The history behind the creation of slums in 19th century New York City

      The following paper will explore the tenement slum situation of late 19th century New York City. Unscrupulous landowners had converted their houses into tiny apartments for rent, and then had left the poor tenants to do as they may, which led to overcrowding of the rooms as the tenants took on boarders to reduce rents they could not afford. This housing structure caused the tenement situation by creating a living environment that could have no other outcome other than the slum conditions that prevailed. The upper classes of New York City soon associated the slum tenements with their inhabitants, unable to see the larger picture of how the slum conditions began, and these associations reinforced their already preconceived racial prejudices they had formed against the newly arrived Southeastern European immigrants. The tenement slum situation was allowed to take place, and continue for the many years that it did, because the only people that had the power to change the horrid conditions were ignorant and prejudiced against the non-native born populations streaming into their city.

The Tenements

      The tenement slum houses of New York City were created in the mid to late 19th century, when the wealthier citizenry discovered that the city’s growing industries had begun to attract a mass of poor immigrants who would be in need of shelter (Riis, 1890). These wealthy landowners came up with a scheme in which they could extract exorbitant rents from their old houses once they subdivided their once spacious apartments into a multitude of smaller spaces (Riis, 1890).

      As the new tenement owners were expecting to house the poorer of New York City’s residents, the living spaces were created with little regard for the attractiveness or livability of them, whether from want of sunlight, airflow, or washing facilities (Riis, 1890). Rents were charged higher than normal for similar sized apartments, but this did not repel the poor, as the tenements became quickly known as places that were without rules or managerial supervision, and as such tenants began to subsidize their rent by sharing rooms with multiple boarders (Riis, 1890). This practice, which quickly led to overcrowding, was taken up by many families who could not afford the rents on the meager wages found throughout the city for the masses of unskilled immigrant labour (Husband & O’Loughlin, 2004).

      The poor working-classes of immigrants had little choice in their accommodations, as the city was experiencing a housing shortage that was unable to keep up with the mass of immigration flooding into New York City at the close of the nineteenth century (Claghorn, 1903). The tenements were wrung for all their worth, while the tenants were left to do as they please in the structuring of their lives inside living spacesthat lacked the facilities to provide for the hordes that would fill them far past their capacity (Riis, 1890). The tenement structures were often poorly built and investments in their upkeep were held back by their owners, all of which made for a dangerous and decrepit living environment (Riis, 1890).

      The tenements, with their often poor ventilation, often kept tenants - adults and children alike - in the streets until late at night during the summer when the rooms inside were too hot (Riis, 1895). Due to the overcrowding, lack of washing facilities, and no sanitation services, the streets and rooms of the tenements were impossible to keep clean; and because the rooms were shared by many, there was nearly always a lack of privacy, and as such men, women, and children of both sexes were forced to endure living situations that were viewed by the wealthier social classes as immodest behavior (Riis, 1895). Because of these conditions, the youth were being corrupted and families were being placed in a highly tense and unhealthy environment (Riis, 1895).

      The tenement slums were described as reeking “with incest and murder” (Riis, 1902, chapter 2, paragraph 3). There were not enough schools to provide for the countless children of the tenements, and so children were often brought to shops to work alongside their parents rather than roam the streets, a sight that further degraded the working classes in the eyes of the upper classes (Riis, 1902). New York City’s politicians’ excuse for the lack of schools was simply that tax rates must be kept in check, this despite the fact that jails seemed to have no trouble finding funds for their creation (Riis, 1902).

      The tenements were places where disease ran rampant and could not be isolated due to the masses of people who lived in such densely housed living arrangements (Huntington, 1887). The slum tenements were described as being utterly devoid of all beauty or good, a place where noble intentions were corrupted into acts of vice, a setting where even the sky was stained with the filth from the factories in which many of the tenement dwellers toiled and were situated near (Huntington, 1887).

      Huntington (1887) acknowledged that the slums contained many noble men and women who were only changed into the base creatures that pervaded the tenements because there was no room for any pure effort or thought. Any goodness of character would be corrupted and trampled by the forces of vice and decrepitude that were inescapable in the tenement environs (Huntington, 1887).

The Tenants

      Many of the immigrants who lived inside the tenements were thought to be Europeans who had little religion brought over with them, and who’s very ideas as to life were of a standard wholly below that of native born, middle-class Americans (Lubove, 1962).

      The wealthy citizens of American cities often viewed the working-class labourers from Southeastern Europe as ignorant and violent in their protests of working conditions, and that the foreign immigrants did not respect them and their rightfully earned superior material comforts (Lubove, 1962). The wealthy viewed this new immigrant working-class as being irresponsible and reckless, and that envy was the cause of their violent strikes against a higher class of citizenry that was simply more successful in their pursuits (Lubove, 1962). These rebellious immigrants wanted nothing more than to disrupt the established society in American cities (Lubove, 1962).

      It was with these sentiments that the tenements and their working-class immigrant populations were seen as belonging to an altogether separate species of human by many of the upper classes (Lubove, 1962). The citizens of the tenement slums were not simply in need of better housing the upper classes felt, but that they were in need of American middle-class morality and manners (Lubove, 1962).

      Various ethnic stereotypes were associated with the recent inflow of immigrants from Southeast Europe (Claghorn, 1903). Two of the most popular ethnicities to be associated with the slums tenements were of Italian and Jewish ancestry (Claghorn, 1903). These two groups were thought by the upper classes to be poor, of unhygienic habits, and predisposed to excessively cramped living spaces (Claghorn, 1903).  

      Even those who did not show outright prejudices held beliefs that due to the many ethnicities contained within the tenements, that no collective force could be found for the betterment of their living situations, because they could not speak in the same tongue or share the same thoughts (Huntington, 1887).

Ignorance of the Upper Class

      Through the writing of Alice Rollins (1888) we are able to see the possible attitudes and false assumptions of the wealthier classes of New York City’s citizenry in regards to the working-class immigrants housed in the tenements. One assumption made by Rollins was that residents of the slum tenements paid enough in rent that they could live in better housing, but because they were “wedded to filth and misery” the European immigrants chose to live in slum conditions (1888).    

