UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Resiliency in housing and transportation choices : the experiences of Filipino immigrants in Toronto Thomas, Ren 2011

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2011_fall_thomas_ren.pdf [ 5.37MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0072075.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0072075-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0072075-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0072075-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0072075-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0072075-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0072075-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

RESILIENCY IN HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION CHOICES: THE EXPERIENCES OF FILIPINO IMMIGRANTS IN TORONTO by REN THOMAS B. L. Arch., The University of Toronto, 2000 M.A. (Planning), The University of British Columbia, 2007 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Planning) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2011   Ren Thomas, 2011 ii Abstract This dissertation presents a mixed-methods case study of the housing and transportation choices of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area. Through the examination of this distinctive case, the study illustrates how structural changes in housing policy, immigration policy, transportation infrastructure, and the labour market have impacted immigrants’ choices over time. Considering the impact of immigration on housing and transportation infrastructure in Canadian municipalities, this case could have impacts on growth management policies advocating the development of sustainable communities. Many Canadian cities integrate housing and transportation infrastructure in official plans and policies. Using Census data, a Principal Components Analysis, and interviews with Filipino immigrants who arrived from the 1960s to the 2000s, the research shows that major increases in immigration, changes in the structure of the labour market, and changes in housing policy resulting in less rental and affordable housing have impacted Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. Participants’ histories in the Philippines revealed a high level of renting and transit use, which influenced their choices in Canada. The role of social networks in providing initial housing, advice on neighbourhoods and housing types, and guidance on the public transit and vehicle licensing systems was also significant. Overall, Filipino immigrants displayed considerable practicality in choosing housing types and tenures that iii met their needs. They often chose housing that was close to public transit, their workplaces, children’s schools, churches, shops and services. Their ability to weigh alternatives and costs and choose the most appropriate option for their particular situation contributed to the resiliency of this group and resulted in some sustainable choices. All of these factors have contributed to much higher rental rates and transit ridership among Filipino immigrants than other immigrant groups or non-immigrants. The resiliency strategy used by Filipino immigrants serves as a reminder that the most practical choices are often the most sustainable. In the context of precarious labour markets, economic instability, and the uncertainty of policy initiatives supporting public transit and affordable housing in Canadian municipalities, resiliency in housing and transportation choices becomes important. iv Preface This dissertation is entirely my own work, in terms of research, data analysis, and writing. To date, no part of this dissertation has been published. However, Chapter 1 was presented at the American Association of Geographers Annual Conference (2009). Chapters 3 and 4 were presented at the National Metropolis Conference (2010) and the American Collegiate Schools of Planning Annual Conference (2010). Chapter 2 was presented at the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs Conference in May 2011. This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board on November 2, 2009 (pilot interviews) and the amendment (field interviews) was approved March 6, 2010 (Certificate #H09-02032). vTable of Contents ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................................ii PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Dissertation Structure .........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Major Trends in the Literature .........................................................................................................3 1.3.1 Housing research...............................................................................................................................................4 1.3.2 Transportation research....................................................................................................................................5 1.3.3 Research and practice links between housing and transportation..................................................................8 1.4 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................................12 1.4.1 Ideas of the city: simplicity .............................................................................................................................13 1.4.2 More ideas of the city: complexity..................................................................................................................20 1.4.3 Structural changes...........................................................................................................................................22 1.5 Gaps in the Research.........................................................................................................................28 1.6 Research Questions............................................................................................................................30 CHAPTER 2  METHODOLOGY AND METHODS............................................................................................31 2.1 Methodology .......................................................................................................................................33 vi 2.1.1 Methodological Approaches in the Literature ...............................................................................................33 2.2 A Case Study Approach....................................................................................................................38 2.2.1 Choosing the case............................................................................................................................................39 2.3 Methods...............................................................................................................................................47 2.4 Reflections on the Methodology and Methods ...............................................................................54 CHAPTER 3  A DISTINCTIVE CASE: FILIPINO IMMIGRANTS IN TORONTO.....................................57 3.1 Filipino Immigrants: Distinctive Patterns......................................................................................58 3.1.1 Education, Income, and Labour Market Participation..................................................................................58 3.1.2 Housing and Transportation Trends ..............................................................................................................69 3.2 Summary.............................................................................................................................................78 CHAPTER 4  STRUCTURAL CHANGES: RESULTS FROM THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS (PCA)......................................................................................................................................................80 4.1 Research Results from the Principal Components Analysis (PCA)............................................81 4.1.1 Immigrants and Non-immigrants: 1996-2006................................................................................................81 4.1.2 Filipino Immigrants: 2006 ..............................................................................................................................89 4.2 Summary.............................................................................................................................................93 CHAPTER 5  PRACTICALITY AND RESILIENCY: INTERVIEW RESULTS...........................................95 5.1 Interview Results................................................................................................................................96 5.1.1 Education and Labour Force Participation...................................................................................................96 5.1.2 Housing Choice .............................................................................................................................................101 5.1.3 Transportation Choice ..................................................................................................................................117 5.1.4 Structural Changes........................................................................................................................................128 5.1.5 Resilience and Practicality ...........................................................................................................................135 5.2 Summary...........................................................................................................................................138 CHAPTER 6  LESSONS LEARNED FROM A DISTINCTIVE CASE: DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................................142 6.1 Answering the Research Questions ...............................................................................................146 6.1.1 Choice and Preference..................................................................................................................................146 6.1.2 Structural Changes Over Time .....................................................................................................................148 6.2 Policy Recommendations ................................................................................................................150 6.3 Future Research...............................................................................................................................155 6.4 Final Conclusions.............................................................................................................................157 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................159 APPENDIX 1: CENSUS VARIABLES.................................................................................................................172 APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................181 vii List of Tables Table 2.1 Homeownership in the ten largest ethnic origin groups in the Toronto CMA................................43 Table 2.2 Transportation mode choice in the ten largest ethnic origin groups in the Toronto CMA ............44 Table 2.3 Percentage of interview participants in each immigration period, compared to the entire population of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA ..................................................................54 Table 3.1 Industry for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA.....................................................................64 Table 3.2 Industry for all immigrants in the Toronto CMA..............................................................................65 Table 3.3 Industry for all non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA......................................................................66 Table 3.4 Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA....................................................................................................................................................75 Table 3.5 Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) for all immigrants in the Toronto CMA ........75 Table 3.6 Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) for non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA......75 Table 4.1 PCA results for immigrants, showing the transition from 1996 to 2006.........................................86 Table 4.2 PCA results for non-immigrants, showing the transition from 1996 to 2006 .................................87 Table 4.3 Comparing the proportion of the data explained by the first five factors .......................................89 Table 4.4 PCA results for Filipino immigrants in 2006 ...................................................................................92 Table A1.1 1980 Standard Industry Classification categories compared to 2002 North American Industry Classification (NAIC) categories ....................................................................................................174 viii Table A1.2 1980 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) categories compared to National Occupational Classification for Statistics (NOCS) categories ......................................................175 Table A1.3 Educational categories in the 1986 and 2006 Census ...................................................................176 ix List of Figures Figure 1.1 Toronto Census Metropolitan Area.....................................................................................................9 Figure 1.2 Housing career model........................................................................................................................17 Figure 2.1 Transit City proposed LRT lines ......................................................................................................42 Figure 2.2 Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA .........................................................................................45 Figure 3.1 Percentage of the population with Bachelors degree as their highest degree, certificate or diploma in the Toronto CMA.............................................................................................................59 Figure 3.2 Median individual income in the Toronto CMA...............................................................................60 Figure 3.3 Total individual income (95th percentile) in the Toronto CMA........................................................61 Figure 3.4 Employed population in the Toronto CMA.......................................................................................62 Figure 3.5 Unemployed population in the Toronto CMA...................................................................................62 Figure 3.6 Renting in the Toronto CMA .............................................................................................................70 Figure 3.7 Median household size in the Toronto CMA.....................................................................................71 Figure 3.8 Condominium tenure in the Toronto CMA .......................................................................................72 Figure 3.9 Immigration period in the Toronto CMA..........................................................................................73 Figure 3.10 Commute distance for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA....................................................77 Figure 3.11 Commute distance for all immigrants in the Toronto CMA.............................................................77 Figure 3.12 Commute distance for non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA...........................................................78 xFigure 4.1 Scree test for the 2006 PCA for Filipino immigrants ......................................................................82 Figure 5.1 Housing tenure of the participants..................................................................................................102 Figure 5.2 Primary and secondary transportation modes used by the participants .......................................118 xi Acknowledgements This dissertation originated four years ago in Dr. Tom Hutton’s course, PLAN 592: Structural Change and the City, during my Masters degree at the School of Community and Regional Planning. Two of my uncles, Raju Philip and K. Pappachan, allowed me to conduct interviews contrasting Indian immigration experiences in the 1970s and 1990s: the basis for the series of narratives I wrote for PLAN 592. This germ of insight into the structural changes affecting immigrants developed into a research proposal shortly after I began my doctoral degree in 2007. The first debt of gratitude, then, is to my family: the Thomases, Philips, Pappachans, and Abrahams, whose immigration stories led me to this research topic. I would also like to thank my supervisory committee. My research supervisor Dr. Penny Gurstein has supported me through both a Masters and a PhD degree and inspired me to become an academic researcher, despite her many time commitments as SCARP Director. Dr. Tom Hutton’s gentle encouragement and advice have been very useful, especially his insights into planning practice, the economic geography literature, and the interview recruitment process. Dr. Elvin Wyly’s sharp insights, encyclopedic knowledge of urban issues, and methodological expertise were essential from the very beginning of this process. Outside of my research committee, Dr. Michael Leaf, Dr. John Friedmann, and Dr.Stephanie Chang at SCARP read drafts of the research proposal and offered critical guidance. Dr.Aprodicio Laquian, professor emeritus of SCARP, was kind enough to give me advice on xii the research questions and on approaching the Filipino community in Toronto. Dr.Phil Kelly at York University shared his knowledge of the Filipino community and recruitment techniques. Metropolis researchers Dr. Robert Murdie, Dr. Larry Bourne, Dr. Sutama Ghosh, and Dr. Lucia Lo met with me in Toronto to discuss my research. Dr. Murdie allowed me to reproduce his Cities Centre map of Filipino settlement in Toronto. Dr. Carlos Teixeira encouraged me to share this research at the National Metropolis Conference. Many thanks to the community groups I worked with in recruitment (Filipino Seniors of Mississauga, Federation of Filipino Canadians of Brampton, Filipino Students Association of Toronto, Kababayan Community Centre (Toronto), Filipino Centre Toronto, First Filipino Baptist Church, and Philippine Chamber of Commerce Toronto), who were gracious and supportive of the research. This gratitude must also be extended to the individuals in the Filipino community who allowed me to record their housing and transportation histories. Financial support for the research came from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Doctoral Fellowship 2008-2011), the School of Community and Regional Planning (Graduate Entry Scholarship 2007, Amacon Beasley Award for Excellence in Urban Planning 2010, and two travel awards for fieldwork), and the Transportation Association of Canada (Provinces and Territories scholarship 2007). Undertaking a doctoral degree can be daunting at times, and it is after all a very long process. I would like to thank my fellow PhD students at SCARP for their continued support, teaching, and encouragement during these four years, in particular Janice Barry, Cornelia Sussmann, Silvia Vilches, James White, Lisi Feng, Sarah Church, and Leslie Shieh. These were by far my most insightful guides through the maze of academia. Finally, unending gratitude to my husband, Nick Doniere, for agreeing to move to rainy Vancouver, encouraging me to apply to the PhD, and supporting me unconditionally through six years of graduate school. 11 Introduction Canada’s immigration rates are among the highest in the world. In our largest cities, almost half the population is foreign-born, and growth rates are highly dependent upon immigration. It could be said, then, that planning for growth in Canadian cities is planning for immigrants. Urban planners have always been concerned with growth management: understanding and predicting how our cities will change over time impacts programs, policies, infrastructure, and natural systems. Research contributing to our knowledge of immigrants’ patterns and needs can inform municipal, regional, and provincial growth planning initiatives. This dissertation is an exploration of Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. Through the examination of this distinct case, I will illustrate how structural changes in Canadian cities have impacted immigrants’ housing and transportation choices over time. Many Canadian cities now have high rents, low rental vacancies, and high transit ridership, but lack funding for affordable housing and public transit infrastructure. Immigrants are part of a changing demographic, one that increasingly chooses affordable rental housing and public transit in the context of precarious labour markets and economic instability. During the four years of research required to produce this dissertation, we have witnessed the American mortgage crisis and the collapse of the Big Three automakers. The United States, which former President George W. Bush famously called “a nation of homeowners”, has begun to develop affordable rental housing options and protect affordable rental housing near 2transit infrastructure. In Canada, the past five years have seen three federal elections, two suspensions of parliament, and warnings from economists about the possible collapse of the housing market. With a federal affordable housing strategy still working its way through the House of Commons, and no federal transit plan, Canadian cities face increasing challenges in the development of urban infrastructure. Access to a broader variety of housing and transportation options could help Canadians become resilient to changes over time. 1.1 Introduction Current housing and transportation trends have put tremendous pressure on suburban municipalities, most of which are growing at much higher rates than inner cities. The pressure to grow outwards has resulted in sprawling, polycentric cities with long travel distances, decreased housing choice, housing and income disparities, and decreased transportation choice. For immigrants, choosing where to live and how to travel in the city has become more difficult since the 1960s: they have increasingly lower incomes than non- immigrants and struggle with employment during their initial years in Canada. Researchers have spent considerable time exploring questions of immigrant integration, including immigrants’ housing and transportation patterns in Canadian cities. Recent research goes beyond the observation of patterns as an outcome of rational choice, into the examination of policies that may be responsible for those patterns. The ambivalence of housing choice in the context of income disparity and tight housing markets has been raised (Hulchanski 2007). On the other hand, there is little research on immigrants’ transportation choices or travel patterns in Canada. While Filipino immigrants in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) show some unique patterns in housing and transportation choices, they share many similarities with other immigrant groups: difficulty finding jobs in their professions, lower incomes than the native-born population, a higher rental rate and a higher rate of commuting to work by public transit. Considering that immigration drives population growth in Canadian cities, what are the insights for planners trying to plan more sustainable cities? 31.2 Dissertation Structure The first chapter of this dissertation reviews the existing literature and outlines the theoretical framework. First, the existing research on housing trends and spatial patterns of immigrant settlement in Canadian cities is discussed. Research on immigrants’ transportation patterns is also summarized, followed by research and practice integrating housing and transportation. The theoretical framework for the study is discussed in Section 1.4, which outlines several simple theories of urban growth and change underlying research and practice. Then, more complex ideas of the city are discussed, including structural change. Gaps in the existing research are discussed in Section 1.5. Finally, the research questions outlining the case study of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA are introduced. Chapter 2 outlines the methodology for this case study and the methods that were used: a comparison of Census variables, principal components analysis (PCA) and interviewing. The following three chapters present the research results: Chapter 3 sets the context, using Census data to compare Filipino immigrants to immigrants in general and non-immigrants. Chapter 4 presents the PCA results, discussing connections between the Census variables. Chapter 5 presents the interview results, which offers insights lacking in the quantitative data. Finally, Chapter 6 brings together all of the results, presents conclusions, and makes policy recommendations. The appendices contain background information on the Census variables (Appendix 1) and the interview questions (Appendix 2). 