning and Research, 1969a) the 1966 Toronto CMA

boundaries are used (the 'old Toronto CMA') instead of those for 1971.

The major difference between the 1961/66 models and the 1971 model is

that the latter does not have a family size dimension. The study con­

cludes that the backlog of housing need experienced in 1966 has not

diminished but that the large population growth between 1966 and 1971

has been accommodated without significantly increasing this backlog

(1974b, 40). It also concludes that the elimination of need by 1981

is no longer a realistic goal.

CONCLUSIONS

While the elimination of housing need has been explicitly specified

as the objective in the Paterson studies the manner in which this objective

is to be achieved has not been clearly specified. The provision of a

substantial amount of new housing in tandem with a highly efficient

allocation system has to be assumed in order that this goal might be achieved.

Most of the assumptions are at variance with what is presently known

about household behaviour in the housing market. It therefore appears

unlikely that the objective of eliminating housing needs, as defined

here, could be achieved under current patterns of household behaviour

in the housing market. The general limitations of this kind of study,

however, stem not so much from its methodology per se but more from its initial

normative assumptions and goals.

- 44 -

ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON THE TORONTO HOUSING MARKET

Empirical research on the Toronto housing market conducted by

the academic community has, to a large degree, proceeded independently

of the housing studies carried out in the public sector and discussed

in earlier sections. The public sector has, to a significant extent,

relied on a wide range of consulting firms, rather than on the academic

community, for appraisals of and possible solutions to particular hous­

ing problems and housing information in general.

The studies selected for review below, although few in number, il­

lustrate various approaches adopted in the academic study of the Toronto

housing market. The reader will immediately note that the examples are

largely drawn from the work of geographers and economists, and more

often than not, pertain to the City of Toronto.

It might also be noted at the outset that all studies reviewed

pertain to the Toronto housing market before the period of rapid house

price inflation experienced during 1973 and 1974. Their analyses and

conclusions must therefore be interpreted with this important caveat

in mind. Studies of the Toronto housing market, based on data collect­

ed since 1974, have yet to appear.

- 45 -

HOUSING MARKET OUTCOME STUDIES

Many of the housing oriented studies conducted by the academic

community over the last several years have examined selected outcomes

of the Toronto housing market. In these studies housing market be-

haviour has been inferred but not studied explicitly. Some studies,

for example, have examined house prices and house price change (Abouchar,

1973; Dewees, 1976; Maher, 1972, 1974), while others have studied

apartment location and its determinants (Bourne, 1968; Bourne and

Berridge, 1973).

What is perhaps most characteristic of these studies is their little

more than tacit recognition of the institutional side of the Toronto

housing market (legal, professional, government - see Figure 1). Not

unrelated to this is the fact that most of the market interpretations in

these studies are demand oriented, with emphasis on the housing user,

1 with little or no regard for the equally important factors of supply.

They thus contrast strongly with the supply and institutionally con-

scious municipal housing policy studies. A few examples will serve

to illustrate these comments.

Changes in Relative House Prices

Maher (1972, 1974) studied the spatial variation of changes in the

relative price of single family dwellings in the City of Toronto between

1The supply side of the housing market is concerned with the production of housing services. Attention is focussed on those principals involved in the production of housing services. Included here are not only the landowners and house builders but also the wide range of equity investors involved in the production of housing services. (e.g. 'landlords~"'dev-i?lopers' govern­ments and· specific -'~ttt!tfi1sations) and the many lenders of money and credit (banks, other financial institutions, governments and individuals) - see page 3 and Figure 1.

- 46 -

1953 and 1971. The sample size was 13,188 dwelling structures repre­

senting one third of all single family dwellings sold over this period. 1

A measure of relative price change, termed the filtering ratio, was

"derived from a change in the position of the dwelling within the

overall distribution of sales prices between any two years" (1974, 110).

Aggregate changes in relative house price over this period were

mapped by census tract. Maher found that the greatest increases in

relative price were experienced in the area surrounding the CBD. This

was attributed to pressure for redevelopment around the CBD which had

pushed up the price of those houses which could be used as income

properties or could be completely redeveloped. A high demand for centrally

located housing was given as the reason why other areas, while remaining

stable in terms of land use, had increased in relative price over this

period. Those areas which experienced a decrease in relative price were

less easy to explain. The study clearly attempted to explain spatial

variations in relative price change of single family homes through the

use of demand variables since it was assumed that "residential real estate

prices change as a result of variations in the demands placed on a property

and according to the expectation of future income from that propertyn

(1972, 181).