      Rollins (1888) was unable to make the connection between her own observation that the rooms rented in slum tenements were often shared by many, up to 45 people by her count, and so the rents paid for these tenements were much lower than the advertised rents she assumed they paid. And so it is that these poor tenement dwellers would not in fact be able to afford better housing, which as Rollins (1888) also pointed out would have janitors on duty to guard against overcrowding of the apartments.

      Not all upper class native-born Americans were set against the new immigrants, thought of their situation as hopeless, or were ignorant of the situation that befell them. The problems encountered by the new immigrants were viewed by Jacob Riis as the responsibility of a country that while welcoming their labour, was unwilling to pay the costs that came with the settling the new workforce into their prosperous, growing cities (Riis, 1895). Riis believed that schools could and should be the mechanism which absorbed and helped transform the new immigrants into prosperous Americans, and that laws should prohibit absentee landlords from allowing slum conditions to come about in their tenements (Riis, 1895). By allowing the tenement problem to exist, the wealthier citizenry were part of the problem, and the responsibility to change the horrific living arrangements lied with them because they had the power to do something about it. Riis (1895) suggested that to combat the prevalence of slum conditions, new schools needed to be erected, the worst tenements should be torn down, and the current regulations during that period needed to be upheld in their intended entirety.

Conclusion

      As immigrants flooded into New York City at the closing of the 19th century, they were met with little option but to seek shelter in the masses of tenement housing that was created by unscrupulous landowners to take advantage of their vulnerable positions. The tenements were designed in such a way that no other outcome could be possible than slum conditions and moral degeneracy among the masses of people forced upon one another in a jungle of human depredation. The upper classes of society were ignorant to the entirety of the circumstances that had created the tenement slums, and had taken to advancing their preconceived racial prejudices in their associating the new immigrant populations with the slums, and that the two were inextricably linked.

Op-Ed of Canada's housing problem

      It’s no secret that Canada has a housing problem. That problem being chiefly that our country does not have enough affordable housing to provide for those in need. As time has passed those in need have grown in number, while supplies have stagnated. But this isn’t a new problem, it’s been  building for nearly 20 years. While Canada’s brightest, most informed researchers and academics have proposed solutions to the affordable housing problem, those in power have done just the opposite, slashing funding wherever they can.

      But for all their slashing, we know perfectly well that we actually end up paying more than need be. This doesn’t seem to bother our supposed penny-pinching politicians, as they seem immune to the fact that millions of dollars are wasted every year on temporary shelter ($1,932/month) for the homeless, or in other costs from their incarceration ($4,333/month), their hospitalization ($10,900/month), all adding up to an estimated $7 billion dollars wasted each and every year.  

      We already know from an abundance of strong research that permanent social housing could both save taxpayers vast amounts of money and provide the homeless with an actual chance of recovering from their relationship with poverty and becoming healthy, productive, citizens brought back into their communities’ fold once more. But none of this seems to matter, as these facts have been known for years and yet things have continued to get worse, with the waitlists for social housing climbing to record highs each passing year.

      It hasn’t mattered what political ideology has presided over control of Canada’s housing policy. Though Liberals and Conservatives are known to hold many opposing positions, when it comes to affordable housing they are united in their disregard for it. As Canada has gone from being led by Conservatives to Liberals, then back again to Conservative led governments, affordable housing policy has been united by all in that it should be reduced or eliminated wherever possible.

      Our elected government has become so bold with their dismissal of affordable housing policy that they now treat it as if the deliberations surrounding it were a mere trifle: after receiving recommendations from the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review in 2008, Canada’s government proposed to accept most of the remedial actions put forward and announced enhanced funding to back affordable housing initiatives. It didn’t take long for this daydream to end, however, as hardly a year passed before the same Harper led government slashed 97% of the funds for the building of new affordable housing, and cut 94% of funds earmarked for repairs to the current stock of affordable housing.

      Somehow we’ve allowed our government to carry out, or rather not carry out, such housing policies on our behalf, despite the fact that polls have shown that the majority of Canadians are in favour of a long-term housing plan that include increased funding for social and affordable housing, as well as focused efforts on combating homelessness. But even if the Harper led conservatives listen to our wishes and propose new affordable housing initiatives, we’ve already seen that there’s nothing we can do to hold them to their word.

      So rather than waste my time or yours, dear reader, with my recommendations for Canada’s housing policy priorities, I would instead urge you to direct your strength towards efforts to get our government to follow through with what has already been decided is the way forward for Canada’s affordable housing problem. The time for discussion is over, what we need now is action.

Industrial redevelopment of 19th century Europe and the migrants who suffered

      The following paper will argue that the industrial redevelopment of urban centers across Europe in the latter half of the 19th century led to housing shortages just when masses of rural migrants were pouring into cities. Lack of government regulation on residential housing combined with segregation by the wealthy citizens who abandoned the inner city residences for suburban homes, left the working class migrants only limited housing options which led to overcrowding and slum conditions. These processes and resulting circumstances forced the poor rural migrants streaming into these cities to endure traumatic experiences, physical hardships, and living conditions that brought a tremendous shortening to their life spans.

      Similar to Fredrick Engels’s Manchester of 1844, described in detail in his publication The Conditions of the Working-Class in England, industrialization brought masses of rural migrants into the city and crowded together into tenement housing left by the wealthier citizens who had moved west to newly built suburbs (Lees & Lees, 2007). With little government regulation, urbanization via industrialization meant an assortment of ad-hoc market forces shaping the landscape of the city, and for the working class this meant residential segregation and inequality in the living spaces available to them (Lees & Lees, 2007).

