No abstract

Much attention has been given to increasing dominance of the post-war suburbs, and the concomitant rise of 'suburbanism' in ways of life in the 'post-metropolis'. However, the meaning of suburbanism is rarely specified and there have been insufficient attempts to theorise its relationship to the urban. Drawing on the dialectical analyses of Henri Lefebvre, this article presents a theory of suburbanism as a subset of urbanism, with which it is in constant productive tension. Six distinct dimensions of the urbanism-suburbanism dialectic are identified, derived from extrapolating Lefebvre's urban theory into second-and third-order analyses. These aspects of suburbanism are conceptualised not as static characteristics but as qualities that dynamically flow through, rather than define, particular places. Suburbanism is thus conceptualised separately from those places often termed suburbs, opening up the potential for interaction between these dimensions and the lived realities of everyday urban life and politics.

No abstract

This article analyzes the evolution and spatial dynamics of condominium development in Toronto, the largest housing market in Canada and the site of a rapid take‐up of condominium tenure and construction over the last 40 years. The article probes the most influential policies that fostered and regulated condominium growth, and explores the implications for the continued restructuring of the city. A host of factors, including neoliberal state policies, have played a decisive role in fostering what we term condo‐ism, referring to an emerging nexus of economic development, finance, and consumption sector interests that have coalesced around condominium construction and culture. Policies have redirected growth to the urban core, channeled capital investments and young residents, and promoted gentrification, ultimately transforming the character of Toronto's central business district. The article explores these changes, and discusses their implications for contemporary emerging forms of capitalist urbanization and restructuring of the city.

Housing in-affordability is a growing problem within Canadian urban areas. This research asks an as-yet unanswered spatial question: where do those suffering high rates of housing affordability stress reside and what do the spatial patterns imply about policies intended to address this housing problem? This paper tabulates and maps the spatial distribution of households that pay excessive amounts of their income for rent in order to identify locations within metropolitan regions where housing affordability stress is greatest. It is found that significant unevenness characterises the spatial distribution of housing affordability problems in major Canadian census metropolitan areas (CMAs). Only a minority of places conform to the North American stereotype that concentrates this problem near the city centre. Where some CMAs have concentrations of the problem in the inner city or, alternatively inner suburb, other metropolitan areas exhibit a more diffuse pattern of housing in-affordability. The locus of the problem is also variable depending on whether the household is of the family or non-family type. The interpretation of the uneven patterns relates broadly to features of supply and demand that have been identified in previous research. From both a policy and theoretical perspective this work demonstrates that greater attention needs to be paid to the spatial aspects of housing affordability and to the related, economically-induced risk of homelessness in Canadian metropolitan areas.

Canada's experience during and after the financial crisis appears to distinguish it from its international peers. Canadian real estate sales and values experienced record increases since the global financial crisis emerged in 2008, rather than declines, and Canada did not witness any bank failures. The dominant trope concerning Canada's financial and housing markets is that they are sound, prudent, appropriately regulated and ‘boring but effective’. It is widely assumed that Canadian banks did not need, nor receive, a ‘bailout’, that mortgage lending standards remained high, and that the securitization of mortgages was not widespread. The truth, however, does not accord with this mainstream view. In fact, the Canadian financial and housing markets reveal marked similarities with their international peers. Canada's banks needed, and received, a substantial ‘bailout’, while federal policies before and after the financial crisis resulted in the massive growth of mortgage securitization and record household indebtedness. This article documents the growth of Canada's housing bubble, the history of mortgage securitization, and of government policies implemented before and after the crisis. Instead of making the Canadian financial and housing sectors more resilient and sustainable, the outcomes of state responses are best understood as regressively redistributive.

The Canadian case represents a distinct variety of financialization under capitalism, one conditioned by the structure of its mortgage markets and the dominant role played by the state in the process of mortgage securitization. Securitization has been a key component of the neoliberalization of housing policy, with new state roles in the insuring, directing and funding of residential mortgage-backed securities both undergirding and justifying the federal shift from the provision of social rental housing toward supporting a rental market increasingly characterized by private sector individualunit landlord-investors. It was primarily the state's control over, and utilization of, the securitization process that maintained the solvency of the financial system in the face of the global financial crisis. However the resulting rapid uptake of liabilities on behalf of both the state and households brought forth new contradictions, necessitating new policy experimentation and reregulation, to which securitization was once again directed and which now articulate the political economy of housing in the country.

This paper examines the factors that have limited gentrification in two Toronto neighbourhoods which have below-average proportions of public housing and which have traditionally acted as immigrant reception areas. The first failed to gentrify despite the existence of gentrification nearby, whereas gentrification stalled in the second in the early 1980s. Analysis of the historical reasons behind this suggests ways in which policy could intervene to limit the spread of gentrification in the absence of support for local affordable housing. These include the maintenance of areas of working-class employment, different approaches to nuisance uses and environmental externalities, a housing stock not amenable to gentrifiers' tastes and state encouragement of non-market and ethnic sources of housing finance. However, the Toronto experience also highlights the importance of policy in a negative way, as changes in municipal policy which run counter to these prescriptions are now resulting in the gentrification of these two neighbourhoods.