1.3 Major Trends in the Literature As immigration has become the largest source of population growth for many Canadian cities, it has become significant for planners concerned with growth management: where will new housing be built? What type of housing should it be? How will it be served by existing and future transportation infrastructure? Immigrants make up 48 percent of the population in the Toronto CMA and 40 percent in the Vancouver CMA, the highest foreign-born metropolitan populations in the world (StatsCan, 2008). Immigration to the Prairies has increased in recent years (Carter 2010, Gurnett 2010). Smaller cites such as Halton, Laval, 4and Waterloo experience significant secondary immigration (FCM 2009). Immigrants’ housing and transportation choices affect housing forecasts, affordable housing policy, transportation demand management, and the construction of transportation infrastructure in our cities and regions. The impact of immigration upon Canadian cities has led to a growing body of research on immigrant integration in the labour market, political processes, housing and neighbourhoods. Current research on immigrants’ housing patterns suggests that housing choice may be constrained by many factors: structural changes in immigration policy, housing policy, transportation infrastructure, and the labour market; demographic shifts; social and transnational networks; housing discrimination and societal racism. 1.3.1 Housing research There is a significant body of literature examining housing patterns, homeownership, and the spatial concentration of immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canadian cities. Since the early 2000s, researchers have also become interested in immigrants’ settlement processes, including the use of social and transnational networks, immigration services, and government agencies. This growing body of research, in part enabled by federal funding through the Metropolis project on immigration and migration, has identified some trends across Canada. Most ethnocultural groups have low residential segregation rates in Canadian cities (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992, Walks and Bourne 2006, Ray and Bergeron 2006). In fact, many Canadian neighbourhoods are becoming more diverse, with a mix of ethnocultural groups rather than “ethnic enclaves” dominated by one group. Hiebert et al. (2006) indicate that the number of immigrants arriving in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver is too large to be accommodated in one neighbourhood, which partly explains the spatial dispersal of immigrants across metropolitan regions. Immigrants to smaller cities, like Winnipeg (Carter 2010), may still be able to find affordable housing in a few inner city neighbourhoods, although even this is disappearing. Many studies have shown spatial concentrations of immigrants in areas with high concentrations of affordable and rental housing (Owusu 1999, Murdie 2002, Hou and Picot 52004, Hiebert et al. 2006, Walks and Bourne 2006, Ghosh 2007, Carter 2010). It is no surprise, then, that homeownership has been decreasing among immigrants since 1981 (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992, Haan 2005). The main reasons for this shift seem to be decreased incomes among immigrants (Hiebert and Ley 2003, Hulchanski 2007, Walks 2011) and the tendency of recent immigrant cohorts to locate in the largest, most expensive cities in the country (Haan 2005). Another reason for spatial concentration is the impact of social and transnational networks (Owusu 1999, Murdie 2002, StatsCan 2005, Ghosh 2007, Teixeira 2008, Bauder and Lusis 2008). Many immigrants live with co-ethnics when they first arrive in the country and later host new arrivals, which impacts their successive housing choices. Generally, immigrants make different choices than non-immigrants, who are not as limited by income, language, the labour market, or social networks. However, Canadian research also illustrates marked differences between immigrant and ethnocultural groups. There are high homeownership rates among some groups, and high rental rates among others; some groups are concentrated in social housing (Owusu 1999, Balakrishnan and Wu 1992, Hou and Picot 2004). There are high spatial concentrations in some groups and low concentrations in others (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992, Hou and Picot 2004, Walks and Bourne 2006, Bauder and Lusis 2008, Murdie forthcoming). Some immigrants prefer to live among co-ethnics (Owusu 1999, Murdie 2002, Ghosh 2007), while others prefer mixed neighbourhoods (Teixeira 2008, Agrawal and Qadeer 2008). Some groups face more societal racism and housing market discrimination than others (Balakrishnan and Hou 1999, Murdie 2002, Darden 2004, Teixeira 2008). Some immigrants have a history of urban or high-density housing in their own countries compared to a history of rural housing, which may affect their housing choices (Murdie 2002, Teixeira 2008). 1.3.2 Transportation research In contrast to the growing body of research on immigrants’ housing patterns, few researchers have explored immigrants’ transportation patterns in Canadian cities. In his study of income disparities in the Toronto CMA, Hulchanski (2007) highlighted the increased income and homeownership along the Bloor and Yonge subway lines, one of the few areas of the region 6that has seen a decrease in the percentage of immigrant households. He also demonstrated that transit ridership was constant across the inner city, inner suburban, and outer suburban neighbourhoods in Toronto (between 31 and 34 per cent). As of 2006, 30 percent of inner city, 35 percent of inner suburban, and 34 percent of outer suburban residents in the Toronto CMA commuted to work by transit (Hulchanski 2010), indicating a stable trend in ridership across the years. Murdie (2002) mentioned the role that public transit played in housing choice for Polish and Somali immigrants. The work of Heisz and Schellenberg (2004) stands apart as the sole study focusing on immigrant public transit ridership: immigrants use public transit much more than the Canadian-born population in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. There is variation among ethnocultural groups, with Caribbean, Southeast Asian, Central and South American immigrants showing the highest transit ridership. Although there is little research in the US in this area, American researchers seem to consider high transit ridership among immigrants problematic (Blumenberg and Shiki 2006, Blumenberg 2008, Liu 2008). Among American scholars, there is a tendency to link the transportation patterns of immigrants and ethnocultural groups with “spatial mismatch” of jobs and housing (Kain 1969); this seems to be an American phenomenon due to the dominance of segregated inner city neighbourhoods (Deka 2003, Sharma 2004, Blumenberg and Shiki 2006). Immigration does not seem to have the same degree of impact on transportation systems in the US: Blumenberg and Evans (2010) reported that immigration to California is in decline. After 15 years in the country, immigrants are more likely to drive to work than the native-born population; 87 percent of immigrants in California drive to work (ITS 2007). Blumenberg and Evans (ibid) outline the need for public transit authorities to cope with decreased ridership over time, focusing transit improvements in inner city neighbourhoods that are significant ports of entry. This contrasts with Canadian researchers Heisz and Schellenberg (2004), who wrote that “projections for future transit needs could take into account that the urban population is not only growing, but also compositionally shifting towards a high-usage group…immigrants have a high-usage rate no matter now far away they live from the downtown core.” Hulchanski (2010) wrote that the segregation of the Toronto CMA by income could be 7slowed or reversed by expanding access to transit and services, and by improving the city’s supply of aging high-rise rental housing, in the inner and outer suburbs. In their essay on the impact of immigrant settlement transit patterns on public transit provision, Lo et al. (2011, 17) wrote that “transit needs to be recognized as a key ingredient for the success of the immigrant settlement process.” Unlike American cities, Canadian cities can count on stable high rates of immigration in the years to come, and it takes twenty years for immigrants’ transit ridership levels to approach the ridership levels of the native-born population. Several authors have acknowledged higher transit ridership in Canadian cities (Schimek 1996, Pucher and Buehler 2005); one-fifth of the Canadian population does not own a car (Litman 2003). Allison (1997, 32) noted some major differences between American and Canadian cities: inner city crime, racial segregation, poverty, and the presence of a federally funded freeway system which overlays most major metropolitan areas in the US all help to support a system with high suburban house prices and low inner city housing prices. Allison’s example of San Francisco, with a city-to-suburb commute flow, was the opposite of Vancouver, with high inner city house prices and affordable suburban housing. American research on immigrants’ transportation patterns, then, would seem to have little relevance to the Canadian context. As there has been so little research done in either Canada or the US on immigrants’ transportation patterns or choices, there has been little theory development in this area (US DOT 2000). Just as housing research has been biased towards the economic advantages of homeownership, transportation research has been biased towards the advantages of car ownership. In this context, American researchers often equate public transit use, particularly among immigrants and visible minorities, with poverty, segregation and low labour market participation. Immigrants to Canada may have different preferences for public transit, abilities to access transit, or spatial patterns that facilitate transit use. Considering recent policy concerns about resiliency and sustainability (e.g. Hester 2006), Canadian cases could provide insights into increased walking, cycling, and transit use among immigrant and ethnocultural groups. These cases may contribute to the growing body of research on the relationship between urban form and transportation choice (e.g. Saelens et al. 2003, Frumkin et al. 2004). 81.3.3 Research and practice links between housing and transportation While housing and transportation are traditionally studied separately, there are three distinct points of intersection between them: research on urban form, public health and transportation choice; planning policy and practice; and research on home-work patterns. Urban form, public health, and transportation choice The first housing-transportation link can be seen in the vast body of research amassed on the impacts of urban form on transportation choice in the past fifteen years (e.g. Handy 1996, Kitamura et al. 1997, Cervero and Kockelman 1997, Blumenberg 2000, Saelens et al. 2003, Frumkin et al. 2004, Joh et al. 2008). Many urban design and urban planning researchers have become concerned that the sprawling, disconnected urban form of our cities enables driving but makes it difficult to walk, cycle, or take public transit. This work addresses structural changes in transportation infrastructure and urban form as constraints to transportation choice. Neighbourhood choice (low-density neighbourhoods with disconnected street patterns versus high-density neighbourhoods with high connectivity) is a key element in this research area. Allison (1997) theorized that government policies at all levels were effectively forcing people to drive to access employment, amenities, and affordable housing in Metro Vancouver, saying the policies “are often justified in the name of preserving personal freedom.” (ibid, 3) Indeed, he found that transportation infrastructure projects, lack of clear and enforceable planning policy, and political unwillingness to challenge the status quo of car-oriented development throughout the region had clearly driven residential development outwards to suburban areas. As a response to car-oriented policies, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Smart Growth principles espoused in this area of research have begun to change land use-transportation interactions in many municipalities (e.g. FTA 1999). This has greatly contributed to the second point of intersection between housing and transportation. Planning policy and practice While the political viability of growth management measures is often debated, housing and transportation often intersect in Canadian planning policy and practice. Integration of housing and transportation can be seen at all three levels of government. 9Throughout the 1990s planners advocated more housing in downtown Vancouver to decrease suburb-to-city commuting, resulting in a considerable mode shift: bike trips have tripled, transit trips increased by 20%, and vehicle trips decreased by 10%. The City voted to double pedestrian and cycling infrastructure expenditure in June 2009 (City of Vancouver 1991, 1995, 2009). The City of Toronto Strategic Plan calls for a wider range of housing types to suit people of all income levels as well as more transportation choice. Figure 1.1. Toronto Census Metropolitan Area. The former City of Toronto is the palest grey, but the current City includes the inner suburbs of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. Image source: Author. 10 The Toronto Transit Commission has traditionally developed residential and commercial properties in conjunction with the Bloor and University subway lines. Toronto’s Official Plan designates 160 kilometers of lands along Toronto’s commercial and mixed-use transit corridors as ‘Avenues’ to accommodate future growth in housing (2006, 60). The City of Brampton’s Official Plan includes an objective “to promote the development of an efficient transportation system and land use patterns that foster strong live-work relationships and encourage an enhanced public transit modal share.” (2008, 168) Regionally, in Metro Vancouver’s Livable Region Strategic Plan the objective of increasing transportation choices has always been linked to the objectives of building more complete communities and achieving a more compact urban region. A variety of planning tools have been used, such as density bonuses, parking reductions for new developments, traffic calming measures, and requirements for developers to contribute a percentage of their profits to an affordable housing fund. Peel Region, which includes the cities of Brampton and Mississauga in the Toronto CMA, has five Livable Peel Objectives, including managing the impacts of growth (immigration, housing, infrastructure, and intensification) and achieving a sustainable land use and transportation system. Their Official Plan Review process, currently underway, includes focus areas on managing growth, transportation and a regional housing strategy. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, which includes the cities of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo, recently adopted an LRT strategy that will “shape urban form through intensification and urban development” (2011). At the mega-regional scale, a report by the Neptis Foundation (Taylor and Van Nostrand 2008) predicts that the already changing housing mix (away from single detached housing) will likely deliver higher densities for the Greater Golden Horseshoe region, while the provision of more transportation alternatives and the creation of more complete communities will be harder to accomplish in the region’s postwar suburbs. The Province of Ontario’s Places to Grow initiative (2008) encourages the establishment of twenty-five urban growth areas as centers of commercial, recreational, economic and population growth that will accommodate major transit infrastructure. 11 There are even signs of integrating housing and transportation at the federal level. In Canada, organizations like Smart Growth and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities offer grants to communities for more integrated land uses, cycling and walking infrastructure. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) launched EQuilibrium in 2009, an initiative which provides financial, technical and promotional assistance to neighbourhood development projects across the country chosen through a national competition. Community projects are evaluated on energy; land use and housing; water, waste water and stormwater; transportation; natural environment; and financial viability. In the US, the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established a Sustainable Communities Initiative in 2009 to offer grants to metropolitan areas to coordinate land use and transportation planning, promote livability and transit-oriented development. US Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood testified that increasing fuel efficiency in cars was not enough to decrease greenhouse gases: transit-accessible, mixed-use neighbourhoods will also be necessary to reduce household transportation costs, strengthen local economies, lower traffic congestion, and reduce reliance on foreign oil (US DOT 2009). Home-work research The third housing-transportation link is in economic geography, where researchers have focused on the relationship between transportation and life-cycle stages, dual-earner households, and space-time constraints (Shearmur 2006, Cristaldi 2005, Jarvis 2003, Kwan 1999, Hanson and Pratt 1988). This home-work research, as it is called, dissects the close relationship between household and workplace locations, and argues that outdated transportation models focused on work-based travel and single-income households do not help in understanding current transportation patterns. This work addresses structural changes in the labour market, demographics, and transportation infrastructure. Despite the points of intersection between housing and transportation, most research focuses either on housing or transportation: at virtually every research conference (e.g. the Association of American Geographers, the Association of American Collegiate Schools of Planning), housing and transportation are separate streams whose authors publish in separate 12 sets of academic journals. For example, research on urban form, public health and transportation choice is rarely cited in the literature on immigrants’ housing patterns. This is surprising considering that several theories integrate both housing and transportation. Canadian researchers studying immigrants’ housing patterns invariably refer to models of urban structure and urban growth, which exert a remarkable influence upon research questions, assumptions, and methodologies. These models, particularly spatial assimilation and housing career, have had a major influence upon planning policy (e.g. housing forecasts used in official community plans) and the location of housing and transportation infrastructure (e.g. single-family residential neighbourhoods, infill housing, and rapid transit lines). The theoretical framework for this study attempts to bridge housing and transportation research, integrating ideas from different disciplines. In particular, the structural change model has the potential to explain changes in immigrants’ housing and transportation choices over time. 1.4 Theoretical Framework Underscoring the three points of intersection between housing and transportation research is a substantial theoretical background linking housing and transportation. Models such as concentric growth, spatial assimilation, and housing career are mainly discussed in the literature on housing patterns (geography and sociology). Research agendas, plans, policies, and the physical forms of cities and regions have been impacted by these pervasive ideas about how cities should grow and change over time. However, the concentric growth, spatial assimilation and housing career models are relatively simplistic, and do not seem to be able to explain the housing and transportation choices of immigrants in Canadian cities. Other models may be more useful in this regard: the sectoral growth, housing trajectory, ethnic resources and community resilience models. Research on structural changes in cities seems to offer the most potential to understand and explain immigrants’ housing and transportation choices over time. Structural changes in cities are addressed in all three points of intersection between housing and transportation, making it an ideal framework to bridge these areas. 13 1.4.1 Ideas of the city: simplicity Several theories on urban growth and change have influenced research on immigrants’ housing patterns. Their impacts on planning practice can be seen in policies on the location of new housing developments, housing forecasts, residential neighbourhood design, and the locations of public transit infrastructure, roads, and highways. This section introduces the main urban growth theories used in the literature, and their applicability to a Canadian case study. Concentric growth As Murdie (1969) pointed out, the concentric spatial form was recognized in ancient cities. The first modern scholar to write about concentric patterns in cities was Charles Booth (1902), who identified several patterns in his research into life and labour in London. E.W.Burgess (1925) further developed the concentric model, arguing that socio-economic status increased towards the edges of the city. Burgess’ concentric zones, moving from city center to periphery, were the financial and office district, central retail district, wholesale and light manufacturing zone, heavy manufacturing zone, zone of workingmen’s homes, residential zone, and commuters’ zone. As a member of the Chicago School of sociology and human ecology, Burgess believed that the physical environment shaped human behaviour. Since the reform era, poverty and overcrowding had become linked to juvenile delinquency, crime, and immorality; human ecologists only added fuel to the fire by quantifying these tendencies. Booth and Burgess were instrumental in understanding the cities of their time: the “concentric city” as they knew it was sharply divided by class: both identified “lower class” neighbourhoods and areas with concentrated poverty in the center of cities closest to manufacturing districts, with “upper class” neighbourhoods farther out. The concentric city was still dependent upon rail for industrial and passenger travel, meaning that it was still fairly compact. Railways and streetcars enabled the establishment of many elite suburbs from the industrial city center. However, the impact of increased automobile use and decentralizing highways on the concentric model was noted as early as 1939 (Hoyt). In fact, Hoyt’s extensive studies and maps of American cities illustrated that variations in topography, transportation infrastructure, low- and high-rent districts created different 14 patterns in each city. Hoyt’s work is important in understanding the pockets of high-rent and low-rent neighbourhoods dispersed throughout many Canadian cities as they have taken on more polycentric forms. Canadian cities often do not have the “poor inner city/rich suburbs” spatial form: Walks’ description of Toronto has the “hole in the center of the donut” having many of the highest-income neighbourhoods in the region, with the “bread of the donut”, the inner suburbs of Scarborough, North York, and Etobicoke, having higher levels of poverty (2011, 143). Ottawa’s high-income neighbourhoods can be found close to the central business district and in the western suburbs; Vancouver’s high-income neighbourhoods are both centrally-located and at the fringes of the region. Spatial assimilation Both Burgess and Hoyt documented the spatial patterns of non-white groups in their work, which has been very influential in research on immigrants’ housing patterns. Burgess (1925) wrote that the rising socioeconomic status of a group leads to its progressive spatial assimilation. Initially, if the social distance between an incoming migrant group and the native-born population is great, the neighbourhood gradually becomes host to more migrants than native-born. The neighbourhood becomes a migrant enclave, and if immigration continues, other areas are incorporated into the enclave by succession. But over time, acculturation and socioeconomic mobility reduce the social distance between a migrant group and the majority of the population, so that the entry of a migrant group into native- born neighbourhoods no longer sparks residential succession (Massey and Bitterman 1985). This method of explaining immigrant assimilation is clearly tied to Burgess’ concentric conception of the industrial city: assimilation into the native-born neighbourhoods happened as one moved outwards towards the edges of the city, where the most desirable and expensive housing was located. Burgess assumed that immigrant groups could, and would, assimilate into North American society. However, he did not seem to view the established segregation of African Americans as contradictory to the spatial assimilation model; they were after all not an immigrant group. In the 1920s and 1930s, African Americans were still considered a separate “race”; as a result, they showed very clear patterns