      Those who were forced to live close to their places of work in the new industrial cities faced tremendous physical hardships as they were forced to inhale pollutants from a variety of sources (Lees & Lees, 2007). The industrial plants filled their lungs with smoke, the streets teemed with bacteria from animal and human refuse, and the water from the rivers contained large quantities of chemicals dumped from the factories upstream (Lees & Lees, 2007). Because of all these factors, inhabitants of industrial cities had shortened life spans, with cities such as Glasgow showing 27 years old as an average age of death for males in 1843 (Lees & Lees, 2007).

      All across Europe in the 19th century increasing urban populations were correlated with shortening life spans of the citizenry who dwelt there (Lees & Lees, 2007). It’s imperative to note, that not all urban dwellers faced these dire circumstances, as the more wealthy citizens could afford more space in their homes and better food and water from which to sustain their health (Lees & Lees, 2007). Further, it was only the working classes that had to expose their bodies to the extreme toll wrought upon them by the industrial plants (Lees & Lees, 2007). All of this allowed for the wealthier citizenry of Europe’s cities to far outlive the working classes who toiled away their lives in the factories of the bourgeoisie (Lees & Lees, 2007).

      Beginning largely in the second half of the 19th century, the city of Paris was flooded by rural migrants looking for a job in the new industrial metropolis (Platt, 2010). This mass migration of people upon the city of Paris was met with hostility as the city was transforming into two segregated places (Platt, 2010). The inner city was being vacated by many of the well-to-do of Paris to the newly forming suburbs, leaving the poorer citizens behind who could not afford the transportation costs to commute to their workplaces within the city (Platt, 2010). The inner, older city was being remodeled by Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann and in the process housing of the poorest citizens was being razed, displacing an estimated 350,000 inhabitants (Platt, 2010). This mass reduction of housing caused a surge in rental fees which forced many poor families to the outer eastern quadrants of Paris to either share accommodations in very cramped apartments or to live in the makeshift shantytowns being erected throughout Paris (Platt, 2010).

      Along with Haussmann’s restructuring came a housing boom of slums in the form of poorly constructed lodging houses, prohibited subdivisions that lacked even basic infrastructure, and other various forms of shacks (Platt, 2010). These ill conceived and illegal structures were tucked away and out of view of the street facing façades of Haussmann’s newly reshaped Paris, and were stimulated in their growth by Louis Napoleon as he helped to steer capital into Parisian real estate as a financial asset, which helped once again to increase rents and decrease the quality of housing at the expense of the working class (Platt, 2010).

      Haussmann’s urban restructuring had later shown to reduce health risks in affluent neighborhoods, though it was later known this was mostly due to the vast improvements and implementations of a citywide sewer system, his methods nonetheless helped to freeze any discussion of the housing shortage in Paris for nearly a century (Platt, 2010).

      Disease stalked the great urbanizing industrial cities of Europe, killing both the rich and the poor, as the densely populated centers were perfect vectors for epidemics to break out and spread quickly throughout the population (Lees & Lees, 2007). But again, the poorer citizens fared worse as overcrowded rooming houses were especially hard hit from typhus, tuberculosis, and cholera during the 19th century (Lees & Lees, 2007).

      It was in the middle of the 19th century that thoughts concerning the spread of disease were associated with the moral degradation and overall filth and vice of the working class as viewed by the wealthier citizens of urban centers (Green, 1995). With such rhetoric in hand, city officials took aim at the tenement slums built up throughout the burgeoning cities and razed them to the ground, thinking these acts would keep at bay the ravages wrought by the periodic epidemics that swept through the dense cities, taking with them large portions of the city’s population (Green, 1995).

      This of course only made the situation worse for the struggling working classes as they now had even fewer choices of lodging with exceedingly more expensive rents due to decreases of supply brought about by the demolitions (Green, 1995). London, like so many other great industrial European cities during the 19th century, was no exception to this urban planning debacle (Green, 1995). Slum clearances and increasing migration of rural peasantry into London had an astounding effect on the growing densities of working class housing, which reached as high as 140 people in a single lodging house in the 1851 as recorded by a census enumerator, though typically between 50 and 100 lodgers were to be found (Green, 1995).

      The new industrial era required ever increasing transport of goods between nations into the sprawling metropolis, and so roadways needed to be widened to accommodate the efficient passage of goods (Green, 1995). In both Paris and London this caused many to have to relocate, and with no other working class residential buildings replacing them, densities would further increase (Green, 1995).

      The explosion of economic growth in London, which had drawn so many labourers from the countryside to its massive industrial workshops, was also responsible for the drop in housing stock available to the working classes as warehouses and railways were constructed over top of the least wealthy neighborhoods of London (Green, 1995). From the period of 1859 to 1867 alone 37,000 people were displaced from by the construction of railroads in London (Green, 1995).

      The construction of docks was also a major source of reduced housing stock for London’s working classes, removing thousands of homes (Green, 1995). Another factor increasing rents was a change of residential function of urban housing stock to that of office suites (Kaelble, 1986). This phenomena of urbanization, occurring in London during the 19th century, helped to subtract the already low numbers of affordable housing available to the increasing numbers of working class residents (Kaelble, 1986).             

      Throughout all the demolitions and restructuring, the residences of the poor were continually targeted in the Eastern and Southern sections of London (Green, 1995). The Northern and Western areas of London contained wealthy landowners who were able to avoid all such construction due to their powerful political connections within the governing body of the city (Green, 1995).

      Rents all over London rose as housing was demolished or converted to make way for industry’s needs, and the only new housing being constructed was on the periphery that could only be accessed by expensive transportation methods (Kaelble, 1986). Because of this the working class had to compete with ever growing multitudes from their own social class as well as those of middle class origin (Kaelble, 1986). The lack of affordable transit also helped to keep the working classes situated within the core of London, as the majority of industry was located there (Kaelble, 1986).