An important point, of which Maher is~aware (1974, 122), is the fact

that the price of a property reflects both a land (location) component

and a dwelling unit component (see discussion on page 8 ). Thus any change

1These data on individual real estate transactions were supplied by Teela Market Surveys Ltd.

- 47 -

in relative house price may reflect a change in the relative price

of the land component alone, of the dwelling unit component alone,

or of both components together. It was not possible in this study to

isolate the relative strengths of these two components and thus

identify the specific factors contributing to the price rise.

It is also worth noting that the study area was limited to the

City of Toronto which is assumed to operate as a closed market since

calculation of the filtering ratio for each property is based on a

knowledge of the distribution of selling prices within the City alone.

This deficiency is acknowledged by Maher and is clearly a function of

the lack of resources on the part of the author to carry out a Metro or

CMA-wide study. Several otherwise uninterpretable results are, however,

attributed to transactions of real property located outside the City of

Toronto.

The empirical study of relative house price changes conducted by

Maher was part of his larger study of residential change and the filter­

ing process. Filtering was defined operationally in the study as a

change in the relative demand for a dwelling as reflected in a change

in relative price of that dwelling within the frequency distribution of

prices for two points in time.

The Effect of Subway Construction on House Prices

Abouchar (1973) assessed the impact of subway construction on changes

in house prices across Metropolitan Toronto. His hypothesis was that those

-.~e

- 48 -

properties nearest the subway would experience a greater increase in

price than those more distant due to an increase in demand for a subway

location. Using published data from the MLS he compared, using analysis

of variance techniques, increases in price in the old and new subway areas

with price rises in the non-subway area for three time periods between

1965 and 1972. His statistical experiments indicated that the subway

had no impact on house selling prices across Metropolitan Toronto.

Dewees (1976) also attempted to assess the impact of subway

construction on residential property values in Toronto. Data on individual

MLS sales within one mile of Bloor Street for 1961 (690 dwellings) and

1971 (1174 dwellings) were used in a multiple regression analysis to

separate the effect of property and neighbourhood characteristics from the

effect of location and transportation accessibility on house sale prices.

He found that the major impact of the Bloor Street subway was an increase

in the slope of the rent surface with travel time from the subway stations.

Determinants of Apartment Location

Studies by Bourne (1968) and Bourne and Berridge (1973) attempted to

explain the spatial distribution of apartment development within the City

of Toronto. In the first study measures of apartment construction (in

terms of land and floor area) between 1951 and 1962 were correlated with

four sets of locational indices considered to be surrogates for those

factors influencing the decision of developers in the choice of sites for

redevelopment.

These indices, all relating to the area (census tract) level, are: (1) the character and distri­bution of the existing stock of buildings; (2) the

- 49 -

accessibility of different neighbourhoods to var­ious nodes of interest and employment in the urban fabric, such as the city centre, as well as proximity to mass transit; (3) the quality of the local en­vironment, both physical and social; and (4) site factors affecting the cost and ease of land assembly.

(1973' 405)

Apartment redevelopment is therefore assumed to be located in areas

where the potential for profit is greatest, that is in areas where

demand is high and the costs of redevelopment low. The supply of

apartments is taken as a "given" in the model.

In the second paper two more locational indices were added to the

analysis, reflecting both local demand and institutional control

through zoning. Correlation and regression analyses were performed

for the periods 1951-62 and 1962-71. The most significant change between

the two periods was found to be an increase in importance of variables

descriptive of previous apartment construction, leading to the conclusion

that "apartments, like other aspects of redevelopment, no longer need to

borrow their character or status directly from the social or physical

character of the contextual environment" (1973, 411).

Discussion

The above are examples of studies of housing market outcomes from

which housing market behaviour is inferred but not studied explicitly.

Market outcomes were explained largely through the use of demand variables.

Supply or institutional factors are not incorporated into any of the

models although in the Bourne and Berridge study public policy (zoning)

variables were included in the analysis.