of segregation due to entrenched housing market 15 discrimination, poverty, and racism. The immigrant groups considered socially farthest from the native-born in 1920s Chicago would have been Chinese and Mexican immigrants, followed by Italians and Eastern Europeans (Hoyt 1939). Although these groups sometimes moved further out into better quality housing, they often remained spatially segregated in Chicago, indicating that the social distance between them and the native-born population was still substantial (incidentally, Chicago still has the third-highest segregation rate in the United States). This omission on Burgess’ part has major implications on our expectations of the model in Canada’s increasingly diverse cities. The spatial assimilation model is difficult to apply now that immigrants come from such diverse countries. Since 1967, when Canada’s Immigration Act began to allow entry to citizens of non-European countries, there has been a steady growth in immigrants who are classified as visible minorities (persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non- Caucasian in race or non-white in colour). The majority of immigrants to Canada now come from Asia. Canadian policy and Canadian society have encouraged the integration and acculturation of new immigrants, rather than their assimilation, since 1971 when the federal multiculturalism policy was adopted. As housing choice and spatial settlement research indicates, many ethnic groups remain segregated while others show a more dispersed pattern. The introduction of Family Class immigration in the 1970s likely influenced this pattern, as immigrants who had entered the country as Skilled Workers were finally allowed to sponsor family members who would presumably live near them, if not in the same household. Because Burgess’ model was developed before there was a significant influx of non-white immigrants, he could not have foreseen the difficulties in assimilation for these groups or the possible desire of immigrant groups to live in neighbourhoods with their co-ethnics. For example, sizable Jewish and Chinese populations have existed in Canada for almost a century, while the first phase of growth for the Italian population was in the 1950s. Historical attitudes towards these three immigrant groups confirm that racism and housing market discrimination prevented these groups from assimilating. Today, the most segregated ethnocultural groups in Canadian cities are Jewish, Italian, and Chinese (Walks and Bourne, 2006). Burgess assumed that assimilation into the native-born population was a natural goal 16 of immigrant groups, and would occur with socioeconomic mobility. However, all three of these groups have high levels of socioeconomic mobility, as shown by their high homeownership rates and high labour market integration across Canada (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992). Another problem with Burgess’ spatial assimilation theory is the fact that it has been simplified and adapted over the years; this simplification probably accounts for its prevalence, even in the mainstream media (e.g. Reinhart 2008, Sanders 2009, Paperny and Dhillon 2011). Postwar writers began to assume that suburbs were always elite and inner city neighbourhoods poor (Harris and Lewis 1998). In fact, Harris and Lewis’ historical analysis showed that immigrants often lived in both inner city and suburban neighbourhoods, and that there was in fact a lot of class, ethnic, and income diversity among suburbs in the pre-war era. Many researchers studying immigrants’ housing patterns use Burgess’ simplified theory, noting that it does not apply in Canadian cities (Walks and Bourne 2006, 276 and 286). Hiebert and Ley (2003, 19) questioned the desirability of spatial assimilation in Canadian cities and found significant differences while measuring the spatial assimilation of different ethnocultural groups. According to Mendez (2008), some immigrant groups spatially assimilate while others do not. Although the residential segregation of certain groups in the American context has been linked to decreased labour market participation and other inequities (e.g. Kain 1969), this does not seem to be the case in Canadian cities (Balakrishnan and Hou 1999, Ray and Bergeron 2006, Mendez 2008). Transportation implications of the spatial assimilation theory seem to be less significant in Canada (Heisz and Schellenberg 2004). The concentric and spatial assimilation models illustrate the interconnected nature of housing and transportation choice. Both models are widely used in housing research done in the geography and sociology fields, and to a lesser extent in urban planning research. Housing career The housing career model, on the other hand, is widely used in urban planning, economics, geography, and sociology research. It has perhaps influenced residential location and supply more than any other theory, particularly during the postwar years when Canada Mortgage 17 and Housing Corporation and the US Federal Housing Administration had a profound influence on urban structure and growth. The model is based upon the idealized human life cycle, which includes pre-child, childbearing, childrearing and launching, post-child and later life stages. The idea of rational choice is implicit: families choose the most appropriate type of housing for their life cycle stage. The model is linear and progressive; families are assumed to move from rental apartments in the pre-child stage towards single-family home ownership in the childrearing and launching stage, then to downsize in the post-child stage (see Figure 1.1). Figure 1.2. Housing career model. Image source: Author. In both Canada and the US, home ownership was redefined during the postwar years as more stable and socially acceptable than renting (Lands 2008). There has been a substantial public and private influence on housing policies favouring home ownership since 1938, when Canada’s first National Housing Act was passed. Since then, housing has also been considered a valuable consumer product; a strong housing market has been perceived as aiding the economy. Researchers often use the term “the ideal housing consumer” in their discussions of the model. It is believed that home ownership “plays a fundamental role in determining the social and economic well-being of families” (Haan 2005, 2191). 18 The pressure to own a home in North America is constant, encouraging many to borrow beyond their means, as seen in the 2007 US subprime mortgage crisis, ensuing home foreclosures and lingering economic recession. Canada had its version of this crisis in the early 1980s, when thousands of low-income families, who entered homeownership with the assistance of federal programs, could not manage the higher mortgage rates upon renewal (Oberlander and Mallick 1992). At the height of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Richard Florida (2008) wrote, Our reliance on single-family ownership is a product of the past 50 years—and the experiment has outlived its usefulness. Not only is it now readily apparent that not everyone should own a home, and that the mortgage system is a big part of what got us into the current financial mess, but homeownership also ties people to locations, making it harder for them to move to where the work is. Homeownership made sense when most people had one job and lived in the same city for life. But it makes less sense when people change jobs frequently and have to relocate to find new work. Instead of the massive $700-billion bailout for US banks, Florida recommended that governments encourage a shift from ownership toward flexible rental housing. Using the bailout money, banks could have bought up foreclosed houses and rented them back at an affordable rate, which would allow people to move around as their job prospects change (in fact, the Obama administration unveiled the Making Homes Affordable program in 2009, a rental model exactly as Florida had described). The mortgage crisis even prompted prominent business newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal to question the homeownership paradigm and its high costs to society (Krugman 2008, Wessel 2010). Economists have warned that Canadians’ overinvestment in housing could lead to a market collapse (e.g. Macdonald 2010, Warne and Fehr 2010). The housing career model may no longer be applicable, considering the profound demographic shifts in Canadian cities in the past few decades. Researchers have pointed out the decreasing importance of the family unit, declining household size, and growing proportions of single-person and single-parent households (Bourne 1999, Bourne and Rose 2001, Hulchanski 2007). In his study of declining homeownership among immigrants in Canadian cities, Haan (2005, 2191) argued that the concept of housing career may be 19 somewhat outdated today, as we have more diversity in life cycles (e.g. single parent families, couples without children). As entrenched as the housing career model is in housing policy, the pre- and post-child phases have been forgotten. Housing options for these phases (rental apartments, duplexes, co-operative ownership) would also serve the needs of growing demographic groups, who often have smaller household sizes and lower incomes. Immigration has also resulted in a considerable demographic shift in Canadian cities, replacing natural population growth. The number of immigrants entering the country increased from about 85,000 per year in the late 1980s to over 200,000 per year (Bourne and Rose, 2001). As a result of increased immigration rates and decreased natural population growth, 2.3 million of Toronto’s 5.0 million are immigrants (StatsCan 2009). As Bourne (1999) pointed out, increased immigration has occurred at the same time as increased out- migration of native-born Canadians. These demographic shifts have had a major impact on housing choice in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver (Murdie 2008, Hiebert et al. 2006) and even smaller cities such as Kelowna (Teixeira 2009). Gentrification and the increase in single-person, single-parent, and dual- income households without children, have led to increased competition for centrally located housing. Hou and Picot (2004), while indicating their acceptance of the housing career model, wrote that new immigrants could be restricted to poor neighbourhoods with affordable housing that becomes available as native-born families move to the next lifecycle stage. Murdie et al. (1999, 12) discussed the “reality that many households do not assumed a predefined path in their housing career.” Younger households, single-person households and immigrant households depend heavily upon affordable rental housing despite their life cycle stages (City of Toronto 2006b, 23). Rental apartments are still highly-valued: residents of high-rise towers in Toronto consider their neighbourhoods good places to live and good places to raise children, and the high-rise population is considered stable (United Way 2011). Despite the challenges in applying the concentric, spatial assimilation, and housing career models to postwar, post-industrial Canadian cities, their simplicity has endured in urban thought, research, and policy making. For example, all three of these theories imply the societal goal of homeownership. As Allison (1997) noted, municipal and regional policy has 20 been instrumental in creating and sustaining the sprawling, car-oriented cities we see today: lower property taxes on suburban single-family housing, “free” parking provision in suburban developments, and a higher proportion of municipal budgets devoted to road infrastructure versus public transit infrastructure, among many others. The housing career model is often implicit in transportation policy and infrastructure investments favouring suburban commuters, although it is rarely discussed in transportation research. 1.4.2 More ideas of the city: complexity The concentric, spatial assimilation and housing career models have had a major impact on policy and research in the postwar era. They illustrate the interdependence between housing and transportation. However, these theories seem to have less relevance in the Canadian context; they seem too simple to explain immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. The sectoral growth, housing trajectory, “ethnic resources”, and community resiliency theories all acknowledge barriers to immigrants’ housing and transportation choices that likely lead to different patterns among groups. Sectoral growth Hoyt (1939) showed that the unique topography and transportation of each city, its rate of growth, social and class composition created patterns of land use particular to each city. He also strongly linked urban growth to main roads and railway lines, finding that over time, high-rent areas moved outwards from the city center in a sectoral pattern along the fastest transportation lines, towards higher ground that was safe from flooding, non-industrial waterfronts, and the residences of city leaders. Hoyt’s exhaustive study of 134 American cities led to the development of his theory: that cities grow sectorally. Many earlier studies done in Toronto confirmed that immigrants’ housing choices were limited by the persistence of high-rent neighbourhoods in the inner city and increased by access to subway and streetcar lines, showing sectoral change over time (Murdie 1969, Johnson 1970, Knight and Trygg 1977, Maher 1974). Hoyt’s work thoroughly integrated housing and transportation infrastructure, and has been very influential in the field of geography. 21 Housing trajectory Another theory used in geography research is housing trajectory, which includes life cycle stages as well as other factors such as occupation, income, and ethnocultural background (Murdie et al. 1999). These factors intersect with each other over time and differentially affect patterns of housing consumption. Murdie (2002) and Teixeira (2008) have begun to use the concept of housing trajectory to explain immigrants’ successive housing choices, rather than the housing career model used in official documents such as the Toronto Official Plan (2006, 4). The model is much more complex because it acknowledges institutional arrangements and processes of differential incorporation; Murdie et al. (1999) articulate the many barriers immigrants face in accessing housing. Rather than progressing along a linear path, a household may move in any direction—sideways, or even backwards—depending on housing characteristics, preferences and resources (such as language fluency and income), filters in the housing search process (housing agencies and landlords), the search process itself, and outcomes of the search process. Ethnic resources and community resiliency Rather than focusing on policy that impacts choices over time, some researchers focus on the cultural preferences and needs of immigrant groups that may impact spatial patterns. Walks and Bourne (2006, 286) speculated that the concentration of visible minority neighbourhoods “is the end result of a cultural strategy of ethnic community formation.” They are by no means alone in this assertion: the “ethnic resources” theory goes back at least as far as Hoyt (1939). Balakrishnan and Wu (1999), Hou and Picot (2004), and Darden (2004) suggested that concentrated homeownership patterns could be a response to racism or deprivation in social status. Others suggest there are positive aspects to living in close proximity to co- ethnics, such as cultural and language retention, social and financial support (Peach 1996, Ley and Germain 2000, Siemiatycki et al. 2001). Ungar (2008) defines community resiliency as a community’s social capital, physical infrastructure, and culturally embedded patterns of interdependence that give it the potential to recover from dramatic change, sustain its adaptability and support new growth that integrates the lessons learned during a time of crisis. His research into youth resilience 22 determined that community and individual factors in developing resilience differ among cultures. Michèle Lamont, a sociologist studying responses to racism and discrimination, suggests that members of specific ethnocultural groups take on ideals of the surrounding society in order to claim full and equal membership. In particular, her work on the adoption of Neoliberal values (e.g. consumption, acquiring higher education, emphasizing self- reliance and hard work) by groups such as African Americans (Lamont and Molnar 2001) may be relevant to this case study. Many groups also retain the desire to express tastes or characteristics slightly different from the norm, such as being a caring society (Hall and Lamont forthcoming). Both of these responses contribute to the group’s social resilience. This sociology research on resilience complements the more urban form-focused resilient cities literature (e.g. Picket et al. 2004, Hester 2006) and Florida’s (2008) assertion that flexibility in housing choice can lead to increased economic resilience. The sectoral growth, housing trajectory, ethnic resources and community resiliency models acknowledge differences that may lead to variation among immigrant groups: the ability to access housing in high-rent areas, compete for housing, and draw upon community resources. For these reasons, they seem to be more applicable to the Canadian context, where there is significant variation in housing and transportation patterns among immigrant groups. Of these four models, only the sectoral growth model explains how immigrants’ choices could change over time. Research on the structural changes in cities over time offers the most complete understanding of immigrants’ changing housing and transportation choices. 1.4.3 Structural changes Research examining structural changes in cities (Friedmann 1986, Harris 1997, Ley and Smith 2000, Hutton 2006, and Walks 2011) is mainly found in economic geography. Their discussion of the larger structural forces shaping the social geography of our cities offers considerable insights for a study of immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. A major strength of the structural change theory is its ability to integrate the disparate areas of housing and transportation research (geography, sociology, urban planning, urban design). Structural changes in the labour market, housing policy, and transportation policy have been discussed in all three points of intersection between housing and transportation: urban form, 23 public health and transportation choices; planning policy and practice; and the home-work research. While choices are always constrained by economy and practicality (Alonso 1970), structural changes have impacted the social and spatial geography of Canadian cities. This dissertation focuses on structural changes in four areas: immigration policy, the labour market, housing policy and transportation infrastructure. Immigration policy Canadian immigration policy has shifted significantly in recent decades, with the amendment to allow entry to citizens of non-European countries as skilled workers (1967); the introduction of family reunification (1976); limiting immigration to occupations with the need for workers (1986); the stabilization at very high levels (over 200,000 new immigrants per year) favouring immigrants with university educations and significant work experience (Darden 2004, Hiebert and Ley 2003); and the introduction of temporary workers (2003). There has been a gradual shift towards polarization in Canadian immigration policy: on one end, temporary and low-paid workers with few rights to citizenship, and on the other high- income individuals with full rights to permanent residency. The Live-in Caregiver Program, which began in 1992 and has undergone several modifications, replaced the earlier Foreign Domestic Worker Movement. During the 1990s, a high percentage of those who entered the country under the LCP were Filipino women (del Rio Laquian and Laquian 2008, Kelly et al. 2009). Immigrants entering under the LCP are required to complete two years of living with their employer within four years before they are able to apply for permanent residency; Canada is the only country in the world to offer permanent residency to caregivers. A federal program to approve low-skilled workers to Canada began in 2003; these temporary workers are granted temporary residence in Canada for a maximum of one year. Many authors have criticized the recent policy shift towards temporary workers, since permit holders are not eligible to become permanent residents, and later citizens (Goldring 2010, Siemiatycki 2010). Over 200,000 temporary workers enter the country each year. On the other end of the spectrum are highly-skilled and wealthy immigrants. The Entrepreneur and Economic Classes are for individuals with significant assets to settle in Canada with the intent of starting their own businesses (Ley’s  “millionaire migrants”, 2010). 24 Applications to these immigration categories are fast-tracked. Provincial Nominee Programs began in the early 2000s, allowing provinces to nominate immigrants with specific skills to apply for immigration to Canada. Each province decides which of its industries are most in need of workers; in some provinces there has been an emphasis on highly-skilled workers in industries such as oil and gas extraction, while in others the needs are greater in industries such as hotel and tourism or food processing. Recent immigrants are more likely to come from Asian countries, and more likely to settle in Canada’s largest cities, than previous cohorts (Murdie 2008, Haan 2005, Hiebert et al. 2006). Following secondary migration patterns, many immigrants relocate to smaller cities, particularly those with high education levels who came to Canada as skilled workers (FCM 2009). For example, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo) receives a significant number of immigrants annually and has begun to integrate immigrants’ needs into growth management policies. Knowledge of immigration policy shifts is widespread; in a country with such high immigration rates, reports of these changes appear regularly in the popular press (e.g. Lee-Young 2010, Friesen 2011). The labour market The labour market has changed dramatically, changing expectations for newer cohorts of immigrants. The employment structure of the Toronto CMA changed radically after 1966, with a major decline in manufacturing and, during the 1980s, a steady rise in service sector employment, as well as part-time and temporary jobs in all occupational categories (Li 1998, Darden 2004, Hulchanski 2007). A recent article in the Globe and Mail (Paperny 2010) stated that the food processing sector in Toronto was now larger than the manufacturing sector; the Toronto region’s food processing sector is North America’s second-largest cluster. While Toronto still has a substantial manufacturing sector, its decrease in significance over time has occurred at the same time as an increase in finance, insurance, real estate, creative and technical jobs (Hutton 2004, Bourne et al. 2011), contributing to an increasingly skilled workforce in the city center and a rapid increase in luxury condominiums and high-rent apartments catering to a more wealthy and skilled population. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, 25 Calgary, and Ottawa, have emerged as second-tier “global cities” with high immigration levels, international trade connections and concentrations of specific industries (Walks 2011). Some Canadian researchers describe the postindustrial labour market as precarious: the new part-time, short-term and insecure jobs deviate from the Fordist norm of relatively secure, year-round, and often unionized employment (Peck and Theodore 2010). Canadian cities, due to high levels of foreign ownership, dependence on trade, and “creeping neo-liberalism across all Canadian jurisdictions” (Walks 2011, 127) are vulnerable to economic shocks. These authors expose the growing polarization and insecurity in the labour market, regardless of industry or occupational sector. Income disparities between immigrants and non- immigrants have increased and immigrants are more likely to remain in the low-income bracket (Walks ibid, Hulchanski 2007, Picot et al. 2007). Skilled worker class immigrants are more likely to be low-income than family-class immigrants, likely due to problems with economic recessions and problems having foreign credentials recognized in Canada. Housing policy Canadian housing policy has shifted significantly, favouring homeownership at the expense of rental housing from the 1930s to the present day (Hulchanski 2007b). Increasing access to homeownership has long been a goal of the federal government (Oberlander and Mallick 1992), despite numerous assertions that they did not want to get involved in housing provision (Hulchanski 1999) and numerous recommendations that they support a range of housing types and tenures (Special Committee Report 1935, Curtis Report 1943, Economic Council of Canada 4th Annual Review 1967, Lithwick Report 1970). Virtually every housing policy from 1938 to the present day has funded owner-occupied housing rather than rental housing. Exceptions were the 1949 National Housing Act amendments allowing the construction of public housing, and a few innovative, temporary policies introduced in the 1970s to combat historically high interest rates and high housing prices. The feasibility of building rental housing in Canada decreased drastically after changes in the Income Tax Act (1971) and the passage of provincial condominium acts in the 1970s, making rental housing less profitable to build; landlords also faced a 50% capital gains tax on rental resales. In 1984, the newly-elected Conservative government made sweeping cuts to social housing 26 programs and discontinued the Canada Rental Supply Plan, while protecting homeowner programs. The federal government transferred administration of federal housing programs to provinces and territories (1996) without providing appropriate funding; and rent review, instituted in 1975 in the Province of Ontario, was lifted in the late 1990s (Darden 2004, 27). This policy imbalance has greatly increased homeownership in Canadian cities at the expense of affordable rental housing; that is, the choice between owning and renting is no longer equal. Currently, two-thirds of the Canadian population lives in homes purchased in the private market, and only 5 percent lives in non-market social housing. A staggering 94 percent of housing starts from 2005-2010 in 22 Ontario communities were in the ownership market (ONPHA and COHFC 2010). The City of Toronto suffered a decrease in rental units from 1996-2006, the same period that saw record high numbers of immigrants entering the city, in part due to rental conversions. Some 19,000 units in Ontario were lost to rental conversions from 2005-2010 (ONPHA and COHFC 2010). Ninety percent of private rental buildings in Toronto were built before 1975 (2006b, 13); this housing stock is now entering its fifth decade of use (E.R.A. Architects et al. 2010). The City reports that housing choice is limited by supply (2006c, 26). Municipalities and regions are also concerned about the growing income gap between renters and owners. Homeowners have, on average, about double the income of renter households, yet they spend only 18 percent of their income on housing compared to 28 percent for renters (Hulchanski, 2007b). The vast majority of recent immigrants, who arrived in Canada less than two years ago, live in rental housing: 88 percent of recent immigrants in Montreal, 73 percent in Toronto, and 74 percent in Vancouver. Hiebert et al. (2006) and Murdie (2008) argue that high rents push immigrants into homeownership. This issue is not limited to Canada’s largest cities: Winnipeg (Carter 2010), Edmonton (Gurnett 2010) and Kelowna (Teixeira 2009) are among the many municipalities that have become unaffordable for immigrant renters. In 2009, the United Nations declared that Canada had a housing crisis. Legislation to support affordable housing (Bill C-304: Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians) was scheduled to reach third-reading stage in the House of 27 Commons in 2011. The bill, if it is passed in the Senate, will legislate the creation of a national housing strategy, enable all three levels of government to outline goals and principles for implementation, and ensure that a variety of housing types are constructed. Transportation policy and infrastructure Canada’s lack of a national affordable housing strategy is matched by the absence of a federal transit plan, or indeed a federal transportation plan. Federal transportation policy has nonetheless supported road and highway construction over public transit from the 1960s to the present day. Unlike the United States, which ended unfair bias against public transit funding with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998), policy in Canada does not stipulate the percentage of funding designated to road versus transit infrastructure projects. Toronto may in fact be the one city in Canada that managed to preserve transportation choice despite the construction of several highways in the 1970s. This is largely due to its construction of the Bloor and Yonge subway lines (1954 and 1963), the establishment of GO Train, the country’s first commuter rail service (1967), and the landmark decision to preserve its streetcar system (1972). In the absence of federal legislation, political fragmentation has been a crucial element in transportation infrastructure decisions in Canadian cities. Each project must be individually approved by the upper levels of government, and each depends upon the will of the current administration. Many Canadian municipalities now acknowledge the importance of public transit, walking, and cycling infrastructure, but lack a steady source of funding for implementation. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, for example, approved an LRT plan in 2009 and has an agreement for funding from the provincial and federal governments. The City of Edmonton is currently expanding its LRT platforms to meet high transit ridership. Major international events, which appeal to upper levels of government, have consistently served as catalysts for transit infrastructure in Canadian cities: Montreal’s Metro opened for Expo 67, Calgary’s LRT for the 1988 Winter Olympics, Vancouver’s Expo Line for Expo 86 and its Canada Line for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Despite inconsistent infrastructure funding from the provincial and federal governments, many municipal transit systems have maintained strong ridership growth since the late 1990s. 28 Universal transit pass (U-Pass) programs for students, which exist in many cities including Edmonton, Vancouver, and Windsor, also contributed to steady ridership growth in the 2000s. Structural changes in immigration policy, housing policy, transportation infrastructure, and the labour market can be seen as crucial elements in housing and transportation choice. They are well-established in the fields of sociology, social work, and geography as influencing housing choices: they have led to smaller household sizes, increased competition for scarce rental units in inner city neighbourhoods, gentrification, and a more educated labour force supported by high-end service sector employment. These structural changes have helped sustain the cities we know today: postwar cities with biases towards homeownership, car ownership, and an increasingly polarized labour market. In many Canadian cities, increased immigration, decreased natural population growth, and the increase of smaller household types have placed additional demands on urban and suburban neighbourhoods, and on transportation systems. These changes have made it more difficult for immigrants to choose rental housing over homeownership, to choose inner city neighbourhoods over suburban, and to choose public transit over car ownership. 1.5 Gaps in the Research Given the strong research and practical links between housing and transportation, there is a need for studies linking housing choice and transportation choice. A theoretical base that bridges the disciplines (sociology, geography, planning, urban design) would be useful as an analytical frame. Structural changes in immigration policy, transportation infrastructure, demographics, and the labour market are examined in sociology and geography research. They also impact planning policy and practice. A study using the theory of structural change has the opportunity, then, to bridge some of the dominant discourse in sociology, geography, urban design and planning. While many researchers have mentioned structural changes as factors in housing choice, studies documenting the changes in immigrants’ housing patterns over time do not evaluate comprehensive structural changes in cities as a major factor in housing choice, and transportation choice is largely left out of this discourse (Haan 2005, 29 Murdie et al. 1999, Hiebert et al. 2006, Hulchanski 2007, Murdie 2008). A case study of successive cohorts of Filipino immigrants to the Toronto CMA would help us understand how immigrants’ housing and transportation choices have been affected by structural changes over time. Despite the significant body of work on immigrants’ housing patterns in Canadian cities, there are still many gaps in the research. We do not know much about how immigrants make their housing choices because until recently, researchers did not employ qualitative methods such as interviewing immigrants (e.g. Owusu 1999, Murdie 2002, Ghosh 2007, Teixeira 2008). For example, how does choice differ from preference in immigrants’ housing patterns? Do observed differences in spatial concentration and homeownership, for example, indicate different choices (as a result of measured deliberation of alternatives) or different preferences among immigrants? How does this affect housing forecasts and provision in municipalities and regions? Does co-housing among immigrants lead to particular transportation patterns, such as carpooling? Do immigrants’ social and transnational networks limit their housing choices by encouraging spatial concentration? There is so little research done on immigrants’ transportation patterns that there is a wealth of research opportunities in this area. Why do immigrants choose to use public transit? Do immigrants, with lower incomes and higher rental rates than non-immigrants, live in areas with more public transit access? Are they able to do so, considering the gentrified inner city neighbourhoods in some large Canadian cities? How transit-accessible is affordable housing in Canadian cities? Does spatial mismatch apply in Canadian cities? Is there a link between public transit use and labour market participation among immigrants? Does societal racism either encourage or discourage transit use? Do immigrants understand the trade-offs between affordable housing and affordable transportation? Does using public transit help new immigrants adapt to life in Canada, enhancing their language skills and exposing them to a variety of people? 30 1.6 Research Questions Housing choice and transportation choice are intricately linked: one choice has implications on the other. These choices are particularly evident in groups whose choices are constrained by economic and structural factors. Choice in this context is defined as the act or opportunity of choosing, and not preference, which is defined as a choice guided by one’s judgement or predilections (Merriam-Webster). Choice implies the power, right, or liberty to choose, as well as care in choosing. One may prefer to walk to work every day, but be unable to choose to live within walking distance; one may choose to rent an apartment against one’s preference towards homeownership. Choice implies a decision-making process; preference is an inclination that may or may not be realistic. The interrelationship, but distinction, between choice and preference is often ignored in literature on homeownership and transportation choice; in the popular press, the two terms are often confused. For example, Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Reinhart (2008) asserted that “new immigrants prefer suburbs to living in core neighbourhoods” despite the fact that the study he reviewed (Murdie 2008) made no such claim. The following research questions will be addressed in the dissertation: • Have structural changes in immigration policy, housing policy, the labour market, demographics, and transportation infrastructure from the 1960s to the 2000s played a major role in shaping immigrants’ housing and transportation choices? • How do these choices differ among immigrant cohorts? In particular, the dissertation will focus on a case study of the Filipino community in Toronto and address the question: • How do Filipino immigrants make housing and transportation choices in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)? The following chapter will discuss the research methodology and the specific methods that were used to answer them. 31 2 Methodology and Methods Immigrants’ housing and transportation choices affect housing forecasts, affordable housing policy, and transportation demand management in our cities and regions. The methodological approaches used to study immigrants’ choices are critical in several ways: in the definition of the research questions, the use of primary and secondary data, the definition of the ethnocultural group(s), and the researcher’s distance from the subject. As planners, we should be interested in the decision-making process (how and why people make their housing/transportation choices) as well as the final outcome (what housing/transportation choices they make, reflected in studies such as the Census or ridership surveys conducted by metropolitan transportation authorities). Planners are often interested in the policies that impact choice. If for example we find that immigrants are being pushed into homeownership by the scarcity of rental housing, rather than the desire to own housing, we can contribute to the policy development on the need for affordable housing (e.g. Hulchanski 2007b, Hiebert et al. 2006). This finding would also have theoretical implications, as the dominant theories suggest homeownership and car ownership are desired societal goals that warrant policy support. If we find that public transit is a highly desirable mode of transportation for immigrants, rather than merely the most affordable choice for a temporary period of time, the finding would challenge the prevailing notion that people buy 32 cars as soon as they can afford to. This would in turn impact public transit provision, as Heisz and Schellenberg (2004) suggest. In this mixed-methods case study, the research questions focus on how Filipino immigrants are making housing and transportation choices, and whether structural changes are influencing these choices. The complexity of the research questions, their focus on the how and why, makes a mixed-methods case study appropriate. Exploring these questions requires the use of several data sources: statistics on the trends over time cannot answer all the questions (they only tell us what is happening, although they may suggest the reasons why). Primary data is necessary to examine the decision-making process and the issue of structural change, neither of which is represented in secondary data such as the Census. The role of the researcher therefore varies from objectively distant (studying patterns using the Census data) to close contact with the community (individual interviews with Filipino immigrants). Mixed-methods case studies often use qualitative and quantitative data as parts of a whole, each piece contributing a piece of the puzzle. Case studies are common in urban planning, and also in geography and sociology, where much of the research on immigrants’ housing and transportation patterns has been conducted. This chapter outlines the reasons behind the study methodology and methods. Section 2.1 discusses methodological approaches used in the literature, and the recent shift that has taken place in studies on immigrants’ housing patterns, settlement, and integration. This section details the reasons for the mixed-methods approach in the dissertation research. Section 2.2 details the choice of Filipinos in the Toronto CMA as an ideal case. Section 2.3 provides details on the research methods. It outlines the basic data comparison, which helped to set the research context and identify the major trends in housing and transportation choice in the Census data. Principal components analysis is explained: its role in determining the relationship between the Census variables, and whether structural changes seemed to be influencing housing and transportation choices. The recruitment and interviewing procedures are then explained. The interviews were the key to unraveling the contradictions between choice and preference, and in revealing Filipino immigrants’ resiliency and practicality. Reflections on the methodological approach conclude this chapter. 33 2.1 Methodology Methodological approaches have been critical in shaping the research questions, the data used, the research findings and policy implications in both housing and transportation research. This seems self-explanatory, but merits further discussion. The dominance of quantitative methods in both topic areas until the 1990s has produced results that at one time may have satisfied the prevalent models of concentric growth, spatial assimilation, and housing career. Mixed methods approaches have become more prevalent as the perceived validity of qualitative methods has increased, researcher-subject distance has decreased, and aggregate patterns have begun to break down. 2.1.1 Methodological Approaches in the Literature Many studies on immigrants’ housing patterns in Canadian cities (e.g. Balakrishnan and Wu 1992, Haan 2005, Walks and Bourne 2006) have explored Census data using quantitative methods: index of dissimilarity, index of segregation, factor analysis, and regression analysis. These quantitative methodologies, commonly framed within geography and sociology research, have contributed to the prevailing models of urban growth and change. They often place immigrants within a larger framework of spatial assimilation, policy-supported home ownership and car ownership. The assumption was that immigrants’ housing and transportation patterns, even if they were initially different, would “assimilate” to the norms of the white North American population over several decades. In the majority of this research, the focus is economic: factors that may be preventing immigrants from achieving higher homeownership levels, assimilating spatially into “better” neighbourhoods and, interestingly, living and working among the native-born population. In the past decade, Canadian researchers have raised considerable alarm that immigrants are not “assimilating” in the assumed patterns, instead showing patterns quite different from those seen in the Canadian-born population. The concern is that spatial concentration of immigrants, or members of specific ethnocultural groups, can be connected to entrenched poverty, ghettoes and labour market segregation. These concerns continue to be raised, particularly in the media, despite Walks and Bourne’s (2006) assertion that we do not have 34 ghettoes in Canadian cities. Substantial evidence also shows that while some residential segregation exists, occupational segregation is decreasing (e.g. Balakrishnan and Hou 1999, Ray and Bergeron 2006). Researchers continue to explore these issues using quantitative methods, but a new trend in housing research goes further in explaining some of the spatial patterns. There has often been speculation on “cultural” characteristics that may have contributed to different housing patterns (e.g. Balakrishnan and Wu 1992), but these aspects were not usually considered central to the research questions. Immigrants’ choices were not explored through surveys, interviews or focus groups until quite recently; rather, housing and transportation choices, as recorded in the Census, were presumed to reflect preferences. Since the research was primarily done using Census data, it did not directly involve the subjects in question; the researcher had no interaction with the immigrant communit(ies) they studied, maintaining objective distance. Since the late 1990s, emerging research on housing choice and immigrant settlement has taken a different approach in the focus of research questions, the data sources used, the choice of ethnocultural group, and researcher-subject distance. The focus of research questions Many recent studies on immigrants’ housing patterns (e.g. Owusu 1999, Ghosh 2007, Walton-Roberts 2007, Teixeira 2008) have focused on the sociocultural factors in immigrant integration and settlement. The concern has shifted from the markers of integration (most notably homeownership) to the realities of social and political integration of newcomers in Canadian society. The general methodological approach has been to use Census data to frame observations of a particular ethnocultural group with simple data comparisons, then to use a qualitative method to further explore issues of immigrant settlement. In these studies the qualitative data have been particularly useful in identifying some of the non-economic factors at play in immigrants’ housing decisions, such as sociocultural networks and housing history, which are not readily accessible using Census data. These studies also start to tease out the difference between choice and preference: Census data is no longer taken as proof of preference. Mason (2006) would call this a “qualitatively driven” mixed methods approach, 35 while Bryman (2006) would call this “expansion”: the extension of the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components. The methodological approach is theoretically significant: the decision to collect primary data using interviewing or focus groups rather than using secondary data has allowed the insertion of immigrant voices into this research arena. This approach has integrated quantitative and qualitative methods and broadened the debate beyond economic factors. Disaggregation and data sources Disaggregation of observable patterns has also been a key objective of recent research. Earlier studies focused on large aggregate groups (e.g. “Asian”, as defined by Statistics Canada) partly due to their large sample sizes and the importance of these major groups in Canadian municipalities. The sample sizes were sufficient to attempt statistical generalization of the immigrant experience, albeit unsuccessfully. In more recent studies the focus has moved to smaller groups defined by members of ethnocultural groups themselves. For example, both Owusu (1999) and Ghosh (2007) set out to study specific ethnocultural groups: Owusu studied Ghanaian immigrants, who would have fallen under the aggregation “Black” along with other African and Caribbean groups, while Ghosh studied Bengalis and Bangladeshis, both of whom are defined as “South Asian” in the Census. In the rationale for his study, Owusu pointed out that disaggregating the larger groups “recognizes that immigrants of different backgrounds may have different life paths in the receiving society.” (ibid, 79) These and other recent studies have gone a long way towards proving that there is no “one size fits all” explanation for immigrants’ housing patterns. There are marked differences between ethnocultural groups, including voluntary spatial concentration and concentration due to the spatial location of affordable housing (Ley and Smith 2000, Siemiatycki et al. 2001, Hiebert et al. 2006, Ray and Bergeron 2006, Carter 2010). Variation among ethnocultural groups seems to hold true for transportation choice as well (Heisz and Schellenberg 2004). The role of the researcher As the research has shifted towards mixed methods approaches of smaller groups, the role of the researcher has changed. This is partly due to the need to gather primary data to answer 36 questions that cannot be answered using secondary data: questions of identity, belonging, transnationalism, and discrimination that underlie immigrant settlement and housing choice. This necessity drives the small-n case study: researchers usually gather this data using a qualitative method such as interviewing or focus groups, and the time constraints of these methods contribute to smaller sample sizes. In addition, in many cases the researchers were themselves members of the groups they studied, greatly reducing the researcher-subject distance: for example, Carlos Teixeira (1995), Thomas Owusu (1999), Sutama Ghosh (2007), and Tom Lusis (Bauder and Lusis 2008). Not only is language facility required for interviewing and focus groups with immigrant communities, but the group-member-as- researcher may have noticed that their particular group does not fit the aggregate “norm” represented in the literature: Ghosh’s dissertation is entitled We Are Not All the Same. The mixed-methods approach, then, has been crucial in answering broader research questions, disaggregating patterns among immigrants and broadening the role of the researcher in recent studies. A major advantage of the mixed-methods approach is in the study of complex phenomena, particularly those impacted by a variety of municipal, state, and federal policies. Mason (2006) makes the case that the mixed methods approach is particularly useful for exploring questions of social experience and lived realities at both micro and macro levels. Transportation researchers have used both qualitative and quantitative methods in studies of land use-transportation interactions, including interviewing (Hanson and Pratt 1988), life biographies (Jarvis 2003), regression analysis (Shearmur 2006), space-time analysis (Kwan 1999), and factor analysis (Hanson 1980, Cervero and Kockelman 1997, Cristaldi 2005). In these studies, researchers have outlined structural changes affecting transportation behaviour, such as women’s increasing role in the labour market and the impacts of car-oriented policies on neighbourhood design. Purely qualitative studies dealing with housing choice and transportation choice (Jarvis 2003, Weston 2005) are rare in the literature; indeed, the transportation field is still resistant to qualitative methods. Purely quantitative studies are still common in the housing (geography, sociology) and transportation (economic geography, urban planning, urban design) literatures. 