      In conclusion, the changing form of industrializing urban centers in Europe into vast metropolises able to manufacture goods along with the importing and exporting of inputs and finished products that came went hand in hand with such enterprises came at a great cost to the working class. The housing stock of the inner city was greatly reduced in quantity by the railroads and warehouses that destroyed many houses to free up space for their construction, by the road widening within cities that would better facilitate that transport of goods, and by the razing of the tenement working class housing accused of harbouring disease as slums by the governing upper classes. The great reduction in housing stock brought great increases in land prices and spurred the creation and renovations of the leftover housing stock into poorly built and subdivided shantytowns. This was the housing forced upon the multitudes of rural migrants streaming into the industrial European metropolises, who had to live in very dense numbers because of the high rents and limited choice of accommodations within reach of their new jobs. This mass concentration of people in such cramped living quarters became a powerful vector for disease bringing death to many from cholera, tuberculosis and typhus. The wealthy upper classes left the misery of the inner city slums to take up residence in their newly built suburban homes, and with them went any concern by the governing powers of these great cities, who left the masses of working class men, women, and children to fend for themselves.

NAFTA and its effect on Mexico's migrant population

      The following paper will argue that US policy, beginning formally in the 1990’s with the creation of NAFTA, has been instrumental in not only helping to pry Mexican migrants from their home, but also to keep them as an exploited labour pool once they arrive in the US. Historical labour demand between the two countries established the pull that guided them into the US and their businesses, with immigration policies that would help to construct the desperate migrants into a stigmatized racial group, able to be taken advantage of by the various US industries able to exploit their labour.  

      Before NAFTA was created, Mexico was in a particularly vulnerable position economically. This all started when Mexico began to see massive profits from its new oil industries, due to the spike in world market prices in the 1970’s (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). The government, with its now high credit rating, took on many loans from foreign lenders in its efforts to grow its industries (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). A few years later oil prices began to decline, and this added to Mexico’s trade imbalances and budget deficits that had been greatly increasing since the new loans were taken on (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). This caused many investors to dump their holdings of Mexican currency, which brought a dramatic devaluation to it (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). With its money now nearly worthless, Mexico’s government was unable to repay the loans it had received and from this weakened position it began discussions with the IMF, and the World Bank, among other foreign capitalists and creditors (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). These discussions led to the liberalizing of the Mexican economy and eventually into NAFTA legislation (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007).

       The consequence of liberalization was the elimination of the subsidies that had aided many small farmers, causing mass exodus from the land and in their place came mechanized, multinational agricultural corporations (González & Fernandez, 2002). Once NAFTA was in place the manufacturing scattered around Mexico was largely dismantled with only the foreign owned Maquiladoras able to work with the new policies involved (González & Fernandez, 2002). These foreign owned export-oriented factories offered reduced wages and much less stability than the past manufacturing sector in Mexico had with its unions (González & Fernandez, 2002).

      Prominent migration theorist Sassia Sasken  (1990) posits that these export manufacturing zones, controlled largely by foreign corporations, act as magnets for internal migration within periphery countries. Than once these rural migrants are working in the factories they become westernized, and further migration into the core country becomes a much more viable option (Sassen, 1990). This has been the case for Mexico’s Maquiladora region as well, as it has acted as both an initial pull variable by drawing many unemployed rural migrants to their factories, but than pushed them into the US when many were unable to sustain employment (Davila & Saenz, 1990).

      Though NAFTA and Maquildoras were indeed significant in their contributions to increased migration to the US for many unauthorized Mexicans, such migration has been happening for decades (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999). It is largely attributable to the United States’ manipulation of the Mexican economy and political sphere (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999). American employers had been joining forces with the US government to attract Mexican labour throughout the twentieth century with resulting immigration patterns that were highly predictable (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999). It was largely only in the 1980’s that the public reacted to it negatively with media and political frenzy, culminating in the restrictive policies and increased enforcement that took place during the 1990’s and onwards (Roberts, Frank, & Lozano-Ascencio, 1999).

      American employers have for a long time now realized the potential of hiring undocumented immigrants. After the end of the Bracero Program in 1964, many businesses continued to search out Mexicans to work informally within their operations (Hing, 2004). With the constant threat of deportation, employers were able to reduce wages and coerce the workers to accept dangerous tasks and burdening work schedules (Hing, 2004). This hiring trend of US employers has not waned, as landscaping, construction, food processing, agriculture, and hospitality industries continue to rely on a steady stream of undocumented Mexican migrants (Whitaker, 2009). Many contempary US employers view recent immigrants as more hardworking, compliant and dependable than native born Americans, and as such unauthorized immigrants are often seen as more favourable for new hires (Karjanen, 2008). Further, because 1990’s brought with it greater liberalization of the US economy through the flexibilization of industries, firms increasingly sought out labourers to fill the many unwanted positions in the unskilled labour market by the native born population (Latapi &́ Janssen, 2006). These positions became disliked through the ever increasing precarious terms and conditions that defined them (Latapi &́ Janssen, 2006).

      Mexico’s reliance on the US for trade and employment, with the U.S.  becoming virtually the only serious trading partner Mexico has, has caused the US government’s policies to hold great sway over Mexico’s citizens (Whitaker, 2009). This reliance, coupled with the long history of labour opportunities in the US for Mexican migrants, legal or otherwise, has made the US both a magnet for the desperate labourers of Mexico, as well as an increasingly dangerous situation once they embark on migration through the reinforcement of their shared border areas (Whitaker, 2009). The increased militarization of borders and strengthened anti-immigration policies, beginning largely in the 1990’s, has made many undocumented migrants remain in the US for fear of being detained by authorities trying to cross the border (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007). As well, the increased costs of hiring the services now necessary to shepherd migrants across the militarized border has caused many migrants to remain in the US longer than they had planned, to recoup the increasing costs of getting into the US (Fernández-Kelly & Massey, 2007).