- 50 -

Recent work in urban geography, conducted in the United States

and Britain, has been critical of the demand oriented approach to

the study of housing markets and residential geography. Harvey (1972,

1973) and Robson (1975a, 1975b), for example, stress the need for a supply

or institutional-oriented approach to the study of urban housing markets

in order to understand more fully the operation of the housing market

and the residential geography of urban areas. In particular they stress

the need for an examination of the principals involved in the supply of

housing services. To date little work has been carried out in this vein

in the Toronto region (Chamberlain, 1972; Derkowski, 1971).

HOUSEHOLD MOBILITY AND THE HOUSING MARKET

The migration of households from one dwelling unit to another is

the major mechanism by which households alter their consumption of

lllousinigg services. Several studies have examined intra-urban migration within

the Toronto metropolitan area (Barrett, 1973; Simmons, 1974) and the

Toronto-centred region (Hill, 1973). Most studies of this type have been

essentially descriptive and have focussed on the attributes of the

household in explaining migration patterns. Others have adopted a

sociological perspective and have examined the impact of residential reloca­

tiorC oh- t1H.'>:J<so:Cia1Hmvirontnent:i1Qf- the- faTiiitl.y- {Micheison-,-1973; Kennedy, 1975).

Although these studies were not conceived in a housing market frame­

work they do provide a set of useful indicators of the scale, extent and

impact of household relocation within the Toronto region. Perhaps the most

important and consistent finding, from the purview of this study, is the

fact that households are prepared to move long distances within the Toronto

- 51 -

region in order to change residence.

One recent empirical study, which examined intra-urban migration

within a housing market context, was that by Sharpe (1976) which examined

the impact of new residential construction on the Toronto housing market

(defined as the Toronto CMA plus the Oshawa CA) in 1970-71. This study

differs conceptually from the above studies in that the impact of the

supply of new dwellings on subsequent household relocation behaviour

is analysed.

The study gave a partial view of the housing allocation process by

specifically analyzing the number and character of residential relocations

occasioned by the supply of 24,174 new dwellings to the Toronto housing

stock during this period. A sample of dwellings was taken and the now

familiar vacancy chain technique employed.

Sharpe found that for every two new dwellings built during this period

three households were able to make adjustments in their housing con­

sumption, two by moving into new units and one by moving into a subsequently

vacated older unit somewhere in the existing stock.

That little reallocation between housing and households within the

existing stock was occasioned by new construction was found to be the

result of a high rate of new household formation together with a high rate

of in-migration to the Toronto region in the 1970-71 period. Both newly created

households and in-migrants to Toronto during this period purchased many

new units without vacating another unit in the Toronto housing stock, thus

denying any further chance of reallocation.

- 52 -

The findings of this study, although specific to a time and place,

seriously question the belief, implicit in many Canadian housing pol­

icies, that an adequate supply of new housing will indirectly result

in an improvement of the housing situation of the low income dweller

through an efficient reallocation process.

RELATED STUDIES

It is clearly not feasible, in a review of this nature, to list

all the empirical studies of the Toronto region which have implications

for a study of the Toronto housing market. This is not the intention of

the present report. The empirical research reviewed above is highly

selected and somewhat biased in its emphasis on the physically built-up

area of the Toronto housing market. This is, however, where the housing

mix is greatest and the information on housing market activity is most

comprehensive and accessible.

Several studies, however, have carefully detailed various aspects

of the property market beyond the Toronto built-up area. Particularly

noteworthy is the study of subdivision activity between 1950 and 1968 by

Hodge (1973), the study of land use changes between 1968 and 1972 in the

region of Uxbridge, Markham and Stouffville by Martin (1975) and the ana­

lysis of the exurban property market in the King, Caledon, Pickering and

Whitby regions by Punter (1974). The latter study, for example, details

how the exurban property market has become very closely enmeshed with

the property market of Metropolitan Toronto over the period 1954 through

1971, lending empirical support to the notion that the Toronto urban

- 53 -

housing market now extends well beyond the limits of the built-up

area. Hill's (1976) equally detailed historical investigation of the

Toronto urban field (defined by the 1970 boundary of the Toronto­

Centred Region) also documents the development of an integrated housing

market over this area.