37 Studies using a sole research method (either qualitative or quantitative) do not seem to be able to offer insights on structural changes that impact choice or on complex issues such as behaviour. Housing researchers frequently speculate on the many factors that may be causing variation in immigrants’ housing patterns after their complex quantitative models have uncovered only part of the story (e.g. Balakrishnan and Wu 1999, Haan 2005). Transportation models have also become increasingly complex, including factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, income, education level, neighbourhood (e.g. Kitamura et al. 1997, Saelens et al. 2003, Sharma 2004), and even length of residency, country of origin, and legal status (Blumenberg and Shiki 2006, Blumenberg and Smart 2010). Still, questions remain about the factors impacting mode choice. A mixed-methods approach offers more depth in unraveling these questions. An important observation for planners is that recent research in housing and transportation goes beyond the observation of patterns as an outcome of rational choice. Recent research addresses policies that may be responsible for those patterns. One example is decreased recognition of immigrants’ credentials leading to lower labour force participation and lower incomes, a key finding reinforced by both large-n and small-n studies. This in turn led to policy review and change: there are now policies in place to streamline the recognition of immigrants’ credentials through short re-certification programs. The same has occurred in transportation planning, where research on land use and policies encouraging walking and cycling has contributed to major changes in municipal land use policy, transportation planning and development practices. Research on immigrants’ housing and transportation choices needs to impact our growth management policies: planners make housing forecasts based on the assumption that most people will follow traditional housing careers. Now that even small and mid-sized Canadian cities like Kelowna, Winnipeg, and Waterloo have competitive housing markets, many households are unlikely to follow the linear path from rental apartment to single-family detached home. Since immigrants are responsible for the vast majority of population growth in our largest cities, their choices and preferences influence municipal and regional growth management. We shouldn’t just be concerned about whether immigrants have the economic stability to buy homes or cars; in this era of climate 38 change and sustainable development, we ought to ask whether they want to buy homes or cars in the first place. 2.2 A Case Study Approach As discussed in the previous section, one of the more recent developments in housing research is the examination of the housing and settlement issues of specific ethnocultural groups, often by group members. There is now a growing acceptance that focused, small-n case studies can provide valuable insights into immigrants’ housing patterns, immigrant settlement and integration. These studies do not attempt to be statistically generalizable; their goals are to gather in-depth data on issues that cannot easily be quantified (e.g. housing discrimination, transnational identities, policy impacts). They contribute to a larger discussion of immigrant settlement and integration into Canadian cities. The authors of small-scale case studies have often gone on to contribute to major government studies (e.g. Hiebert et al. 2006) and policy debate (e.g. workshops and roundtables at the annual Metropolis conference on immigration and migration, the National Housing Research Council, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation). Small-n cases have added to the debate along with large-n studies (e.g. Walks and Bourne 2006) and policy pieces (e.g. Bourne 1999, Hiebert 2006, Hulchanski 2007b). Small-scale housing studies, then, fulfill several key roles of case studies as described by Yin (1994) and Flyvberg (2001). Yin (1994, 3) characterizes case study as a research strategy useful in many situations, particularly “complex social phenomena.” He argues that the researcher’s goal “is to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization)” (ibid, 10). The theory will then help identify other cases to which the results are generalizable; this could be done using multiple-case studies, where the theory would be applied to two or three cases, or in several single-case studies. Sociologist Small (2009) and planning theorist Flyvberg (2001) argue for case- rather than sample-based logic, for saturation rather than representation as the stated aims of research in social science. Flyvberg (2001, 29) writes that the natural sciences are “relatively cumulative and predictive, while the social sciences are not and never have been.” Instead, he argues, social scientists should put 39 their “partial answers to questions” into “the ongoing social dialogue about the problems and risks we face and how things may be done differently.” (ibid, 61) Flyvberg is especially apt, as his mixed-methods study was a transportation planning case: power and politics in transportation decision-making in Aalborg, a small Danish city. This single-case study became a classic among urban planners because it illustrated the asymmetry of rationality and power, which had major theoretical implications. In this dissertation, the theoretical framework is that structural changes over time have played a major role in shaping immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. A single-case study of immigrants in the Toronto CMA is useful in testing and further developing this theory; a multiple-case study would be better, but this was beyond the time and scope of this dissertation. If the theory were valid, then immigrants who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s would have made different housing and transportation choices than those who arrived in the 1990s and 2000s because of structural changes that have constrained choices. 2.2.1 Choosing the case Yin (1994) suggests that the theory needs to state the conditions under which the phenomenon is likely to be found. As Canada’s largest immigrant reception center, and largest city, Toronto has been the focus of many studies on immigrant housing and settlement patterns. Like many Canadian cities, Toronto exhibits very different patterns from its American counterparts: a dense urban core with a variety of both high- and low-income neighbourhoods, no major highway infrastructure in the city center, high transit ridership both in the city center and the inner suburbs, and low levels of residential segregation. The inner and outer suburbs have high concentrations of immigrants. Murdie’s factor analysis of Metropolitan Toronto (1969) illustrated the interconnectivity of transportation, urban structure and growth in the formation of the earliest Jewish and Italian neighbourhoods. These were in the industrial port area and the west side of downtown (notably the Parkdale neighbourhood) where the majority of industrial land was located. Because of the major increase in rental apartment construction in the 1950s and 1960s, living in the city centre was relatively affordable. As the city sprawled outwards, many ethnic neighbourhoods developed along streetcar lines in Toronto, including the Portuguese neighbourhood in Kensington 40 Market (Spadina, Dundas, and College lines), the Greek neighbourhood on Danforth Avenue (later served by the Bloor subway line) and Little India (Coxwell and Gerrard lines). Toronto’s growth has been highly dependent upon its fragmented political structure. The Toronto governmental structure, which in 1954 was changed to a two-tiered regional form with a metropolitan authority responsible for regional functions and five municipal subunits to deal with local concerns, had considerable effects on land development and transportation. Metro Toronto exerted a substantial influence on land development through its authority over regional transportation and the coordination of land uses among the boroughs. During the postwar era, record numbers of high-rise rental apartments were built to meet postwar housing needs: to this day, residents living in these towers have higher-than-average transit use, walking, and cycling rates (E.R.A. Architects et al., 2010). The Yonge subway line opened in 1954; the Bloor Line opened in 1963; GO Transit, the country’s first commuter rail service, was started in 1967 in the Metro Toronto area. Rapid transit in Toronto significantly shaped and intensified development, especially in the Yonge Street corridor (Knight and Trygg, 1977). A number of pro-development public policies helped: • Aggressive marketing of air rights and available excess land parcels by the TTC • Allowance of liberal floor area ratios • Density bonus around stations • City zoning classification changes in certain districts, notably near transit stations, to permit higher density development • Lack of income deductions for mortgage interests, an important encouragement to suburban living By the 1970s, however, Canada had converted all but one of its streetcar systems to buses; in a landmark decision in 1972, Toronto’s streetcar lines were retained. The 1970s saw the construction of Highway 401 on the north, the Gardiner Expressway on the south, Highway 400 on the west and Don Valley Parkway on the east of the city. Rapid suburbanization occurred, with new land open for development. Luckily, downtown was spared: the Spadina Expressway, proposed in 1971 as the first in a series of highways that would destroy many 41 downtown neighbourhoods, was vehemently opposed by the working class community it threatened. The Allen Expressway, a short portion of which was constructed, stands as testimony of the successful public fight against downtown highway infrastructure projects. Even in the late 1970s, there were significant differences between Toronto and American cities, as Knight and Trygg (1977, 239) noted: A strong middle-class element has tended to remain in the city’s older, inner areas. This may have been reinforced by the provision of a modern downtown-oriented short-line transit system before expressways were built; the very heavy postwar immigration of Europeans accustomed to urban apartment life certainly aided as well. Finally, there is no significant racial problem in Toronto; there has been no discriminatory treatment of any racial group. This may contribute to the fact that crime is generally low and both urban and suburban areas are considered safe places to live. During the early decades of Metro Toronto’s reign (1954-1998) and under the provincial Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (1971-1978), initiatives such as affordable housing and public transit were supported. Since the beginning of Canada’s neoliberal era in the early 1980s, the demise of these governmental bodies, and the incorporation of the inner suburbs into the “megacity” of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission has been unable to extend streetcar lines or develop much rapid transit in the city. There have been significant problems maintaining the existing streetcar and bus lines in the face of provincial cutbacks. This situation finally changed upon adoption of the Transit City plan, which was approved and funded by the Province of Ontario in 2006. The proposal aimed to bring rapid transit within walking distance of the majority of the population of the Greater Toronto Area, with eight new LRT Lines. The Province of Ontario agreed to fund four of the lines in 2007. But newly- elected mayor Rob Ford announced his desire to discontinue the Transit City plan on December 1, 2010, his first day in office, despite the fact that construction on the Sheppard line had already begun and the Eglington and Finch lines were due to break ground in 2010. By March 2011, the Province agreed to fund only the Eglington line, which Ford had ordered to be changed to a subway rather than the considerably less expensive LRT. 42 Figure 2.1. Transit City proposed LRT lines. The Sheppard East, Finch West, Eglington, and Scarborough Rapid Transit lines were approved by the province in 2007. Image Source: Toronto Transit Commission Transit ridership is very high in Toronto, and does not vary much from suburb to inner city (Hulchanski 2007). The remarkable income and tenure shift along the Toronto subway lines from 1976 to 2006 shows how transit-accessible housing in the city center has become more desirable over the past forty years. In response to Mayor Ford’s plan to build only one subway line rather than four LRT lines in Toronto, Hulchanski (in Vincent, 2010) responded that Transit City would be the only way to decrease income and ethnic segregation in the Toronto CMA and increase transit efficiency for immigrants living in the suburban communities. Because of its concentration of immigrant groups and the spatial implications of its housing and transportation infrastructure, the Toronto CMA is an ideal location for a case study highlighting structural changes over time. In choosing an ethnocultural group as the focus for this case study, both Yin and Flyvberg (2001, 78) advocate choosing critical cases, particularly where a phenomenon is least likely, 43 or most likely, to be found. The ideal case would be an ethnocultural group that shows a variety of housing choice, a variety of transportation choice, is spatially dispersed across the Toronto CMA, and has been immigrating to Canada for several decades. This ideal case would provide the means of exploring the effects of structural changes on the choices over time, as interviews could be conducted with members from several immigrant cohorts. Consequently a group who has been immigrating to Toronto since the late 1960s would be preferable. A preliminary comparison between the ten largest ethnic origin groups in Toronto, using the 2001 Census data and STATA software, showed that only a few met these conditions: Filipino, Caribbean, and Latin/Central/South American. The other groups (see Table 2.1) show extremes in homeownership, spatial segregation or transportation choice: the Chinese, Italian, and Portuguese groups have homeownership rates much higher than the Canadian average, while the African group has a much lower rate. Ethnic origin* Homeownership rate (%) South Asian 60 Chinese 78 Italian 94 Caribbean 53 Filipino 56 Portuguese 83 West Asian 42 Polish 64 African 26 Balkan 61 Total population 66 Table 2.1. Homeownership among the ten largest ethnic origin groups in the Toronto CMA Source:  2001 Census of Canada Public Use Microdata Files: Individuals. Note: *This tabulation includes single ethnic origins only; individuals with multiple ethnic origins are excluded. Structural changes are more likely to influence the housing choices of groups that do not show extremes in homeownership; for groups with high ownership, other factors likely mediate the effects of structural changes. For example, racism may be a factor in the extremely high homeownership rate of the Chinese and Italian groups (e.g. Balakrishnan and 44 Wu 1999, Hou and Picot 2004, Darden 2004). Racism could also be a major factor in the low ownership rate for the African group (e.g. Teixeira 2008). Strong cultural preferences for ownership may also explain the extremes: Hiebert et al. (2006) noted that South Asians use a multiple-family approach to achieve homeownership. Groups that show more diversity in transportation choice are Caribbean, Filipino, and African, while the Italian population has a much higher rate of driving than average (see Table 2.2). Every other group has transportation choices comparable to the Canadian average. Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) Ethnic origin* Car driver Car passenger Transit Walk Bicycle Other South Asian 59 8 29 3 0 1 Chinese 60 8 27 4 1 0 Italian 81 5 11 3 0 0 Caribbean 54 5 37 3 0 1 Filipino 46 6 42 5 0 1 Portuguese 67 10 19 3 0 0 West Asian 60 7 27 5 0 1 Polish 69 5 20 4 1 1 African 49 4 41 5 0 0 Balkan 65 5 24 6 0 0 All immigrants 61 7 27 4 0 1 All non-immigrants 66 7 20 6 1 1 Table 2.2: Transportation mode choice among the ten largest ethnic origin groups in the Toronto CMA Source:  2001 Census of Canada Public Use Microdata Files: Individuals. Note: *This tabulation includes single ethnic origins only; individuals with multiple ethnic origins are excluded. The Census asks for the transportation mode choice for the commute to work only. Filipinos show a range of housing and transportation choices: in 2001, 56 percent of Filipinos owned housing, and the percentage of those who drove to work compared to those who took transit was almost identical (46 percent vs. 42 percent). They are also among the most spatially dispersed ethnocultural groups in the Toronto region (see Figure 2.2) and have a long history of immigration to Canada (Kelly 2006, Murdie forthcoming). Kelly wrote that despite the large size of the Filipino population in Canada and their increasing importance in 45 immigration, there has been little written about their settlement besides the intense scrutiny of the Live-in Caregiver Program. Figure 2.2. Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Note the dispersal of the group across the region. Map source: Cities Centre, University of Toronto. Printed with permission. Darden (2004, 2009), Kelly (2006), and del Rio-Laquian and Laquian (2008) provide detailed accounts of the history of Filipino immigration to Canada. Filipinos are a large ethnic origin and visible minority group: the 2006 Census identified over 170,000 in the Toronto CMA. In 2006, 42 percent of Filipinos lived in Toronto, 19 percent in Vancouver, and the rest were highly concentrated in Winnipeg and Montreal (StatsCan 2009 and 2009b); this concentration seems fairly constant over the past two decades (Kelly 2006). In 2008, the Philippines became the main source country for immigrants to Canada. Filipinos are well- defined in the Census data (Kelly 2006) and socially mobilized, giving rise to hundreds of 46 organizations that could assist with interview recruitment (del Rio-Laquian and Laquian, 2008). Further, Filipinos’ unique labour market characteristics (Kelly 2006, Darden 2009, Kelly et al. 2009) and decades of immigration to Toronto make them an ideal group to work with in testing the theory of structural change. From 1980-2001, 45 percent of Filipino immigrants entered under the Family Class immigration category; 25 percent under the Skilled Worker Class; 15 percent under the Assisted Relative Class; and 12 percent under the Live-In Caregiver Class; very few entered under other immigration categories (Kelly 2006, 10). Their numbers have increased steadily, with the bulk of immigrants entering the country in the 1990s and 2000s: by 2010 the Filipino population was expected to reach 500,000. Kelly points out that there is no “statistical Filipino”: those who arrived in Canada in the 1960s would be very different from those arriving today. Despite the liberalization in Canadian immigration policy in 1967, there were very few immigrants from the Philippines until martial law was declared in 1972. The declining economic prospects and suspension of political freedoms were a strong motivation for many Filipinos to leave the country; the Marcos regime also actively promoted overseas contract work as an economic development strategy (Kelly et al. 2009). Darden (2004) found that Filipinos had a higher education level, a higher unemployment rate and lower concentration in professional and managerial positions compared to native-born whites. Their household incomes were close to those of white Canadians, yet there remained a far greater proportion of Filipinos below the low-income cut-off. Of the 85,000 entrants who entered Canada under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) from 1992 to 1996, 78 percent were from the Philippines. Darden believes this fact may lower Filipinos’ spatial segregation; LCP entrants are required to live with their employers for a two-year period. He found a higher concentration of Filipinos in Mississauga, parts of North York, and Scarborough; they were underrepresented in upper class neighbourhoods in the Toronto CMA and overrepresented in lower class neighbourhoods (ibid, 197). The homeownership rate for Filipinos was substantially lower than that for whites at all age levels, income levels, education levels, and occupational categories. 47 Kelly (2006) found that Filipinos have high levels of employment, low levels of unemployment, high levels of occupational segmentation and low average earnings. His recent study (Kelly et al. 2009) confirmed the “deprofessionalization” of Filipino immigrants. In Seeking a Better Life Abroad: A Study of Filipinos in Canada (1957-2007), del Rio- Laquian and Laquian (2008) used the stories of Filipino immigrants to Canada to trace the history of Filipinos in Canada. These stories, as well as two in-depth surveys of Filipinos across Canada, illustrate the impact of structural changes in immigration policy and the labour market on this group. In addition, the authors confirm that Filipinos do not tend to form ethnic enclaves in Canadian cities (ibid, 170). Bauder and Lusis (2008) found that many Filipino immigrants prefer to live in smaller cities such as Waterloo where they have more opportunities to interact with non-Filipinos. Filipinos seem to have assimilated spatially without increasing incomes, or did not settle in ethnic neighbourhoods to begin with. Their homeownership rate is fairly low, yet they are spatially dispersed. They are quite integrated in the labour market yet they show high transit use. They present a puzzle that cannot be solved using the prevailing models of housing career, spatial assimilation and ethnic resources. Their decades of immigration to Canada make them an ideal case for research on housing and transportation choice in the context of structural change, a case that could have interesting insights for both planning theory and practice. The Filipino community is a canary in the coal mine. Because we speak English, and are well-educated and come from a culture that has long lived with and understands Western ways, if we don't see full integration, or find it a challenge, it raises a question in terms of how other [immigrant] communities might fare. —Dr. Nora Angeles, UBC professor (in Lee-Young 2010) 2.3 Methods In designing a mixed-methods case study, the goal was to conduct a thorough study of the housing and transportation choices of Filipino immigrants: not only what those choices are, 48 but how they were made, and how they changed over time. The simple comparison of Census data across a twenty-year period helps orient the Filipino case within the broader patterns of transportation and housing choice in Toronto. The principal components analysis shows how the Census variables influencing housing and transportation choice are interrelated in a complex web, and how these relationships change over time. Finally, the interviews illustrate the many factors that impact housing and transportation choices, and the practicality of individuals’ choices and preferences. Together, the methods and the data sources produce a richer analysis of the Filipino case than any single method could have achieved. The data sources were the Public Use Microdata Files (PUMF) for Individuals from the Censuses of Canada (1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006); and interviews from 32 Filipino immigrants who entered the country between 1968 and 2008. 2.3.1 Stage 1: Comparing Census variables from 1986 to 2006 Many Canadian housing studies begin by presenting data that compare housing trends across ethnocultural groups, as this data is readily available from the Census and easily presented in tables or graphs. Owusu (1999), Walton-Roberts (2003) and Ghosh (2007) began their studies by framing the specific ethnocultural group in this way. While this is not a research method per se, this simple comparison of data often sets the context for further exploration using interviews or focus groups. It was necessary to use Census data, the main source of housing and transportation data in the country, for the comparison of data (preliminary stage) and for the PCA (Stage 1). The Census variables of interest for this study were total individual income, weeks worked, labour force activity, industry, occupation, education, age, immigration period, housing tenure, household size, transportation mode, and commute distance. Appendix 1 explains the variables and how they were compared throughout Census years. These particular variables were chosen for several reasons. Many studies on the housing patterns of immigrants (Haan 2005, Hiebert et al. 2006, Murdie 2008) emphasize that housing choice cannot easily be explained by any single factor, such as income or labour market activity. Rather, housing tenure and location seem to be influenced by a variety of 49 factors including income, labour market activity, ethnocultural group, housing affordability, and household type: the “housing trajectory” concept (Murdie et al. 1999) illustrates this complexity. In a study of housing and transportation choice, then, it is necessary to look at a variety of factors that may be influencing these choices. These variables in the Census help track the shifting labour market structure and higher educational requirements that characterize a postindustrial economy, complemented by increased immigration to meet economic agendas. Because the goal was to track changes over time, variables that were stable in the Census data were considered more suitable for the analysis. Unfortunately, the Census data do not tell us much about the possible impacts of structural changes in housing policy or transportation infrastructure, and cannot offer insights on preference versus choice; this data must be gathered in the interviews. The comparison of data from the five Census years took place in June 2009. These variables were then used in Stage 2: the principal components analysis (PCA). 