      Now that these migrants have made a new permanent home in the US, some are forced to encounter the dangers of border crossing when deported from various new laws enacted by states (Harris, 2010). Arizona recently passed legislation that would encourage police officers to request immigration documents from anyone who appeared to be a possible “illegal” immigrant (Harris, 2010). These harsh anti-immigration laws are making it increasingly dangerous for migrants, as they face either potential death crossing the Sonora desert, or from the drug cartels, intertwined with the coyotes, which offer their services to cross through the border zones of Arizona (Harris, 2010). The “illegals” that are caught and deported back into Mexico will often take these risks as many have established lives and have families waiting for them in the US (Harris, 2010).

      While it is clear that the border and immigration policies were not effective in stopping the flow of unauthorized migrants from Mexico, they were, however, very effective in conditioning the migrants and the markets in which they sought work. These conditions have made it increasingly difficult for migrants to find common ground among those affected, in efforts to join together and have greater power through solidified numbers (Gledhill, 1998). Sassen (1990) shows that the policing of borders and accompanying policies for undocumented immigration, constructing them as criminals, is a method for states to placate the native born with the image that their jobs are safe, while providing capitalists with a steady supply of cheap, exploitable, labour.

      Even for those who obtain work legally, as part of guest worker programs, their rights are suspended and they are left in a legal limbo while they remain on US soil, allowing them to be exploited through poor treatment, wages, and dangerous work environments (Arnold, 2011). Some argue that by withholding access to the legal means of defense, whether through judicial or political pathways, it will only force people to seek illegal or underground methods, leading to potentially volatile or otherwise disruptive activities, such as the Los Angeles riots in 1992 or the many protests that occur from immigration reforms (Gomez, 2003).

      There is approximately just over 6 million undocumented Mexican labourers in the US, who make up approximately 25% of all agricultural employment, 17% of all home and office cleaning services, and 14% of all construction employment (Segal, 2008). Though the presence of Mexican migrants has been shown to put downward pressure on wages in the sectors they primarily work in, this phenomena seems to be largely contained, as most Americans are shown to be unaffected by this force (Wise, 2006). One study, documenting labourers in Los Angeles, found that nearly half of all Mexicans were earning less than $300 in weekly wages, with yearly median earnings dramatically less than any other immigrant group (Segal, 2008). The average wages obtained by migrants has been shown to be shrinking over the past few decades, and now averages US$7.20 per hour (Wise, 2006). These findings are consistent with other studies that show that throughout the US Mexicans as an immigrant group receive the lowest median wages of any such group (Wise, 2006).

      The suppression of Mexican wages is only one of the many detriments migrants face in the US.        There are now studies that point to the potential health dangers posed on second-generation immigrants, as they take on feelings ascribed them as of belonging to a lower class than other Americans (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). These feelings are from discrimination they face as they engage more thoroughly, and at younger ages, than their parents (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). The study also contends that because first generation immigrants faced discrimination as adults, they were able to better cope with it than their children (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). With time, these psychological stresses will have a negative effect on their health from the cumulative process of “othering” through the stigmatizing racial positions they are cast under (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007).

      Recent findings show that undocumented migration from Mexico into the US has come to a near halt (Cave, 2011). This is attributed to a few factors. To begin with, the overall group of possible migrants has been greatly reduced as the birth rate of Mexican women has dropped dramatically through the adoption of birth control (Cave, 2011). The increasing dangers involved in crossing the border, with the high costs and entanglement with drug cartels has also had an effect (Cave, 2011). However, it is the increased educational and employment opportunities that are suspected of playing a large part in the decreased migration pattern (Cave, 2011). The greater expansion of legal migration to the US, as well as higher acceptance rates from visa applicants is also helping to curb the need for undocumented migration (Cave, 2011).

      There are others, however, who point to a potential danger with migration that is actually happening in the opposite direction – from the US to Mexico (Cave, 2012). From 2005 to 2010, 1.4 million Mexicans migrated back to home country, 300,000 of which were American born children (Cave, 2012). The worry is that as the majority of these children say they plan on returning to the US when they reach adulthood (Cave, 2012). This is cited as a potential dilemma as schools in Mexico are said to be unprepared to handle the influx of American children into the Mexican school system (Cave, 2012). This poses a possible disadvantage for the children once they become adults and reenter the U.S. as legal citizens, as they will likely be imbued with reduced skill levels compared with that of other Americans, and will also likely encounter social problems from their cultural switch as children (Cave, 2012). The integration of these American children into Mexican culture is reported as being further exacerbated, as many are prejudiced against by both other Mexicans as well as a school system known to make the switch difficult (Cave, 2012).

Conclusion

      The US government has been instrumental, whether intentional or not, in orchestrating both the push and pull of Mexican migration with its policies and their application. NAFTA was the force that pushed Mexican migrants from their home, while the subsequent immigration policies and their various forms of implementation ensured that the migrants were kept in a state of helplessness once they were pulled into the US. These policies have time and again benefitted US businesses at the expense of exploited Mexicans, who have had little option but to seek out better livelihoods in a new country that, once reached, continues its control over them, keeping them vulnerable and divided, so as to sustain their population as an ever cheaper and submissive pool of labour. The Mexican immigrants have faced suppressed wages and poor working conditions because of the immigration policies set forth by the US government, and have been created and kept as a stigmatized racial group by the native born society in which they now find themselves, which has caused tremendous psychological strain, especially for their children who, despite being legalized through their birth, potentially bare the greatest burden. Many migrants have also faced, and continue to face, great physical risk, as their border crossing has been made extremely dangerous because of US implementations. Despite recent studies showing this migration has stopped, their clearly still remains a large population of unauthorized Mexican immigrants who continue to face exploitation and harassment because of US policies and their enforcement.

References

Arnold, K. (2011). Economic prerogative and its political consequences: The migrant labor and border industrial regimes. Constellations, 18 (3), 455-473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2011.00645.x

Cave, D. (2011, July 6). Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html?hp

Cave, D. (2012, June 18). American Children, Now Struggling to Adjust to Life in Mexico. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/world/americas/american-born-children-struggle-to-adjust-in-mexico.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Davila, A., & Saenz, R. (1990). The effect of Maquiladora employment on the monthly flow of Mexican undocumented immigration to the U.S., 1978-1982. International Migration Review, 24 (1), 96-107.