Other studies of relevance to the Toronto housing market are those

studies of neighbourhood change which have examined the impact of dif­

ferent types of residential conversion, such as white painting and land

use succession. Aitkenhead, et al., (1975) for example, examined the

impact of white painting on the changing character of the Gerrard-Logan

area in the City of Toronto, while CMHC (1974), in a pilot study, ex­

amined the impact of white painting on the changing character of Wellesley

Street East in Don Vale, Toronto. Different approaches to the modelling

of neighbourhood change, using Toronto examples, may be found in the

studies by Brown (1975) and Schliewinsky (1975). Related to these are

the empirical land use change studies by Bourne (1971, 1976).

CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

This paper has presented a review and discussion of a number of

articles, reports and studies which are illustrative of a variety of per­

spectives on the Toronto housing market. The review proceeded on the

assumption that an urban housing market (or markets) exists and an at­

tempt was made to define the various components of the Toronto urban

housing market in a general manner (Figure 1). These definitions served

as a common base from which to review the studies.

- 54, -

Three major perspectives on the Toronto housing market were identi-

fied. These may be termed the municipal, metropolitan, and academic

perspectives. They are summarised in turn below.

The municipal perspective offered a myopic view of the Toronto

housing market. Housing markets were assumed to be essentially closed

with the boundary of the housing market coterminous with that of the

municipality. Such a misrepresentation of the Toronto housing market by

an area municipality is, unfortunately, perfectly rational since

the community is, after all, a political entity, and its aims in the control of urban development must necessarily be consistent with the sources of its authority.

Smith (1970, 323)

The municipal housing studies identified 'housing problems' and set

housing targets,yet it is not clear how or whether these targets will

be attained given current housing market behaviour1 • Since the municipality

has only limited powers with which to control housing development, one is

lead to suspect that the municipality is an inappropriate spatial unit at

which to tackle the housing problems of a regional housing market especially

when the 'housing problem' differs from municipality to municipality and.

in a regional context. ·~· 1 l

The metropolitan perspective on the Toronto housing market is much

more realistic than that of the municipality since the housing market is

assumed to transcend municipal boundaries. The ability to control an urban

1The housing needs studies reviewed in this paper are also subject to criticism on this account. The elimination of housing need was explicitly stated as the major goal. The manner in which that goal was to be achieved, however, was not made at all clear.

- SS -'+ -

housing market by a municipality is therefore seen to be equated with

the need to have jurisdictional control over the whole housing market

area and not just one portion of it. In this context there is a

clear case for areal expansion of the jurisdictional control of

Metro Toronto.

Academic research has so far presented a partial view of the

Toronto housing market. Emphasis has been placed on the description and

explanation of a wide range of housing market outcomes over areal units

of differing size. ,Given that housing market behaviour has been inferred

rather than studied directly and that subareas within the urban centred

region, rather than the whole region, have been used as laboratories for

analysis, the general usefulness of this approach in understanding total

market behaviour is therefore somewhat limited1

• This is not to suggest

a rejection of this approach but a broadening of its scope to the

metropolitan or CMA level.

In support of this approach it might also be noted that accurate and

detailed descriptio~ of housing market outcomes are a necessary prerequisite

for interpretive and explanatory comments which go beyond the general and

superficial. Indeed it is only through the detailed study of the current

utilisation of the housing inventory that one is able to identify potential

'housing problems' such as overcrowding, deteriorated dwellings and high

house prices. It is the careful study of housing market outcomes which

often leads to the identification of pertinent research problems.

It was also noted that the institutional side of the Toronto housing

market has rarely been studied in an academic context. Given the increasing

1A notable exception here is the study by Sharpe (1976).

- 56 -

involvement of every level of government in the operation of the

Toronto housing market there would seem to be a definite need for

researchers to engage in the study of institutional aspects of the

Toronto housing market and their impact on market outcomes. Indeed, the

study and evaluation of the planning process and the many government

housing programs, in terms of their impact on the Toronto housing market,

are two ways in which the gap between private research and public policy

might be bridged. The study by Punter (1974) is a good example of this approach.

Academic research on the Toronto housing market has, to a large

degree, ignored those principals involved in the supply of housing

services. Subsequent research should attempt to study their behaviour

directly in order that one might gain greater insight into the internal

workings of the housing market. Only when one is able comprehend how

the market operates is one in a position to influence its operation in

order to realise some specific target outcome.