2.3.2 Stage 2: Principal Components Analysis (PCA) Factor analysis and principal components analysis can be very useful tools for the interpretation of complex descriptive data, particularly in distilling numerous variables down to a few. Both have been very useful in complex transportation studies (Kitamura et al., 1997, Duncan and Cervero 2003, Cristaldi 2005). Factor analysis was used extensively in earlier studies of Canadian cities, acknowledging the interaction between housing and transportation (Murdie 1969, Johnson 1970, Bourne and Murdie 1972, Maher 1974). Murdie (1969) was one of the first to do comparative factor analysis focusing on Metro Toronto. He showed how the Italian and Jewish communities spatially moved over time, comparing factor analyses of 1951 and 1961 Census data. Murdie’s study was theoretically significant because it illustrated the integration of the spatial assimilation and the sectoral growth models. Gagnon et al. (2009) used factor analysis in their study of nine Canadian cities and found that the combination of the concentric and sectoral growth models offered significant explanatory power, although they did not include ethnic status as earlier researchers had done. 50 Principal components analysis identifies a number of factors that capture the variance in the data by examining the correlation matrix, finding interrelationships between the variables, and creating independent and uncorrelated factors through matrix algebra. The new factors are composites created from several variables in the dataset. STATA software gives these factors in order of importance: the first factor explains the most variance in the data, the second factor explains less, and so on. Together, the factors explain 100 per cent of the variance in the data, since they merely combine the data in a different way; usually a small number of factors explain the majority of variance. The factor loadings, which are between 1.0 and –1.0, show the strength of relationship between the original variables and the components. The new factors tell us how the data is arranged by grouping together variables that are related, then contrasting them with their opposites. Both factor analysis and PCA have been used in studies of housing and transportation choices. PCA and factor analysis usually yield very similar results (Suhr 2005, StatSoft 2011), even though PCA analyzes all the observed variance while factor analysis uses only the shared variances between the factors. In both methods, the main objectives are data reduction (e.g. Cervero and Kockelman 1997) and the detection of structure in the relationships between variables (e.g. Wyly 1999). In the use of factor analysis by geographers (Murdie 1969, Johnson 1970, Bourne and Murdie 1972, Maher 1974, Wyly 1999), spatial patterns have been uncovered by mapping factor scores onto census tracts. PCA has been particularly useful as a tool in exploratory data analysis, as a primary technique in pattern recognition, and for making predictive models. Because PCA results in the formation of independent and uncorrelated factors, it has been useful in studies of travel behaviour, where multicollinearity is often a major issue (e.g. Hanson 1980). In this study, the purpose of the PCA was to determine the relationships between the variables related to housing and transportation choice. The PCA was done using 1996 and 2006 Census data, comparing immigrants to non-immigrants. The same variables were used in the PCA as were used in the data comparisons. Earlier Census data could not be used because the transportation mode and commute distance variables were not included in the Census until 1996 (see Appendix 1 for a further explanation of the data limitations). This 51 gives a total of four PCA: immigrants in 1996, immigrants in 2006, non-immigrants in 1996, and non-immigrants in 2006. The first trial PCA took place in August 2009, and subsequent trials were conducted until September 2010. Given the data limitations, the PCA results show some interesting results: changes that have happened over the decade of 1996 to 2006, and the relationship between the housing, transportation, labour market, education, and industry variables. The PCA has been successful in illustrating the complexity of housing and transportation choice, and in confirming that income is actually not as influential as other factors in homeownership. 2.3.3 Stage 3: Interviews with Filipino immigrants The final stage of the research involved interviews with Filipino immigrants living in the Toronto CMA who arrived between the 1960s and the 2000s. Most housing studies focusing on specific ethnocultural groups have used social networks, immigrant service providers, and non-profit groups to recruit interview participants (Murdie 2002, Walton-Roberts 2003, Ghosh 2007, Bauder and Lusis 2008). None of these studies focused on particular neighbourhoods in an effort to be representative; instead, they used social networks and interviewing, rather than random selection and surveying. Ghosh (2007) interviewed 30 Bengali and 30 Bangladeshi households in Toronto that were identified to her using key informants (reputational sampling); Walton-Roberts (2003) used snowball sampling to interview 70 individuals in Canada and India linked to immigrant, trade, and capital networks. One exception to this was Owusu (1999), who aimed for representation through random sampling: he was able to easily identify Ghanaian surnames in the phone book, compile a list of addresses, and randomly select from this list. This sampling frame was necessary because there was no reliable data available for Ghanaians in the Toronto CMA. As Small (2009) points out, small-n studies in social science cannot be representative even if the neighbourhoods are carefully chosen because the researcher defines the “typical” or “average” neighbourhood. Hanson and Pratt (1995) avoided this by defining a very structured random sample in their Worcester transportation study, and by conducting over 600 interviews. They based their recruitment on the percentage of households that were in 52 each quadrant of the census metropolitan area, selecting clusters of five interviews in 140 randomly selected blocks. Several attempts were made (different days of the week, different times of the day) to interview households in each block at an agreed-upon interval (e.g. every fourth house). However, this is very unusual: most studies involving interviewing in the housing and transportation fields involve sample sizes from 30 to 100 participants, and do not use random sampling. Small argues that random selection in these cases is often not random because of the very high non-response rate: What proponents of the random selection approach to small-n in-depth interviewing rarely mention is that many people who are cold called will not agree to long, in-depth interviews on personal topics with a stranger (2009, 14). Even Hanson and Pratt (ibid), allowing for a 50 percent refusal rate in their structured recruitment approach, faced problems in achieving the randomness they attempted due to non-response and insufficient households in their target demographic. Small-n studies can offer important insights through in-depth analysis of each interview as a separate case, or by choosing unique cases rather than typical ones (Yin 1994, Flyvberg 2001, Small 2009). Small argues that sampling for range, where the researcher identifies sub- categories of the group under study and ensures to interview a given number of people in that category, can be useful in small-n ethnographic case studies. In this case, purposive sampling was used to recruit Filipino immigrants from each of the immigration periods. Participants were recruited according to the UBC Behavioural Research and Ethics Board guidelines through social, cultural and advocacy organizations: • Filipino Seniors of Mississauga • Federation of Filipino Canadians of Brampton • Filipino Students Association of Toronto • Kababayan Community Centre (Toronto) 53 • Filipino Centre Toronto • First Filipino Baptist Church • Philippine Chamber of Commerce (Toronto) Following pilot interviews in Vancouver in the fall of 2009, interviews took place in Toronto from January to May 2010. Introductory letters were sent to each of the associations/groups, and in some cases they referred participants to me; undoubtedly, Filipinos’ close social networks aided this process, since many of these groups are in close contact with each other. In most cases, I met the participant at an event hosted by the association/group and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. If so, they received the letter of introduction explaining the study and its goals, and we discussed a possible time and place for the interview. Interviews were held in locations convenient for the participants: in their homes, at the offices of the above-named associations/groups, and when time or distance was a barrier for them, over the telephone. At the interview, I explained the informed consent form, protection of the data, and how the data would be used. Interviews followed a structured format with questions on housing history, housing choice and transportation choice in both the Philippines and Canada. The goal was to determine not only what types of housing the participants had lived in or what mode they used to travel, but why they had made those choices and how their choices and preferences changed over time (interview questions are attached in Appendix 2). Interviews were digitally recorded for later transcription. The data was coded and analyzed using HyperResearch software, with an emphasis on choice, preference, attitudes towards housing and transportation, and structural change indicators. Participants are identified in this dissertation document, and all other research materials, using pseudonyms. In total there were 32 participants, 12 male and 20 female; this ratio roughly reflects the reality of the Filipino population in the Toronto CMA, which is 43 percent male to 57 percent female (StatsCan 2009). Participants lived in a variety of neighbourhoods across the Toronto CMA, worked in many different occupations, and had a wide range of incomes. Twelve participants immigrated under the Assisted Relative Class, 13 immigrated independently as Skilled Workers, and 7 under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). Table 54 2.3 shows the breakdown of participants by immigration period, compared to the entire Filipino population in Toronto: Immigration Period Interview sample  (%) Entire population (%) 1961-1970   6   2 1971-1980  34  13 1981-1990  13  17 1991-2001  19  42 2001-2006  28  26 Total 100 100 Table 2.3. Percentage of interview participants in each immigration period, compared to the entire population of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: 2006 Census of Canada Public Use Microdata Files: Individuals. 2.4 Reflections on the Methodology and Methods In retrospect, the decision to use a mixed-methods approach to answer the research questions fit both the research questions and the ethnocultural group. The use of the Census data in the comparisons and the PCA was invaluable, and provided a through understanding of the variables impacting housing and transportation choice. The three methods also combined to give a complex understanding of this group over time: the Census variables spanned 1986 to 2006, the PCA 1996 to 2006, and the interviews 1968 to 2008. In the absence of quantitative data on Filipino immigrants previous to 1986 (see Appendix 1), the interviews were crucial. Originally, I had set out to interview participants who entered the country as skilled workers or family class immigrants, avoiding the polarizing Live-in Caregiver Program; as Kelly (2006) noted, the LCP has already provoked intense research and policy concern. Caregivers are also required to live with their employers, which would limit their ability to make housing and transportation choices. However, as the interviews in Chapter 5 reveal, the LCP became the immigration category of choice for Filipinos because of immigration policy changes during the 1990s that made it more difficult to enter the country under the skilled worker and family class categories. Most of the seven LCP participants I interviewed would 55 have entered under a different immigration category had they entered Canada a decade earlier. The recruitment method worked relatively well, although it took about six weeks to get interviews started after initial contact with the organizations. Informally dropping by the organizations’ offices, particularly during events, was the best way to recruit participants: the organizations regularly held social, cultural, and job training events. The only downside to this was that certain subgroups were easy to recruit (those who entered in the 1970s and 2000s) while others were very difficult (those who entered in the 1980s and 1990s). As seen in Table 2.3, this meant that 34 percent of the sample entered during the 1970s, compared to only 13 percent of the general Filipino population in Toronto; the reverse pattern is seen in the 1990s cohort. This was likely because the two groups likely to attend events hosted by Filipino organizations were established, retired people and recent arrivals in need of resources or support. This had to do both with age and degree of settlement: established, retired Filipinos often had the time to volunteer or work at these events, while recent arrivals, although busy working or trying to find work, needed to attend. As a second-generation immigrant, my research role was closer than it might have been as a non-immigrant. There were several times during interviews where the participants related their experiences to me as a fellow immigrant. One example was when a participant was explaining that she rarely travelled on her own as a teenager when she lived in the Philippines, because her parents were strict. Here she smiled and said, “You know what I mean, right?” implying that my parents were similar. Anecdotally, there are preconceived notions of “Eastern” versus “Western” cultures. Likewise, when some of the women related stories about navigating the maze of accreditation for the nursing profession, I found that they reinforced stories I had heard from my relatives. However, since I did not share the participants’ language, specific cultural characteristics or knowledge of the Philippines, there was still some distance from the research in the interviewing stage. The research questions worked fairly well, with a few exceptions. The last few questions dealt with structural change issues explicitly, e.g. asking whether housing policies might have affected their decisions (see Appendix 2). Respondents, for the most part, had little 56 understanding of changes in housing or transportation policies. They were, however, quite familiar with the changes in immigration and labour market policies over time. This was interesting, and suggests that participants may not be attuned to many critical urban planning policies impacting their integration into Canadian society. Either the immigration and labour market policies were perceived to be more important, or (more likely) they were simply more visible to Filipino immigrants as they settled and established themselves in Toronto. In either case, the respondents’ level of comprehension of planning policies points to a future direction in program development, education and incentives for the vast number of immigrants arriving in our municipalities every year. The interviews provided several key insights that could not be gained through an examination of secondary data: the difference between choices and preferences, the reasons behind the choices, and the resiliency of the Filipino population. Without the interview data, the research findings would be grim, to say the least. As Chapter 3 reveals, Filipinos’ integration into the labour market has become more difficult over the years. However, the interviews show how Filipino immigrants’ innate practicality has led to their resiliency in housing and transportation choices. 57 3 A Distinctive Case: Filipino Immigrants in Toronto The case of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA is illustrative of the immigrant experience in Canadian cities. This specific case has the potential to give researchers and policy makers insights into the structural changes that seem to be impacting immigrants’ choices. Twenty years of Census data show that Filipino immigrants have high educational and employment rates, but lower incomes than non-immigrants. Filipinos’ employment in the higher-paying FIRE industry has decreased since the1980s, while their participation in the lower-paying manufacturing industry has increased. Managerial, administrative, and clerical occupations have given way to service sector occupations. Foreign credential recognition problems have made it more difficult for Filipino immigrants to find employment in their professions. Increased immigration rates, especially in the LCP category, and decreased affordability and availability of rental units during the 1990s contributed to an increase in rental and condominium tenure. Many of these trends have affected immigrants in general (e.g. Hulchanski 2007, Peck and Theodore 2010) which has critical impacts on Canadian cities. In this chapter, I review the educational, income, labour market, housing and transportation trends for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA compared to immigrants in general and non-immigrants. Data is compared from five Census datasets, from 1986 to 2006 (as discussed in Appendix 1, 1986 was the first year that non-European ethnic origins were 58 recorded in the Census). In many ways, Filipino immigrants stand apart: they have a higher rental rate, higher condominium tenure, and a higher rate of transit use. Some reasons for this “distinctiveness” are outlined in this chapter, but these will be further discussed in the chapters on the principal components analysis (Chapter 4) and interviews (Chapter 5). 3.1 Filipino Immigrants: Distinctive Patterns 3.1.1 Education, Income, and Labour Market Participation Trends in education, income, and labour market participation provide a crucial context in this study: in a purely economic sense, income and employment impact the ability to buy housing, and education affects the ability of workers to compete for jobs. Beyond the ability to afford certain options, housing and transportation choices may also be affected by spatial and temporal implications of specific industries and occupations (e.g. the dispersed locations of manufacturing in suburban and exurban areas of the region, the incidence of shift work among nurses). In this case, Filipinos’ high educational levels seem to offer them little advantage in an increasingly polarized labour market. It is well known that immigrants to Canada have higher educational attainment than the native-born population (Gilmore and Le Petit 2008); that lower incomes cannot be explained by lower qualifications for high-paying occupations (Bauder 2003, Hiebert 2006). This is certainly the case with Filipino immigrants (see Figure 3.1). In 1986, 29 percent of Filipino immigrants had Bachelors degrees, compared to only 7 percent of all immigrants and 11 percent of non-immigrants. By 2006, the gap was narrower: 28 percent of Filipinos had Bachelors degrees compared to 16 percent of immigrants and 17 percent of non-immigrants. 59 Highest Degree, Certificate, or Diploma: Bachelors degree 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n Filipino Immigrants All Immigrants All Non-Immigrants Figure 3.1. Percentage of the population with Bachelors degree as their highest degree, certificate or diploma in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. In what has become a Canadian lament (e.g. Bauder 2003, Kelly et. al 2009), this high educational attainment is often not recognized by Canadian employers and professional associations. As a result Filipinos struggle to regain their professional status in Canada, and their story is one of income disparity. Many authors have noted an increasing income gap between the highest and lowest income percentiles in Canadian cities, notably David Hulchanski (2007, 2010) and Krishna Pendakur, who studies income disparities between immigrants and non-immigrants (Pendakur and Pendakur 2011). Several authors have indicated the significance of income in housing choice (Murdie et al. 1999, Haan 2005, Hiebert 2006). Presumably, income would also impact transportation choice, since owning, insuring, and parking a car in the Toronto CMA is quite expensive. How do Filipino immigrants’ incomes compare to the general population? 60 Median Individual Income 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 D o lla rs Filipino Immigrants All Immigrants All Non-Immigrants Figure 3.2. Median individual income in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Note: These median values include individuals living with non-relatives, multiple-family households, and non-Census families. In 1986, Filipino immigrants had the same median individual income as immigrants in general, substantially higher than the median for non-immigrants. But over the twenty-year period, non-immigrants’ incomes have increased steadily, while Filipino immigrants and immigrants in general have not seen the same gains. The median individual incomes also mask much greater disparity. In 2006, Filipino immigrants’ median income was 118 percent of the median income of immigrants in general and 87 percent of non-immigrants’ median income. At the lower percentiles, this advantage increased: Filipinos had 120 percent of the income of immigrants in general and 133 percent of the income of non-immigrants at the twenty-fifth percentile. But at the higher income percentiles, the pattern changed. At the seventy-fifth percentile, Filipinos made 95 percent of the income of immigrants in general and 71 percent as much as non-immigrants. And at the ninety-fifth percentile (see Figure 3.3), Filipinos made 84 percent of the income of immigrants in general, and only 61 percent of non-immigrants’ income. So while Filipino immigrants’ median individual incomes are higher than immigrants in general, this pattern does not hold in the higher income percentiles. 61 Total Individual Income: 95th Percentile 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 D o lla rs Filipino Immigrants All Immigrants All Non-Immigrants Figure 3.3. Total individual income (95th percentile) in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Note: These values include individuals living with non-relatives, multiple-family households, and non- Census families. This increase in income disparity at the higher percentiles is strange considering Filipino immigrants’ high labour force activity. Filipinos consistently have the highest employment rate, followed by immigrants in general and then non-immigrants, although the rates are in fact quite similar for all three groups (see Figure 3.4). All three groups typically work between 41 and 43 weeks out of the year. There was a slight decrease in the employment rate from 1986 to 1996, as expected, and then a recovery period. While these rates are fairly stable over the 20-year period, Filipino immigrants showed the largest decrease in employment during the recessionary period (1991 to 1996) and the largest increase between 1996 and 2001. Note that for all three groups, employment never returned to the 1986 levels. 62 Employed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n Filipino immigrants All immigrants All non-immigrants Figure 3.4. Employed population in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Unemployment has remained between 4 and 7 percent for all three groups, though there was a slight peak for immigrants and Filipino immigrants in 1996 (see Figure 3.5). However, even at this point, the unemployment rate only increased by two percentage points for Filipinos (to 6 percent). Unemployed 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n Filipino immigrants All immigrants All non-immigrants Figure 3.5. Unemployed population in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Evidently, low labour force activity is not a factor in the increasing income gap between Filipino immigrants and non-immigrants at the higher percentiles. Shifts in industry and occupational sectors, on the other hand, seem to be more influential in explaining changes over time. In the 1950s and 1960s, immigrants primarily came from European countries, had lower educational attainment, and were not able to work in higher-paying occupations 63 (Balakrishnan and Wu 1999). They were, however, able to find unionized, relatively well- paying jobs in construction, manufacturing and resource extraction (Hiebert 2006). As stable, unionized jobs in the manufacturing and resource industries have decreased in numbers, higher-level service sector jobs have increased. Increased educational requirements and increased emphasis on communication in these jobs are compounded by problems with foreign credential recognition. This has left many immigrants working in lower-paying industries such as retail and accommodation/food services, where work is often temporary and non-unionized. Part-time, temporary, and shift work have broken up the traditional Fordist model, so that many work at more than one job. These industry and occupational shifts are at the root of the structural change thesis (Friedmann 1986, Harris 1997, Li 1998, Hutton 2004, 2006). Recent work (Peck and Theodore 2010, Walks 2011, Bourne et al. 2011) has detailed the precarious nature of post-industrial work in the neoliberal policy context. The twenty-year period from 1986 to 2006 illustrates these industrial and occupational shifts. Although there is a lot of stability in the industry categories, several have seen more fluctuation: manufacturing, finance, insurance and real estate (often referred to as the FIRE industries), business services, and “other services”. 