Fernández-Kelly, P., & Massey, D. S. (2007). Borders for whom? the role of NAFTA in Mexico-U.S. migration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610 (1), 98-118.

Gledhill, J. (1998). The mexican contribution to restructuring US capitalism. Critique of Anthropology, 18 (3), 279-296. doi:10.1177/0308275X9801800304

Gomez, A. (2003). Politics without borders or postmodern nationality. Latin American Perspectives, 30 (2), 274-294.

González, G. G., & Fernandez, R. (2002). Empire and the origins of twentieth-century migration from Mexico to the united states. Pacific Historical Review, 71 (1), 19-57.

Harris, P. (2010, May 2nd). Mexico's migrants gaze north – and no 'racist' law will stop them. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/02/immigration-border-illegal-racism

Hing, B. (2004). Defining America through immigration policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2004.

Karjanen, D. (2008). Gender, race, and nationality in the making of Mexican migrant labor in the United States. Latin American Perspectives, 35 (1), 51-63. doi:10.1177/0094582X07310957

Latapi, A., &́ Janssen, E. (2006). Migration, the diaspora and development: The case of Mexico. International Institute for Labour Studies, Discussion paper 167.

Roberts, B. R., Frank, R., & Lozano-Ascencio, F. (1999). Transnational migrant communities and Mexican migration to the US. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 22 (2), 238-266.

Sassen, S (1990). “The Use of Foreign Workers” in The Mobility of Labor and Capital: A Study in International Investment and Labour Flow, pp. 12-54. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Segal, U. A. (2008). Mexican migration to the United States: A focus on Missouri. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 6 (3), 451-462. doi:10.1080/15362940802371937

Viruell-Fuentes, E. A. (2007). Beyond acculturation: Immigration, discrimination, and health research among Mexicans in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 65 (7), 1524-1535.

Whitaker, J. (2009). Mexican Deaths in the Arizona Desert: The Culpability of Migrants, Humanitarian Workers, Governments, and Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (2), 365-376.

Wise, R. (2006). Migration and imperialism. Latin American Perspectives, 33 (2), 33-45. doi:10.1177/0094582X05286083

The history of Gentrification & Parkdale

       The following paper will explore the history of South Parkdale and its experience with, and establishment for, gentrification. The paper will go further and unravel the larger concepts surrounding gentrification, such as its stages and processes, explanations for its existence, as well as exploring the rhetoric and government policy that has been created for its promotion and support throughout the urban landscape.

       As of 2001, 93% of South Parkdale residents rented their accommodations, whereas the Toronto metropolitan average of the same year was only 37% (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). Further, the median household income of Parkdale was $34,491 in 2001, substantially lower than the rest of Toronto at a median of $59,502 (Whitzman & Slater, 2006).

       South Parkdale has been described as the final frontier of the Queen Street West stretch of gentrification, which has transformed the area into an artistic, cultural and social haven for Torontonians (Slater, 2004). South Parkdale remains largely unscathed from the larger impacts of gentrification experienced to the east, although you can see the beginnings already taking root with the plethora of boutiques, cafes, hipster frequented restaurants and bars, and independent art galleries springing up throughout the area (Slater, 2004).

The life of Parkdale

       In 1889 Toronto annexed the Village of Parkdale and this initiated a rapid development period for the newly christened area. The southern portion named South Parkdale became an attractive commuter suburb, with connections via the nearby railway as well as the addition of streetcars later on (Slater, 2004). Access to Lake Ontario and north to Queen Street directed the construction of street layouts (Slater, 2004). At the same time as Parkdale was being formed Toronto was experiencing an apartment boom, and many developers were anxious to build in the prestigious Parkdale area (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). By 1915 over 200 units had been built amongst 10 large apartment buildings concentrated largely along King Street and Queen Street (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). Along side streets a further 22 smaller apartment buildings had been constructed, bringing South Parkdale to hold one third of all apartment buildings in Toronto at the time (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). These apartment buildings were designed and constructed well, housing mostly sales and clerical workers, yet the media decried them as tenements akin to the slums of New York or London (Whitzman & Slater, 2006).

       In 1912, Toronto City Council voted unanimously to ban all future apartment building construction, save for a few commercial streets, after public health reports and politicians denounced these types of living spaces as the breeding grounds of poverty and social decay, and further were contagions to surrounding property values (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). This bylaw however did nothing to stop further apartment building developments, as the number of projects actually increased within a few years (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). And so, even back when South Parkdale was inhabited by a majority of businessmen, clerical workers, and other professionals, the same slum rhetoric was being used to associate multi-unit housing with social decline (Whitzman & Slater, 2006).

       Parkdale by 1941 contained 62% of its single-family housing stock as multi-family occupant dwellings, nearly double the average of Toronto at the time (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). This trend to divide single-family dwellings was propelled by the Great Depression, World War II, and the simple fact that the often large Victorian houses were very accommodating to apartment conversion (Whitzman & Slater, 2006). This influx of renters caused Parkdale’s homeownership rates to drop from 51% in 1931 to 14% in 1941 (Whitzman & Slater, 2006).

       The 1950’s brought great change to South Parkdale as planners began to regard many areas as slums that stood in the way of construction for the Gardiner Expressway, and as such proposed that ‘urban renewal’ via redevelopment was in order to ameliorate the problem (Slater, 2004). Deindustrialization had brought decay and disuse to much of the waterfront of Toronto, and so the move to build highways that would open up the city and spur foreign investment were heralded by planners as of more importance than the neighborhoods their construction may displace (Slater, 2004). By the end of the 1950’s the Gardiner Expressway effectively became a barrier between South Parkdale and the lake, demolishing over 170 houses and permanently erasing many streets from the landscape (Slater, 2004).

