If Rob Ford cared about the suburbs half as much as he does the city, his efforts might have been received more positively. But fixated as he is on downtown, the mayor has ignored the postwar communities that comprise the new face of poverty in Toronto.

Indeed, Ford has inflicted even greater damage on these already depressed areas, most ruinously by cancelling Transit City, which would have brought decent transit to many of Toronto’s 13 “priority neighbourhoods.” In fact, members of the chief magistrate’s inner circle have also made it clear they’d like to do away with the very concept of priority neighbourhood. It’s bad for morale, they say.

The decision to kill the Finch LRT was especially painful; it will affect the daily lives of thousands of residents of northwest Toronto, never an area renowned for its urbanity.

Sadly, the truth is that the issues of the so-called inner suburbs aren’t going anywhere soon. Researchers tell us that these communities, which date from the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, are in bad shape and growing worse. According to the University of Toronto’s David Hulchanski, incomes in these neighbourhoods have dropped by 20 per cent or more in recent decades.

Meanwhile, downtowners are growing richer than ever; their incomes are up by 20 per cent or more. The threatened middle class hangs on in a narrow swath that surrounds the old city.

For many of the poor, increasingly made up of immigrants, life unfolds in one of the 1,000-plus residential towers that form much of the Toronto landscape. These nasty concrete slabs were constructed at a time when both energy and the environment were taken for granted and planning rules called for vast amounts of open space. In other words, they are wasteful beyond anything that makes sense in the 21st century.

Transforming these buildings and their neighbourhoods will be a Herculean task, but not impossible. Enlisting the private sector — landlords and developers — should not be difficult. After all, they stand to benefit mightily from lower energy costs, more rental units and improved operational efficiency.

The city’s role need be no more than regulatory, which means it would cost nothing. For example, allowing certain green spaces to be developed and enabling local commercial uses would generate economic activity and reduce the need to travel great distances to get anywhere and do anything.

A 2008 city report laid out the problem — and the potential — of what it called “Tower Renewal.”

“These buildings are not providing the quality of life that was intended,” the report notes. “… they are facing some of Toronto’s greatest challenges and require renewed and thorough attention.”

But, the authors also pointed out that “collectively, they are one of Toronto’s greatest urban assets.”

“There is room to grow. Toronto’s highest concentration of residential density corresponds with its largest areas of open space. Planned within modern guidelines requiring as much as 90 per cent of the site to be left undeveloped, residential towers sit within kilometres of underutilized land, today largely relegated to surface parking and, in many cases, surrounded by chain-link fences.”

Inner suburban woes extend beyond the built environment, but that’s where they begin. The essential issue — the need to be connected — will define Toronto in years ahead. It will also affect the city’s continued prosperity.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

As the gap between haves and have-nots widens, the prospect of highrise ghettoes is already upon us. The revitalization of San Romano, a ’70s residential project at Jane/Finch, shows a little investment goes a long way.

It’s not only the poor who need help — so does the city.