While a list of unexplored avenues of research is easy to prepare,

the operational problems involved in pursuing them arec.:immerls;e. ·•

Perhaps the most significant finding which emerged from a review of all

the above studies is the fact that research of any kind on the Toronto

housing market has been limited by the lack of housing market data

which are both comprehensive and easily accessible. What data are readily

available, for example the housing statistics published by the Census,

TREB and Cl'IliC (see Biernacki, 1976), while useful as a backdrop, do not

in.tigemselves subst!amtially advance one's knowledge"Of how-the'Tnronto

housing market operates.

- 57 -

Other data sources are available for detailed research into the

Toronto housing market. One might note, for example, the housing

transaction files of the MLS and Teela Market Surveys Ltd., the Muni-

cipal Assessment Rolls, the Metropolitan Street Directories and the

land transaction files at the government Land Registry Offices. Extrac-

tion of data from these sources is, however, very time consuming, espec-

ially for a metropolitan or CMA- wide study. There is clearly a need

for the compilation of such data sources into one comprehensive housing

data file based on the individual property. 1

Little or no data are available, in an easily accessible form,~on

either the principals involved in the supply of housing services or on

the institutional components of the housing market. It is therefore hardly

surprising that most academic research on the Toronto housing market has

concentrated on the study of housing market outcomes and housing users.

2' Data on the institutional and supply side are badly needed,.

It is often the case that the type of research conducted is influenced

by the type of data available in an easily accessible form. This is clearly

the case in the study of the Toronto housing market to date. Future

research should attempt to ask questions of the Toronto housing market which

are independent of the currently available data for it is only in this

manner that interesting questions will be asked and relevant solutions

forthcoming.

1see Grebler (n.d. - 1957-8?) for a detailed discussion of these issues.

2 A recent study by Spurr (1976) has provided a wealth of previously in-accessible information on land and land development across Canada.

- 58 -

Acknowledgements

Throughout the preparation of this report I have benefitted

from several fruitful discussions with Professor Larry Bourne and

Mr. Philip Morrison. To them I am most grateful. I also wish to

thank Professor Jim Simmons and Professor John Hitchcock for their

very useful comments on an earlier draft.

I am indebted to Ms. Barbara Pym of the Research Division,

Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, for access to several reports

and to Professor Chris Sharpe, Memorial University, St. Johns, for

the provision of a working bibliography on Toronto housing studies.

Finally, I wish to thank Ms. Bev Thompson and Ms. Karin Moeller

for typing this report.

- 59 -

REFERENCES

Abouchar, A. (19 73) "The Analysis of Property Values and Subway Investment and Financing Policies,•• <Based on the Experience of Metro Toronto),"Working Paper No. 7306, Institute for the Quantitative Analysis of Social and Economic Policy, Univer­sity of Toronto.

Aitkenhead, M., ~ al. (19 75) Rehabilitati~n, Renovatio,n and Social Change, The Gerrard-Logan Area. Urban Studies Pro­gram, Division of Social Science, York University.

Armitage, A. and Audain, M. (1972) Housing Requirements: A Review of Recent Canadian Research. The Canadian Council on Social Development, Ottawa.

Barrett, F.A. (1973) ':!Residential Search Behaviour: A Study of Intra-Urban Relocation in Toronto," Geographic.al Mono­graphs No. 1, Atkinson College, York University.

Berridge, J .D. (1971) "The Housing Market and Urban Residential Structure: A Review," Research Paper No. 51, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

Biernacki, C.M. (1976) "Housing Stock Trends: A Summary. Canada, Ontario and Toronto," Major Report No. 7, Connaught Project, Urban Housing Markets, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto .•

Bourne, L.S. (1967) "Private Redevelopment of the Central City. Spatial Processes of Structural Change in the City of Toronto," Research PaEer. No. 112, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago University Press.

(1968) "Market, Location, and Site Selection in Apartment Construction," Canadian Geosrapher, 12, 211-226.

(1969) "Measuring Land Use and Structural Change: One Element of an Urban Information System," Plan Canada, 10, 7-15.

(1971) llPhysical Adjustment Processes and Land Use Suc­cession: A Conceptual Review and Central City Example," Economic Geo~raphy, 47, 1-15.

(1975) nLimits to Urban Growth: Who Benefits, Who Pays, Who Decides? A Commentary on the Current Planning Climate in Toronto," Research Pa.e,er No. 68, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

-·-- (1976) nMonitoring Change and Evaluating the Impact of Planning Policy on Urban Structure: A Markov Chain Experiment," Plan Canada, Vol. 16, 5-14.