      The latter half of the twentieth century brought a North American wide change to its view on the care for psychiatric patients, favouring deinstitutionalization and ‘community-based care’ (Slater, 2004). Toronto was not immune to this new persuasive argument, and was pushed along by other forces such as the dismantling of the welfare state under neoliberal political change following the economic recession of the 1980s (Slater, 2004). In the late 1970s Lakeshore Provincial Psychiatric Hospital had been closed down releasing many psychiatric patients into the public (Slater, 2004). This was added to when just a few years later the Queen Street Centre for Addiction and Mental Health transitioned thousands of additional psychiatric patients into the general public (Slater, 2004).

       The psychiatric patients were not properly taken care of once reaching Parkdale, as their new neighborhoods disproportionately lacked community aftercare programs or facilities (Slater, 2004). By 1981 there were estimated to be around 1,100 discharged psychiatric patients living in South Parkdale that, even by 1985, only had thirty-nine official group homes (Slater, 2004). Group homes are traditionally designed to accommodate the needs of up to ten people; this would leave more than two thirds of the discharged patients to seek out non-supervised housing alternatives that were typically found in rooming houses, unofficial boarding homes, or in the tiny bachelorettes scattered amongst South Parkdale (Slater, 2004). With this influx of psychiatric patients in South Parkdale came the creation and stigmatization of a ‘service-dependent ghetto’ and a ‘little ghetto of misery’ by the popular media, which had they effect of mutating this disadvantaged group into a demonized minority of insane transients who’s presence made the streets unsafe for children to play in (Slater, 2004).

       South Parkdale’s past as an area of poverty and stigmatized social groups had provided low housing prices to middle-class gentrifiers in the late 1980s that sought out older, characteristic neighborhoods within the city (Whitzman & Slater, 2006).

       The 1990s brought pressure to city planners and councilmen as multiple groups of residents expressed their grievances against low-income housing within their neighborhoods (Slater, 2004). Toronto City Council acquiesced to their concerns and in 1996 put in place an interim by-law in South Parkdale against the development or conversion of rooming houses or bachelorettes until a study was conducted on the area (Slater, 2004). The city’s study eventually revealed that low-income residents with marital statuses as single were the principal agents behind the areas social problems (Slater, 2004). The city then proposed to counter this problem by enhancing the number of families to the area, thus diluting the concentrations of singles (Slater, 2004). The first part of the plan put forward in 1997 was a new zoning system, which would prohibit any new developments from dividing the total number of units per lot beyond two (Slater, 2004). The second part of the city’s plan was to investigate the rooming houses and bachelorettes in the area and to enforce stringent health and safety codes and to prosecute and demolish those deemed beyond repair (Slater, 2004).

Explaining gentrification

       Some academics have attempted to explain the gentrification movement within Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s as being the renouncement of the planned suburban landscapes created from the conformist developers of the post-war period (Slater, 2006). The retaking and redeveloping of the city was an effort to be applauded, and further that their actions were a “critical social practice” (pg. 741, Slater, 2006) of a new emerging middle-class intelligentsia that were shaping their own urban experience (Slater, 2006).

       Bridge (2001) views the new middle-class fraction that makes up gentrifiers as being more self-conscious than any bourgeoisie groups before them. These new fractions of the middle-class are very aware of the differences of habitus between themselves and those within higher or lower socio-economic groups (Bridge, 2001). They place aesthetics in very high regard, and pay particular attention to trends of consumption, whether through fashion, dining, or domestic expressions, with public visibility a must in their group’s formation of habitus (Bridge, 2001). Gentrification can be seen as a way for the new middle-class to further express their habitus, using the inner city as the template from which to construct the stage for their class distinction and identity to grow (Bridge, 2001).

       Gentrification for others is seen as an evolution of a city’s superstructure, brought about from economic shifts that have altered the human capital base from which the cities once drew from and functioned through (Redfern, 2003). With these shifts to cities often comes economic growth that, at least partially, will translate itself into the increased abilities of reinvestment in domestic property for individuals, or for cities to make increased residential spaces available from prior uses (industrial, commercial, etc.) later made redundant (Redfern, 2003).

Stages of gentrification

       Gentrification has had multiple stages in its growth throughout the twentieth century (Walks & August, 2008). Up until the end of the 1970s, gentrification had been encouraged and funded by the state through various ‘urban renewal’ schemes that razed targeted inner-city neighborhoods in efforts to unearth their property value potential (Walks & August, 2008). The 1980s saw Canadian municipalities sponsor neighbourhood improvement programs that helped to revive the appearances of inner-city neighborhoods in efforts to attract middle-class gentrifiers (Walks & August, 2008). The current stage of gentrification, ongoing since the 1990s, has been centered around the removal of tenant protections, rezoning and investment in specific districts, and encouraging social mixing, all in efforts to attract the ‘creative class’ (Walks & August, 2008).

       Gentrification changed form at the end of the 1990s as the majority of easily reinvigorated housing stock near central business districts had been converted, and now the focus of investors and developers had to move on and out to surrounding areas (Hackworth & Smith, 2001). These areas of the cities were often riskier investments, containing public housing, mixed-uses, or simply greater distance from the core (Hackworth & Smith, 2001). With such obstacles to work with, gentrification has had to seek assistance from the state to continue on with the gentrification of the city (Hackworth & Smith, 2001).

       The latest stage of gentrification has involved many parties to create the new urban spaces for the returning middle-classes (Smith, 2002). Capital from all over the world flows into investment opportunities for new developments of restaurants, retail, condominiums, and other cultural facilities that will feed the demand of the new middle-classes streaming into the recaptured urban landscape (Smith, 2002). Cities now work more concertedly than ever with private interests to spur job growth, tourism, and an ever increasing population of wealthier citizenry from whom larger taxes can be levied (Smith, 2002). As the world continues to globalize, cities must now become increasingly competitive in their efforts to attract and retain the investments of both human and monetary capital available to them (Smith, 2002).