64 Filipino Immigrants Industry (1980 SIC): Toronto CMA (%) 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 Other primary industries 1 0 0 0 0 Manufacturing 23 18 18 22 19 Construction 1 2 1 1 1 Transportation and storage 2 2 2 2 4 Communication and other utilities 3 3 3 2 0 Wholesale trade 2 4 5 5 5 Retail trade 7 10 8 9 10 Finance, insurance and real estate* 17 13 10 11 10 Business services** 7 6 7 9 6 Government services - Federal 1 1 1 0 2 Government services - Other 3 4 2 1 - Educational services 1 2 1 2 2 Health and social services 18 19 18 18 15 Accommodation, food and beverage 7 7 10 8 8 Other services 8 8 14 9 7 Information and cultural industries*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 Arts, entertainment and recreation*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Professional, scientific and technical*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Table 3.1. Industry for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA. 1980 SIC Codes were used for 1986-2001, and 2002 NAICS codes for 2006. Notes: * 2006 NAICS categories for "Finance, insurance" and "Real estate and renting and leasing" were combined for comparison with earlier Census years. ** 2006 NAICS categories for "Management of companies and enterprises" and "Administration and support, waste management" were combined for comparison with earlier Census years. *** This category does not exist in the 1980 SIC. It is used in the 2002 NAICS classification only (2006 Census). 65 All Immigrants Industry (1980 SIC): Toronto CMA (%) 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Agriculture 0 1 0 0 0 Other primary industries 0 0 0 0 0 Manufacturing 28 21 21 20 17 Construction 7 7 5 5 5 Transportation and storage 3 3 3 4 5 Communication and other utilities 3 3 3 3 0 Wholesale trade 5 5 6 6 6 Retail trade 12 12 11 11 10 Finance, insurance and real estate* 8 9 8 9 9 Business services** 6 8 9 13 6 Government services - Federal 1 1 1 1 2 Government services - Other 3 3 2 2 - Educational services 5 5 5 5 5 Health and social services 6 8 9 8 8 Accommodation, food and beverage 6 6 7 6 7 Other services 7 7 8 7 5 Information and cultural industries*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 Arts, entertainment and recreation*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Professional, scientific and technical*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Table 3.2. Industry for all immigrants in the Toronto CMA. 1980 SIC Codes were used for 1986-2001, and 2002 NAICS codes for 2006. Notes: * 2006 NAIC categories for "Finance, insurance" and "Real estate and renting and leasing" were combined for comparison with earlier Census years. ** 2006 NAIC categories for "Management of companies and enterprises" and "Administration and support, waste management" were combined for comparison with earlier Census years. *** This category does not exist in the 1980 SIC. It is used in the 2002 NAICS classification only (2006 Census). 66 All Non-Immigrants Industry (1980 SIC): Toronto CMA (%) 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Agriculture 1 1 1 1 1 Other primary industries 0 0 0 0 0 Manufacturing 18 14 13 12 9 Construction 5 6 4 5 5 Transportation and storage 4 4 4 4 4 Communication and other utilities 4 4 4 4 1 Wholesale trade 7 5 7 7 6 Retail trade 13 13 13 12 12 Finance, insurance and real estate* 9 9 9 9 9 Business services** 9 11 12 14 5 Government services - Federal 1 1 1 1 4 Government services - Other 4 5 4 3 - Educational services 6 7 8 7 8 Health and social services 6 7 8 8 8 Accommodation, food and beverage 5 5 5 6 5 Other services 7 7 9 8 4 Information and cultural industries*** N/a n/a n/a n/a 5 Arts, entertainment and recreation*** N/a n/a n/a n/a 3 Professional, scientific and technical*** n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Table 3.3. Industry for all non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA. 1980 SIC Codes were used for 1986-2001, and 2002 NAICS codes for 2006. Notes: * 2006 NAIC categories for "Finance, insurance" and "Real estate and renting and leasing" were combined for comparison with earlier Census years. ** 2006 NAIC categories for "Management of companies and enterprises" and "Administration and support, waste management" were combined for comparison with earlier Census years. *** This category does not exist in the 1980 SIC. It is used in the 2002 NAICS classification only (2006 Census). In 1986, 23 percent of Filipino immigrants, 28 percent of all immigrants, and 18 percent of non-immigrants worked in manufacturing. For all three groups, manufacturing decreased from 1986 to 1996. But from 1996 to 2001, the rate increased for Filipino immigrants to the point where manufacturing became most prevalent in this group: 22 percent of Filipino immigrants worked in manufacturing in 2001, compared to 20 percent of immigrants, and 12 percent of non-immigrants. This position was maintained in 2006: more than twice as many Filipino immigrants (19 percent) as non-immigrants (9 percent) worked in the manufacturing industry by this point. 67 Finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) is a stable industry for all immigrants and non- immigrants: between 8 and 9 percent worked in FIRE over the twenty-year period. Filipino immigrants traditionally had a much higher-than-average presence in FIRE: in 1986, 17 percent of Filipino immigrants, 8 percent of all immigrants and 9 percent of non-immigrants worked in FIRE. By 2006 only 10 percent of Filipino immigrants worked in this industry. The percentage of the population working in business services has increased for Filipino immigrants, all immigrants and non-immigrants over the twenty-year period. Non- immigrants have the highest rate of the population working in this industry, followed by all immigrants and then Filipino immigrants. However, by 2006, the rates for all three groups were virtually identical. The percentage working in “other service” industries has also seen some fluctuation from 1986 to 2006. At the beginning and end of this time period, the rates are very similar. However, the recessionary years show some interesting changes. In 1991, almost half as many Filipinos (6 percent) as non-immigrants (11 percent) were working in other services. By 2001, 9 percent of Filipino immigrants, 13 percent of all immigrants and 14 percent of non-immigrants were working in this industry. These higher levels, which may reflect the increase in live-in caregivers, decreased by 2006. Caregivers may also be captured in the health and social services industry, which is very significant for Filipino women. Three times as many Filipino immigrants (18 percent in 1986) work in the health and social services industry than immigrants in general or non-immigrants (6 percent). These levels remained fairly stable over the twenty-year period despite increased professional requirements in these areas, which suggests that women who may have been coming in as nurses or social workers are opting for the LCP instead. These industrial shifts are confirmed by the Census data on occupation. While managerial and administrative occupations grew steadily from 1986 to 2006, Filipino immigrants’ participation in these occupations has not increased as quickly as for non-immigrants: in 2006, 11 percent of Filipino immigrants, 19 percent of immigrants in general and 23 percent of non-immigrants worked in these occupations. Jobs in clerical and related occupations have decreased for all three groups over the twenty-year period. Even in the medicine and health 68 occupations, long a stronghold of Filipino participation, there was a decrease from 14 percent to 10 percent from 1986 to 2006. Rates for immigrants in general and non-immigrants in medicine and health occupations were stable over the twenty years (4 to 5 percent). While Filipinos’ presence in these higher-paying professional occupations decreased, their presence in service occupations, mainly child care and home support workers, increased during the recessionary period. In 1996, 29 percent of Filipino immigrants, 17 percent of immigrants in general and 13 percent of non-immigrants worked in service occupations. These levels stabilized after the recessionary period, but Filipino immigrants are still overrepresented in these occupations. Another occupational category where Filipinos had an increasing presence was “supervisors, machine operators and assemblers in manufacturing”: as of 2001, 12 percent of Filipino immigrants, 9 percent of immigrants in general and only 3 percent of non-immigrants worked in these occupations, and these levels remained stable in 2006. The percentage of “labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities” has remained stable across the 20-year period, between 1 and 3 percent for all three groups. Again, we see that Filipino immigrants are increasingly underrepresented in the higher- paying professional categories and overrepresented in the lower-paying service-sector and manufacturing categories. Until the late 1980s, both men and women were able to work directly in their professions with a minimum of re-education or re-training. Now that foreign credentials are undervalued (Bauder 2003), and professions such as nursing have increased their educational and examinational requirements for certification, this is much more difficult. It would seem that the increasing participation in the manufacturing industry and decreased participation in the FIRE industry have had a major impact on Filipino immigrants’ incomes. Their decreasing role in managerial, administrative and clerical occupations, increasing presence in service sector occupations and as supervisors, machine operators and assemblers in manufacturing, are also significant. These industry and occupational trends explain why Filipino immigrants’ median incomes are higher than immigrants in general, but still lower than non-immigrants, and why there is an income disparity in the higher income percentiles. Given the imbalance between men and women in this population and the increase in the 69 number of live-in caregivers from the Philippines in the 1990s, these industrial and occupational shifts may be gendered. The interviews in Chapter 5 show that recently-arrived Filipino men seem to be working in the manufacturing industry: Kelly et al. (2009) confirm that by 2006, Filipino men were over-represented in jobs unique to manufacturing, processing and utilities, and under-represented in management occupations. Recently-arrived Filipino women often begin their lives in Canada as live-in caregivers or lower-level service sector jobs; the clerical and administrative occupations that may have offered them temporary employment in past have decreased rapidly over the past twenty years. Caregivers are separated from their family members, and need to send remittances home, decreasing their already low incomes; the nature of their work also makes training or studying for their careers quite difficult (Kelly 2006, Kelly et al. 2009). As a result, they are trapped in low- paying and precarious work longer. The fact that these industry and occupational shifts do not seem to be related to lower education or lower labour market participation suggests that they may be rooted in institutional and societal racism. Kelly et al. (2009) reported that 36 percent of their 421 survey respondents in the Filipino community had seriously considered leaving Ontario because of what they considered to be unfair barriers to professional practice. The respondents also reported that they are racialized and culturally represented in the labour market: the assumptions that all Filipinos enter as caregivers, and that all are passive, tireless workers contributed to employers’ failure to promote them to higher-level jobs. Institutional and societal racism may also explain Filipinos’ more precarious labour market roles: during the recessionary period they experienced higher than average fluctuation in employment levels, and higher concentrations in service sector and manufacturing occupations. The existing research in economic geography suggests that these structural changes in the labour market would have major impacts on housing and transportation choices. 3.1.2 Housing and Transportation Trends The downturn in Filipino immigrants’ employment prospects and increasing income disparities over the past two decades would seem to affect their housing and transportation 70 choices. Indeed, Filipinos’ distinct labour market patterns are matched by unique patterns in housing tenure, transportation mode choice and commute distance. Filipino immigrants have a consistently higher rental rate than immigrants in general and non-immigrants. 1996 represented a renting peak and a major increase in condominium tenure. This year is significant for two reasons: it was the middle of a major economic recession in Ontario and it was a time when federal policy change led to significant increases in immigration. Even in 2006, which saw the lowest rental rates for all three groups, renting was more prevalent among Filipinos (34 percent) than among immigrants in general (29 percent) or non-immigrants (23 percent). Renting 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n Filipino immigrants All immigrants All non-immigrants Figure 3.6. Renting in the Toronto CMA.  Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Thus, for Filipinos, renting was almost as common as owning until 2006. For immigrants in general, the rental rate is around 33 percent, with a peak of 38 percent in 1996, while for non- immigrants there has been a steady decline in renting over the twenty-year period. This represents a major change from 1986, when non-immigrants actually had a slightly higher rental rate than immigrants. Correspondingly, Filipino immigrants have the lowest rate of homeownership, with a low of 44 percent in 1996 and a high of 66 percent in 2006. This is somewhat surprising considering 71 Filipinos’ consistently larger household sizes. In Haan’s 2005 study of the decreasing homeownership advantage of immigrants over non-immigrants, he found that larger family sizes were one of the few factors that insulated immigrants’ homeownership rates from further decline. Household sizes have remained remarkably stable across the twenty-year period, but Filipinos consistently have larger households than immigrants in general and non- immigrants (see Figure 3.7). Median Household Size 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 N u m b e r o f p e rs o n s Filipino immigrants All immigrants All non-immigrants Figure 3.7. Median household size in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Note: These median values include individuals living with non-relatives, multiple-family households, and non-Census families. Larger household sizes may indicate more children, but living with adult family members and non-relatives is also commonplace, as the interviews revealed. In fact, small household units seem to be very popular with this community: Filipinos maintained a higher rate of condominium tenure than both groups for the entire twenty-year period. Condominium tenure was fairly low in 1986: 14 percent for Filipinos, 11 percent for immigrants in general, and only 8 percent for non-immigrants. By 2006, 19 percent of Filipinos, 18 percent of all immigrants, and 10 percent of non-immigrants lived in 72 condominium units. The most rapid increase can be seen between 1991 and 1996 (see Figure 3.8). Condominium Tenure 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n Filipino immigrants All immigrants All non-immigrants Figure 3.8. Condominium tenure in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. This may reflect the affordability of condominium units compared to single family homes for those who desire ownership. However, this data need not contradict the peak in renting at this time. Because the Census question simply asks whether the housing unit is a condominium or not, it is possible that the increase represents individuals living in rented condo units. This secondary rental market has grown because very little purpose-built rental housing has been constructed since the 1980s (City of Toronto 2006d, E.R.A. Architects et al. 2010). Although the actual contribution of rented condo units to the rental housing “universe” in Toronto is only around 5 percent, 34 percent of all condominiums in the City of Toronto were rented in 1996. This decreased to 20 percent by 2005; the City notes, “it is a typical characteristic of the secondary rental market to revert to ownership when conditions are favourable” (City of Toronto 2006d, p8). Other cities, like Vancouver, have seen increases in condominium rentals in the past two decades, filling a need for rental housing at a less affordable scale. These patterns illustrate the interrelated nature of the housing market, the economy, and the labour market. Although I did not examine data prior to 1986, earlier recessionary periods also saw increases in rental tenure. In fact, several studies have pinpointed 1981 as the year 73 that immigrants began to lose their homeownership advantage over non-immigrants. This was partly due to the difficulty in finding suitable employment during the early 1980s economic downturn, leading to lower incomes (Haan 2005). Another important factor for immigrants is the amount of time they have been in Canada, since it takes some time to build up enough capital to buy a home (Balakrishnan and Wu 1992). Since the 1990s saw a major increase in immigration—or, as Haan (2005) writes, an “increase in immigration recency” —we would expect to see lower rates of ownership among immigrants during this decade. The number and type of immigrants (for example, the 1990s increase in women entering as caregivers) entering the country may have contributed to the 1996 peak in renting among Filipinos. Filipinos show a more extreme immigration pattern than immigrants in general (see Figure 3.9). Immigration Period 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% B ef or e 19 50 19 51 -6 0 19 61 -1 97 0 19 71 -1 98 0 19 81 -1 99 0 19 91 -2 00 1 20 01 -2 00 6 %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n Filipino Immigrants All Immigrants Figure 3.9. Immigration period in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Notes: 1. For the 1986 Census, the period 1981-1990 only contains data from 1981-86. 2. For the 1991 Census, the period 1991-2000 only contains data from 1991. 3. For the 1996 Census, the period 1996-2001 only contains data from 1996. For all immigrants, there is a slow and steady increase until 1991-2000, the period when the majority of immigrants entered the country, due to policy changes favouring high, sustained rates of immigration. Filipinos entered the country in very small numbers until the early 1970s, when family class immigration was legalized in Canada and martial law was declared in the Philippines. There was an even sharper increase after the LCP began in 1992: Filipinos 74 were increasingly entering the country under the LCP rather than the family or skilled worker classes, as Darden (2004) noted. There is every indication that the first decade of the 2000s will surpass the all-time high of the 1990s, since the Philippines was the top source country for immigrants to Canada in 2008. With the growth in the LCP in the 1990s, we would expect to see effects on transportation mode, since caregivers are required to live with their employers, having no need to travel to work. Unfortunately the transportation data in the Census (transportation mode for the commute to work and commute distance) only dates back to 1996. Nevertheless, the data reveals several distinct patterns among Filipino immigrants. First, significantly more Filipino immigrants use public transit for the commute to work than immigrants in general and non-immigrants (see Tables 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6). In 1996, 48 percent of Filipino immigrants used transit to commute to work compared to 27 percent of immigrants in general and 19 percent of non-immigrants. This level has decreased since 1996 for Filipinos, while for the other two groups transit use has remained stable. Still, in 2006 twice as many Filipinos were commuting to work by transit (40 percent) than non- immigrants (20 percent). Secondly, these high rates of transit use are balanced by lower rates of driving to work among Filipino immigrants. In 1996 the percentage of Filipino immigrants who drive to work was only 39 percent, compared to 60 percent of all immigrants and 66 percent of non- immigrants. While the driving rates for non-immigrants decreased slightly over the ten-year period, the rate for immigrants was stable, and the rate for Filipinos increased to 46 percent. Filipinos commute as car passengers at a similar rate as immigrants in general and non- immigrants. 75 Filipino Immigrants Transportation Mode for the Work Commute (%): Toronto CMA 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Car - driver n/a n/a 39 46 46 Car -  passenger n/a n/a 8 6 9 Public transit n/a n/a 48 42 40 Walked to work n/a n/a 4 5 3 Bicycle n/a n/a 0 0 0 Other method n/a n/a 0 1 1 Total n/a n/a 100 100 100 Table 3.4. Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. All Immigrants Transportation Mode for the Work Commute (%): Toronto CMA 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Car - driver n/a n/a 60 61 60 Car -  passenger n/a n/a 7 7 8 Public transit n/a n/a 27 27 26 Walked to work n/a n/a 4 4 4 Bicycle n/a n/a 0 0 1 Other method n/a n/a 0 1 1 Total n/a n/a 100 100 100 Table 3.5. Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) for all immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Non-Immigrants Transportation Mode for the Work Commute (%): Toronto CMA 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Car - driver n/a n/a 66 66 63 Car -  passenger n/a n/a 7 7 9 Public transit n/a n/a 19 20 20 Walked to work n/a n/a 6 6 6 Bicycle n/a n/a 1 1 1 Other method n/a n/a 1 1 1 Total n/a n/a 100 100 100 Table 3.6. Transportation mode for the commute to work (%) for non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. 76 Walking to work was a minor mode for all three groups. In the 1996 Census only 4 percent of Filipinos reported walking to work, the same as all immigrants and slightly lower than non-immigrants (6 percent). These rates remained stable from 1996 to 2006. Like their higher rental rate, Filipinos’ consistently higher transit ridership may be related to the economic recession, labour market challenges, and immigration period/category. However, high transit ridership may not be problematic: there is little evidence that Filipino immigrants face spatial limitations to labour market participation. The prevailing models of housing career and spatial assimilation suggest that as immigrants become more established, they move further out from the city centre. In addition, Kain’s spatial mismatch model (1969, 1975) suggests that non-white households often live in the city centre quite far from the majority of workplaces in the suburbs. There does not seem to be any evidence of spatial mismatch in this case, although the Census data for commute distance does show some minor differences between immigrants and non-immigrants. Graphed as a categorical variable, commute distance shows a typical pattern: a reversed J- shaped curve, with the majority (around 30 percent) of people living less than 5km from their workplace, and the numbers decreasing accordingly until the last category (greater than 30km), where there is a slight increase, usually reflecting people living in outer suburbs and exurbs. This pattern is seen for non-immigrants (in Figure 3.12, about 10 percent fall into “greater than 30km” category), and is slightly less pronounced for immigrants (in Figure 3.11, about 7 percent fall into this category). For Filipino immigrants, only about 5 percent commute over 30km to work (see Figure 3.10). These patterns are very consistent across the 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census years. Between 1996 and 2006, there was an increase in the number of Filipino immigrants commuting 5 to 9.9km to work (three percentage points) and a decrease in those commuting less than 5km (four percentage points). This is confirmed in the PCA in Chapter 4, and may be caused by any number of factors: higher housing prices, higher rents, more job opportunities in manufacturing locations in the inner suburbs, etc. Many researchers have written about the suburbanization of the immigrant population in Toronto, the relocation of jobs to suburban locations and the increase in part-time and temporary work that may 77 increase the likelihood of working multiple jobs (Bourne and Rose 2001, Hutton 2004, Hulchanski 2010, Walks 2011, Bourne et al. 2011). However, since there was no increase in the “greater than 30km” category, and most Filipinos live less than 9.9 km from their workplace, there may be a limit to how far Filipino immigrants are willing to commute. This observation is reinforced in the interviews (Chapter 5). Commute Distance: Filipino Immigrants 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Le ss  th an  5 km 5 to  9 .9 km 10  to  1 4. 