- 60 -

___ • and Berridge, J .D. (1973) "Apartment Location and Developer Behaviour: A Reappraisal," Canadian Geo&rapher, 17, 403-411.

___ ., et al. (eds.) (1973) "The Form of Cities in Central Canada: Selected Papers, 11 Research Publication No. 11, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.

Brown, P.W. (1975) Neighbourhood Change and Occupancy Conversion: A Markov Chain Model. Unpublished M.A. Research Paper, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.

Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (1974) New from Old. A Pilot Study of Housing Rehabilitation and Neighbourhood Change. Toronto.

Chamberlain, S.B. (1972) "Aspects of Developer Behaviour in the Land Development Process," Research Paper No. 56, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

City of Toronto Planning Board. (1970) Official Plan for the City of Toronto Planning Area. Part I. Toronto.

(March 1975) Central Area Plan Review: Principles. Toronto.

(October 1975a) Central Area Plan Review. Part I. General Plan (Proposals). Toronto.

(October 1975b) Proposed Official Plan Amendments on Housing. Toronto.

Core Area Task Force. (June 1974) Core Area Task Force Re:eort and::. Recommendations. Toronto.

(September 1974) Core Area Task Force Technical Appendix~ Toronto.

Dennis, M. and S. Fish (1972) Income Housing in Canada.

Programs in Search of a Policy. Toronto: Hakkert.

Low

Derkowski, A. (1971) "The Toronto Housing Market in the Sixties, 11

Real Estate Institute of Canada Journal, 1, 1-9.

Derkowski, A. (1975) Costs in the Land Development Process. Toronto: Housing and Ur.ban Development Association of Canada.

Dewees, D.N. (1976) ~The Effect of a Subway on Residential Pro­perty Values in Toronto, 11 Journal of Urban Economics (forth­coming).

Fraser, G. (1972) Fighting Back: Urban Renewal in Trefann Court. Toronto: Hakkert.

Granatstein, J.L. a Developer.

(1971) Marlborough Marathon: Toronto: Hakkert.

One Street Against

- 61 -

Grebler, L. (n.d.) Continuous Housing Market Analysis For Metropolitan Toronto. Report prepared for the Metro­politan Toronto P.lanning Board.

Grigsby, W.G. (1963) Housing Markets and Public Policy. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Harvey, D. (1972) "Society, The City and the Space-Economy of Urbanism," Resource Paper No. 18, Commission on College Geography, Association of American Geographers.

{1973) Social_Justfce and the City. __ Arnold._

(1975) "The Nature of Housing," pp. 132-134 in Gale, s. and Moore, E.G. (eds.) (1975) The Manipulated City: Per­spectives on Spatial Structure and Social Issues in Urban America. Chicago: Maaroufa Press.

Hill, F.I. (1973) "Migration in the Toronto-centred Region," pp. 229-246 in Bourne, L.S., ~al., (eds.) (1973).

Hill, F.I. (1976) The Integration of Peripheral Towns into an Urban Field: The Toronto-Centred Region. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Department of Geography, University of Toronto.

Hodge, G. (1973) Urban Field.

Subdivision Activity in the Periphery of the Toronto Pp. 221-229 in Bourne, L.S., et al., (eds.), 1973.

Housing Ontario (1976) Housing Programs in Ontario. Vol. 20, No. 1, January/February 1976.

Housing Work Group (December 1973) Living Room: An Approach to Home Banking, and Land Banking for The ,.City of Toronto. Toronto.

Kellough, W.R. and Beaton, W. (1969) "Anatomy of the Housing Shortage," Community Planning Review, 19, 18-25.

Kennedy, L.W. (1975) Adapting to New Environments: Residential Mobility from the Mover's Point of View. Major Report No. 3, Centre for Urban and Community Studies and Department of Sociology, University of Toronto.

Klein and Sears (1975) "The Provision and Conservation of Housing in Metropolitan Toronto. A Description and Analysis of the Housing Production and Conservation Processes in Metro and The Roles of Government in Those Processes," Background Report prepared for the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto.

Klein & Sears, Damas and Smith Ltd. (December 1974a) Core Area Housing Study. Toronto.