Mixing rhetoric

       Social mixing has always been associated with gentrification, as many gentrifiers profess a want to live in more socially mixed neighborhoods, as they find it adds to the diversity of an area (Lees, 2008). Furthering this mixing rhetoric has been the government policies of many western nations over the past few years that have promoted the mixing of social classes within inner city neighborhoods as a way to expand the opportunities of the disadvantaged through increased and diversified social networks, and to provide them with positive role models (Lees, 2008).

       There appears to be a large difference between policy and reality, however. Lees’ (2008) findings show that mixing often does not take place between gentrifiers and the lower socio-economic groups who they share their neighborhoods with. Middle-class residents often form new relations through their children’s initial integration with other children in their new communities (Lees, 2008). Lees’ research found that the children of the middle-class subjects observed in her sample showed that the networks of their children remained within their same socio-economic class and further that some educational facilities used by the middle-class gentrifiers often had social class restrictions in their memberships (Lees, 2008).

       Poorer inner city neighborhoods often have public housing projects within their confines, and these have remained as some of the only affordable housing choices for the less fortunate in the ever rising rents of most cities today. However, these public housing projects have been under assault since the 1970s when famous examples such as the Pruitt-Igoe projects were made into archetypes of the failed methodology of high-rise public housing by the media and government (Heathcott, 2012). Examples like Pruitt - Igoe helped spur policy change and a move towards ‘positive’ gentrification; the replacement of public housing projects with mixed-income housing complexes (Lees, 2008). These mixed-housing schemes have displaced many public housing residents over the years, and those that remain do not often mix well with the new market rate residents (Chaskin, 2013). New York City has had a much better experience with their high-rise public housing than other states. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has been proactive in repairing and policing their public housing projects, and unlike most public housing in America, has for decades fought to maintain a balance of incomes within their buildings; this has enabled them to secure higher rents from slightly wealthier tenants to help subsidize the lower rents of the poor (Bloom, 2012). Because of this, NYCHA has not had the same concentrations of poverty found in many other public housing projects (Bloom, 2012). New York City’s public housing strategies may be a way for Toronto to secure the working classes from being pushed out of the city by gentrification, by allowing a widening of income eligibility into public housing. As of 2013, the NYCHA allows a family of four to earn up to $68,700 (NYCHA, 2013).

Experiencing South Parkdale:

{Observations recorded by the author in 2013, during the month of November}

       As you emerge from the Dufferin Street railway underpass, you get your first glimpse of Parkdale. The sidewalks are now filled with a diverse set of citizens; from hipsters and stroller-saddled mothers to what seems like every minority group Toronto has accumulated over the decades, as one of the multicultural capitals of the world. The shops seem just as diverse in their wares; cheap Vietnamese, Indian, and Tibetan restaurants mingle with hipster coffee shops and boutique clothing and vintage emporiums. Convenience stores and discount shops appear to be the highest in abundance, with a steady stream of clientele circulating in and out with their purchases. Unlike the rest of Queen Street, where every other street corner seems to be adorned with a Starbucks coffee shop, in South Parkdale there isn’t a single one in sight. Another segment removed from the area appears to be businessmen; save for the hipster or two sporting skinny black ties, business suits are a very rare sight in South Parkdale.

       As you turn south and meander down the streets between Queen and King your eye is drawn to some of the most beautiful Victorian and Edwardian houses in Toronto, some kept up better than others. Among the houses are a mixture of automobile brands from BMW and Mercedes Benz to beat up, rusting Toyotas and Pontiacs. Renovation companies hammer away at restorations to some of the homes along the tree-lined streets; tools and building materials strewn about the lawns, large dumpsters filled with debris in the driveways, with whole floors being razed or basements unearthed. Amongst the houses, which are often so large it is easy to imagine why so many are made into apartments, there are a sprinkling of low and mid-rise apartment buildings, which for the most part appear to be well kept.

       Turning onto Jameson Avenue your view becomes filled with row after row of mid-rise apartment buildings. Groups of residents congregate and socialize around the entryways, school children racing in and out of the adults, playing games and screaming with laughter. The working-class appear to make up the mixture of residents in the buildings, and there are no traces of luxury cars to be found in the adjacent parking lots.

       As you make your way onto the side streets immediately surrounding the apartment blocks of Jamieson Avenue, one’s view is met with a mixture of the common Victorian mansions of Parkdale, except now there are low-rise apartment buildings intermixed with them that appear to be run down. Residents of these buildings stand around socializing on the porches, howling, laughing, and smoking cigarettes.

       Once night falls on Queen Street, the lineups of hipsters fill the sidewalks, awaiting their entry into one of the many stylish nightclubs lining the block. At the nearby public library a group of men dressed in disheveled clothing are passing around a soda bottle filled with a suspicious dark liquid, sharing stories with each other in their attempts to keep warm from the chill of the night air.

       Walking through Parkdale is both a relaxing and entertaining experience. The overall feel is loose and authentic; the shops seem devoid of commercial marketing, and the people filling the sidewalks appear to care either very little about their dress and appearance or so greatly that it seems it must invade upon their every thought, dictating every decision or action they make. Either way, the whole of Parkdale is a refreshing glimpse of authenticity in a city where H&M uniforms seem to dominate the landscapes of the more interesting and lively neighborhoods of the city.

Conclusion

       In conclusion, the history of South Parkdale from the very beginning has had a constant mixture of residential settings, which have been contested throughout the decades as to the types of people they attract. While the more wealthy residents of South Parkdale have always protested the lower social classes intermixed within the neighborhoods from the abundance of cheap apartments, the city has been unsuccessful in its attempts to support these middle-class families’ concerns with alterations to legislation. The larger picture surrounding gentrification and its whereabouts helps us to understand both the middle-classes and the less wealthy residents of South Parkdale who are at odds with one another in their shared neighborhoods. It appears as though the only real hope for South Parkdale’s original low-income and working class populations is for government policy to act on their behalf in securing a place for them to maintain their lives within neighborhoods they have helped create. It seems as though this is unlikely, as municipal leaders are entrenched in a neoliberal market driven landscape, where every penny added to their coffers counts.