(December 1974b) Core Area Housing Study Appendix. Toronto.

A.E. LePage Ltd. of Ontario.

(1975) Population Growth and Planning, Province Research and Planning Division.

Lorimer, J. (1970) The Real World of City Politics. Toronto: James Lewis and Samuel.

- 62 ·..;.

{1972) A Citizen's Guide to City Politics. Toronto: James Lewis and Samuel.

~~-· and Phillips, M. (1971) Working People. Life in a Down­town City Neighbourhood. Toronto: James Lewis and Samuel.

Maher, C.A. (1972) Residential Change and the Filtering Process: Central Toronto, 1953-71. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Toronto.

(1974) "Spatial Patterns in Urban Housing Markets: Filter­ing in Toronto, 1953-1971," Canadian Geographer, 18, 108-124.

Martin, L.R.G. (1975) Land Use Dynamics on the Toronto Urban Fringe. Map Folio No. 3, (Cat. No. EN73-2/3). Ottawa: Environment Canada, Lands Directorate.

Michelson, W. (1973) "Environmental Change," Research Paper No. 60, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto,

Murdie, R.A. {1969) "Factorial Ecology of ~tropolitan Toronto, 1951-1961: An Essay on the Social Geography of the City," Research Paper No. 116, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago University Press.

Office of the Metropolitan Toronto Chairman Metro Housing Policy, Part I, Part II.

(May 1974) Interim (Draft). Toronto.

Paterson Planning and Research Ltd. (1969a) Housing Needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, Toronto.

(1969b) Housing Needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area: Appendix. Toronto.

(October 1974a) Study of Interim Housing Policy, Borough of Scarborough. Toronto.

(1974b) Housing Needs in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area: A Review. Toronto.

(May 1975) Borough of York. Housing Policy Study. Toronto.

(November 1975) North York Housing Policy Study. Toronto.

Province of Ontario Advisory Task Force on Housing Policy "Housing Issues and Housing Programs,t1 Working Paper "Housing Supply," Working Paper B, Vol. 1. Ontario: Printer.

(June. 1973a) A, Vol. 1; Queen's

- 63 -

(June 1973b) "Land for Housing," Working Paper C, Vol. 2; "Housing Assistance," Working Paper D, Vol. 2; "Government and Housing," Worlt.ing Paper E, Vol. 2. Ontario: Queen's Printer.

(August 1973) Report of the Task Force on Housing Policy. Eli Comay, Chairman, Ontario: Queen's Printer.

Punter, J.V. (1974) The Impact of Exurban Development on Land and Land­scape in the Toronto-Centred Region, 1954-1971. Report submitted to the Policy Planning Division, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

Richmond, A.H. (1974) "Migration, Housing and Urban Planning in Toronto," pp. 185-228 in M.S. Archer (ed.), Current Research in Sociology, Paris: Mouton.

Robson, B.T. (1975a) "The Urban Environment," Geography, 60, 184-188.

(1975b) Urban Social Areas, Oxford University Press.

Schliewinsky, F.G. (1975) A Systems Approach to Neighbourhood Change: Metropolitan Toronto 1951-1971. Major Report No. 5, Centre for Urban and Community Studies and Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Toronto.

Sewell, J. (1971) Inside City Hall; The Year of the Opposition. Toronto: Hakkert.

(1972) Up Against City Hall. Toronto: James Lewis and Samuel.

Sharpe, C.A. (1976) Vacancy Chains and Residential Relocation. The Response to New Construction in the Toronto Housing Market Area. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Geography, University of Toronto.

Simmons, J .W. (1974) "Patterns of Residential Movement in Metro­politan Toronto," Research Publication No. 13, Department of Geography, University of Toronto •

---• and Baker, A. (1973) "Household Relocation Patterns," pp. 199-217 in Bourne, L.S., !.£!,!_., (eds.) (1973).

Smith, W.F. (1970) 'Housing. The Social and Economic Elements. University of California Press.

Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto (March 1974) The Rent Race. A Study of Housing Quality, Shelter Costs and Family Budgets for Social Assistance Recipients in Metropolitan Toronto. Final Report. Toront.o.

- 64 -

Spurr, P. (1976) Land and Urban Development. A Preliminary Study. James Lorimer and Company, Toronto.

Stein, D.L. (1972) Toronto for Sale. Toronto: New Press.