9k m 15  to  1 9. 9k m 20  to  2 4. 9k m 25  to  2 9. 9k m >=  to  3 0k m %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n 1996 Census 2001 Census 2006 Census Figure 3.10. Commute distance for Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. Commute Distance: All Immigrants 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Le ss  th an  5 km 5 to  9 .9 km 10  to  1 4. 9k m 15  to  1 9. 9k m 20  to  2 4. 9k m 25  to  2 9. 9k m >=  to  3 0k m %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n 1996 Census 2001 Census 2006 Census Figure 3.11. Commute distance for all immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. 78 Commute Distance: All Non-Immigrants 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Le ss  th an  5 km 5 to  9 .9 km 10  to  1 4. 9k m 15  to  1 9. 9k m 20  to  2 4. 9k m 25  to  2 9. 9k m >=  to  3 0k m %  o f th e  p o p u la ti o n 1996 Census 2001 Census 2006 Census Figure 3.12. Commute distance for non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA. Data source: Public Use Microdata Files for Individuals. Statistics Canada. More importantly, the similarity in these patterns indicates that Filipino immigrants, like immigrants in general and non-immigrants, are dispersed across the region in urban and suburban neighbourhoods. The map of Filipinos in the Toronto CMA (Figure 2.2) illustrates this. So, despite the immigration recency of this group, the majority of Filipinos are not living in the city centre or other specific immigrant reception areas; rather, they are dispersed throughout the region. This is an important theoretical observation in terms of the concentric growth and spatial assimilation models. 3.2 Summary The economic and employment prospects of Filipino immigrants may be contributing to their distinct housing and transportation patterns: a higher rental rate, higher condominium tenure rate and a higher rate of transit ridership. Filipinos have lower incomes than non-immigrants, and a growing gap is evident at the higher income percentiles. Filipinos’ lower incomes cannot be explained by lower educational attainment or lower labour market participation: 79 consistently, they have the highest educational attainment and highest employment rate of the three groups. Industrial and occupational shifts seem to have had more of an effect on incomes: despite a general decrease in the percentage of the population working in manufacturing, more Filipino immigrants have worked in manufacturing than immigrants or non-immigrants since 2001. During the recessionary period (1991-2001) Filipino immigrants had an increased presence in the manufacturing and “other service” industries, and a decreased presence in the FIRE industry. For manufacturing and FIRE, Filipino immigrants never returned to their higher rates of participation, while the rates for business services and other services stabilized to pre-recessionary values. Filipino immigrants do not have as strong a presence in managerial and administrative occupations as immigrants or non- immigrants, but have an increased presence in service sector occupations and as supervisors, machine operators and assemblers in manufacturing. So, although Filipinos were working, they had a decreasing presence in the higher-paying industries and occupations. This shift likely reflects the increased credentials required for jobs during the 1990s coupled with the huge increase in immigration, particularly under the LCP, for this group. When we consider that Filipino immigrants also have consistently larger household sizes, we can see that this group faces some very interesting housing and transportation dilemmas. However, to really understand how these factors are interrelated, merely looking at trends over time is insufficient. The PCA helps clarify which variables were most influential upon immigrants’ and non-immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. Major structural changes in immigration policy, the labour market, and housing policy at a time of economic recession seem to have contributed to unique patterns for Filipino immigrants. 80 4 Structural Changes: Results from the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) Census data presented in Chapter 3 suggested that structural changes over time may have impacted Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation choices; the principal components analysis confirms that structural changes are in fact influential. PCA is a useful method when dealing with complex research questions, particularly involving behaviour and structural changes in cities and regions. The impacts of shifts in industry sector, higher educational qualifications, and changes in immigration policy can be seen in the PCA. The PCA method, then, has been instrumental in extending knowledge in this mixed-methods case. The purpose of the PCA was to determine the relationships between the variables related to housing and transportation choice. It also aimed to determine how Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation choices have changed over time. Accordingly, the data used was the Public Use Microdata File (PUMF) for Individuals, and the variables used were total individual income, weeks worked, employment/unemployment, industry, highest degree, age, housing tenure, household size, transportation mode, and commute distance. Data limitations (discussed in Appendix 1) reduced this comparison to the decade of 1996 to 2006, a period of high immigration, economic recession, labour market shifts and decreased housing affordability. 81 As explained in Appendix 1, it was only possible to contrast changes in the variables’ relationships over time (1996-2006) for immigrants in general and non-immigrants. PCA could not be done for Filipino immigrants until 2006. The data comparisons in Chapter 3 illustrated the uniqueness of Filipino immigrants compared to the other two general groups: slightly lower incomes, higher employment, shifts in certain industry sectors, higher rental rate, and higher transit commuting rate. The 2006 PCA confirmed these distinct patterns. Despite the data limitations of the PCA, it is clear that concentric growth, spatial assimilation and housing career cannot explain all of the variation in the data. While these theories are certainly still influential, and explain the majority of variation in the data, structural changes in immigration policy and the labour market also explain a significant part of the variations. We can see concrete evidence of this for Filipino immigrants, all immigrants and non- immigrants. This chapter outlines the PCA findings and presents the data in the form of tables. In Section 4.1.1, the results for immigrants and non-immigrants are discussed, particularly the insights that this method has provided on the impacts of structural change on immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. Section 4.1.2 discusses the results for Filipino immigrants. The results are summarized in Section 4.2. 4.1 Research Results from the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) 4.1.1 Immigrants and Non-immigrants: 1996-2006 Each PCA retained over thirty factors, since so many variables were used. Researchers using PCA have used several methods used to determine how many factors to retain in the interpretation of results; one method is to retain those factors with eigenvalues over 1.0. Another method is the scree test (Cattell, 1966), where a simple line graph of the eigenvalues is created and the factors to the left of the “elbow” in the line (the point where the line begins to level off) are retained. In this study, 21 factors in each PCA had eigenvalues over 1.0, but only the first five were identified for retention using the scree test (see Figure 4.1). 82 Scree test: 2006 PCA (Immigrants) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Fa ct or 1 Fa ct or 2 Fa ct or 3 Fa ct or 4 Fa ct or 5 Fa ct or 6 Fa ct or 7 Fa ct or 8 Fa ct or 9 Fa ct or 10 Fa ct or 11 Fa ct or 12 Fa ct or 13 Fa ct or 14 Fa ct or 15 Fa ct or 16 Fa ct or 17 Fa ct or 18 Fa ct or 19 Fa ct or 20 Fa ct or 21 Fa ct or 22 Fa ct or 23 Fa ct or 24 Fa ct or 25 Fa ct or 26 Fa ct or 27 Fa ct or 28 Fa ct or 29 Fa ct or 30 Fa ct or 31 Fa ct or 32 Fa ct or 33 Fa ct or 34 Fa ct or 35 Figure 4.1. Scree test for the 2006 PCA for immigrants. This line graph shows the eigenvalues of each factor. The line appears to level off to the right of Factor 5. Overall, the first five factors explain about 25 percent of the variation in the data; in 1996 the cumulative proportion of these five factors is about 1 percent higher than in 2006. The first twelve factors explain about half of the variation, and the first 21 factors would explain about 75 percent of the variation. These PCA results are better at describing the data and relationships between the variables than reducing the data to a few factors. The factors are often described as vectors whose size and direction outlines the boundaries of the dataset: the positive variables are at one end of the vector, while the negative ones are at the other end. Factor 1 explained the most variation in each case, between 6.9 and 8.1 percent (according to the PCA method, each successive factor explains slightly less of the variation in the data). Variables are considered significant if their factor loadings are greater than +/- 0.25 (for the purposes of comparison across the decade, variables are shown in the tables if they are greater than +/- 0.25 in either 1996 or 2006). The higher the value, the more significant that variable is in the factor (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). In 1996, Factor 1 portrays a contrast in life cycle and attainment: on one side we have homeowners who drive, have high incomes, and have high employment; on the other side we have transit users with lower employment and education who are in their 20s. Factor 1 is 83 similar for immigrants and non-immigrants. However, a number of other variables are important for non-immigrants: travelling as a car passenger, working in retail, working in accommodation/food services, and the 30s and 40s age groups. For non-immigrants, driving is contrasted with three other transportation modes (car passenger, transit, and walking). Notably, homeownership is not significant for non-immigrants, and commute distance is not significant for either group. Factor 1 portrays the same contrasts in 2006, but income becomes much less significant while driving, walking, and commute distance become more significant. This holds for both immigrants and non-immigrants; for immigrants, income is no longer significant in any factor. So the relationships in Factor 1 are what we would expect considering well-established theories like housing career, concentric growth and spatial assimilation. But a very different picture emerges in Factor 2, which shows variation in transportation mode, industry and household size. In 1996, the contrast for immigrants is between transit users working in finance/insurance/real estate or health/social services, and drivers working in manufacturing who have larger households. For non-immigrants, homeownership is a significant variable here: on one side are homeowners who drive and have larger households, while on the other are those who take transit or walk and have a Bachelors degree. By 2006, driving, transit, and working in FIRE are less significant for immigrants while the educational variables have become stronger. For non-immigrants, driving and transit are less significant, FIRE more significant, and Bachelors degree has not increased in significance. Overall, in 2006, this Factor shows the transportation and educational contrasts between manufacturing and FIRE workers for both immigrants and non-immigrants. The real difference is that homeownership is a significant variable for non-immigrants, and not for immigrants. There is a link between owning and household size for non-immigrants, but surprisingly not for immigrants. Driving is linked to the manufacturing industry for immigrants in 1996, and for both groups in 2006; an identical pattern emerges for the link between transit, the FIRE industry, and Bachelors degree. The grouping together of these variables in Factor 2 is important because, as many have written, major shifts in the labour market and housing policy have led to an increased number 84 of highly-educated, high-level service sector employees living and working in the city center (Hutton 2004, Hutton 2006, Hulchanski 2007b). Manufacturing jobs have shifted to suburban areas. In addition, gentrification has occurred in many inner city neighbourhoods, forcing lower-income households further out into the suburbs (Ley and Smith 2000, Murdie 2006, Hulchanski 2007). The observation that transportation mode is linked to these trends is significant, and has not been discussed in the literature on the housing patterns of immigrants or the literature dealing with structural change. Factor 3 deals with employment and education variables, and is similar for immigrants and non-immigrants. The main contrast is between unemployed people who work in education, and employed people who have only a high school diploma. For immigrants, the older age groups and household size are also significant in Factor 3. By 2006, Factor 3 has changed considerably. Employment/unemployment, age, working in education, and household size are no longer important for immigrants. For non-immigrants, having a Bachelors degree or higher, working more weeks of the year, and the retail industry have become important. Having a Masters degree has decreased in importance for both immigrants and non- immigrants. So Factor 3 still contrasts education and employment, but in 1996 there was a focus on those in the education industry. This may indicate the massive retirement of educators in the 1990s, without comparable replacement by their younger, more educated successors; by 2006 the transition had taken place. Again, this factor illustrates some of the issues raised in the structural change literature: an increasingly educated population, working in service-sector jobs, and demographic shifts (Bourne and Rose 2001, Bourne et al. 2011). Education, along with health and social services, is an important industry for female immigrants. Factor 4 contrasts those who work in education and are in their 40s, with those who commute a long distance and are in their 30s. For immigrants, walking to work and working in business services are also important variables. For non-immigrants, employment/unemployment and non-university certification are important variables. Factor 4 is the first factor in which commute distance is significant for either group. By 2006, Factor 4 is more complex. For immigrants, working in FIRE and having a Bachelors degree have 85 become more significant, while working in business services or education have dropped out. The older age groups become more important for immigrants. For non-immigrants, transit and walking are now important, and the loading for commute distance is much higher in 2006. Working in retail or FIRE, and having higher than a Bachelors degree are now significant. Age has dropped out. So in 2006, Factor 4 again portrays the link between transit and working in FIRE, and the contrast between industries (this time FIRE versus health services, retail, and education). Factor 5 is the final factor in which housing tenure, transportation mode, and commute distance are significant. The main contrast is between homeowners with long commutes, who work in FIRE and have a Bachelors degree, with those who walk to work. For immigrants, the 30s and 40s age groups are also significant. For non-immigrants, transit, working in health services, having a non-university certification, and having a medical/dental degree are significant. In 2006, Factor 5 changes dramatically. Notably, homeownership has dropped out of this factor for immigrants, as have walking, commute distance, working in finance/insurance, and having a Bachelors degree. Homeownership and employment/unemployment are now important for non-immigrants, but transportation mode and commute distance are not. Factor 5 is now very different for immigrants (for whom the main variables are age, working in health services and medical/dental degrees) and non- immigrants (for whom the factor still contrasts homeowners working in finance/insurance with a Bachelors degree and workers in health services who have a non-university certification or medical/dental degree). We still see some of the structural changes issues here, particularly in terms of education, industry and commute distance, but there are considerable differences between immigrants and non-immigrants. 86 Immigrants Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Variable 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 Owning 0.46 0.44 0.25 0.20 Driving 0.65 0.77 -0.55 -0.29 0.04 0.25 Car passenger Transit -0.53 -0.63 0.59 0.42 Walking 0.31 -0.28 -0.30 -0.23 Commute distance 0.24 0.26 -0.31 0.33 0.33 0.23 Income 0.65 0.16 Weeks worked 0.56 0.52 Employed 0.47 0.42 0.39 0.38 -0.60 -0.62 Unemployed -0.40 -0.35 -0.37 -0.34 0.56 0.62 Manufacturing -0.34 -0.33 Communication/utilities Wholesale Retail FIRE 0.27 0.36 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.21 Business services -0.28 0.05 Govt. services Education 0.28 0.17 0.25 -0.11 Health/social 0.25 0.27 0.08 -0.30 -0.24 -0.38 Accommodation/food Secondary school cert. -0.25 -0.18 -0.20 -0.49 -0.33 -0.35 Trades certificate Other non-univ. Univ. cert./dipl. < Bach. Bachelors degree 0.20 0.26 -0.22 0.40 0.33 0.10 Univ. cert./dipl. > Bach. Med/dent/vet/opt -0.18 -0.28 Masters degree PhD Age 20-29 -0.41 -0.39 Age 30-39 -0.19 0.30 -0.73 0.35 -0.33 0.04 Age 40-49 0.35 0.31 0.54 -0.69 Age 50-59 0.26 -0.01 0.22 -0.44 -0.22 0.57 Age 60 + 0.31 0.21 0.15 -0.39 Household size -0.34 -0.39 -0.32 -0.22 0.05 0.33 0.30 0.00 Eigenvalue 2.67 2.42 1.77 1.74 1.57 1.53 1.47 1.46 1.43 1.36 Proportion (%) 7.64 6.92 5.04 4.97 4.51 4.38 4.19 4.18 4.07 3.89 Table 4.1. PCA results for immigrants, showing the transition from 1996 to 2006. Data source: 1996 and 2006 Census Public Use Microdata Files (Individuals). Notes: 1. Variable loadings are shown if they are greater than 0.25 in either 1996 or 2006. 2. Eigenvalue denotes the weight of each factor, and proportion the percentage of variation in the data explained by each factor. Cumulative proportion for the five factors is 25.5% for 1996 and 24.3% for 2006. 87 Non-Immigrants Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Variable 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 1996 2006 Owning 0.48 0.46 0.23 0.26 Driving 0.58 0.69 0.63 0.47 Car passenger -0.31 -0.37 Transit -0.32 -0.37 -0.63 -0.58 -0.11 0.35 0.28 0.19 Walking -0.24 -0.30 -0.25 -0.19 0.20 -0.32 -0.32 -0.19 Commute distance 0.23 0.32 -0.26 0.42 0.37 0.16 Income 0.69 0.33 Weeks worked 0.63 0.59 -0.24 -0.25 Employed 0.49 0.47 -0.61 -0.55 0.31 -0.27 -0.01 0.27 Unemployed -0.39 -0.36 0.57 0.52 -0.35 0.33 0.04 -0.27 Manufacturing 0.20 0.25 Communication/utilities Wholesale Retail -0.28 -0.31 -0.23 -0.27 0.19 -0.25 FIRE -0.23 -0.30 -0.06 0.33 0.32 0.34 Business services Govt. services Education 0.42 0.52 0.43 -0.50 Health/social -0.51 -0.48 Accommodations/food -0.31 -0.35 Secondary school cert. -0.31 -0.30 0.24 0.33 -0.33 -0.31 Trades certificate Other non-univ. -0.33 0.28 -0.33 -0.33 Univ. cert./dipl. < Bach. Bachelors deg. -0.28 -0.28 0.14 0.32 0.36 0.32 Univ. cert./dipl. > Bach. 0.23 0.31 0.24 -0.31 Med/dent/vet/opt -0.35 -0.35 Masters degree 0.27 0.22 PhD Age 20-29 -0.46 -0.41 Age 30-39 0.28 0.19 -0.57 0.13 Age 40-49 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.13 Age 50-59 Age 60 + -0.22 -0.35 Household size 0.50 0.52 0.24 0.30 Eigenvalue 2.83 2.69 1.92 1.88 1.58 1.55 1.50 1.43 1.41 1.42 Proportion (%) 8.09 7.68 5.51 5.37 4.52 4.42 4.29 4.09 4.02 4.07 Table 4.2. PCA results for non-immigrants, showing the transition from 1996 to 2006. Data source: 1996 and 2006 Census Public Use Microdata Files (Individuals). Notes: 1. Variable loadings are shown if they are greater than 0.25 in either 1996 or 2006. 2. Eigenvalue denotes the weight of each factor, and proportion the percentage of variation in the data explained by each factor. Cumulative proportion for the five factors is 26.4% for 1996 and 25.6% for 2006. 88 One interesting observation is the relative unimportance of income in the first five factors: it appears only in Factor 1, and its significance decreases from 1996 to 2006. This is interesting considering the income gap between immigrants and non-immigrants, as seen in Chapter 3, and the importance that many researchers have placed upon the economic determinants of homeownership. Along with the influence of the industry sectors in the PCA, this indicates that it is not lower incomes per se, but working in lower-paying industry sectors, that creates variations within the data. For example, in Factor 2 the manufacturing/driving and FIRE/transit connections operate independently of income. Also interesting is the relative unimportance of commute distance, which indicates that the concentric growth and spatial assimilation models cannot completely explain housing or transportation choice. Commute distance did increase in importance for both immigrants and non-immigrants (Factors 1 and 4) over the decade, but non-immigrants saw a greater increase. The lack of major differences in commute distance between immigrants and non- immigrants also confirms that the spatial mismatch model does not seem to apply in Toronto. Household size was also less important than anticipated: one would expect it to appear in connection with homeownership, driving, higher income and higher employment for immigrants in Factor 1. It was grouped with homeownership (non-immigrants, Factor 2, and both groups, Factor 5). The relative unimportance of the variable is surprising considering that immigrants are known to have larger household sizes, which impacts their homeownership rates (Haan 2005). Household size seems to be connected more to education and industry (Factors 2, 3, and 4) than housing tenure (Factor 5). While age is very significant for immigrants (see Factors 3, 4, and 5), it is only linked to homeownership in Factor 5. For non-immigrants, we see this connection in Factor 2, which seems to indicate the lingering importance of the life cycle on housing tenure. Age is grouped with education (Factor 1), transportation mode (Factors 1, 4, and 5), and commute distance (Factors 1 and 4). It is interesting that homeownership is grouped with driving, high income, and high employment for immigrants in Factor 1, which is primarily about life cycle and attainment. 89 For non-immigrants, homeownership is a significant variable in Factor 2, which is more concerned with structural changes. So tenure for immigrants is tied into our traditional measures of life cycle and attainment, while for non-immigrants it is tied into industry and educational shifts. Structural changes, particularly in the labour market, immigration policy and housing policy, are clearly related to housing and transportation choices. The labour market shifts can be seen for both immigrants and non-immigrants, although the FIRE-transit-Bachelors degree connection seems stronger in non-immigrants. Industry, employment/unemployment, education and age are among the more important variables in this dataset, trumping income and household size. Factors 1 and 2 are relatively constant from 1996 to 2006, the big difference between immigrants and non-immigrants being income and homeownership. It is evident that traditional models (concentric growth, spatial assimilation, housing career) are still very influential, but structural change also affects the relationships between housing, transportation, labour market, education and age. However, these results must be interpreted with caution since the first five factors only explain about 25 percent of the variation in the dataset. 4.1.2 Filipino Immigrants: 2006 The PCA for Filipino immigrants was only possible with the 2006 Census data, making it impossible to compare it to earlier years. However, it is useful to compare the first five factors to those found in the PCA for immigrants in general and non-immigrants (Table 4.3). Factor Cumulative 1 2 3 4 5 Total (%) Filipino Immigrants 6.72 5.42 4.44 4.24 4.18 25.0 Immigrants 6.92 4.97 4.38 4.18 3.89 24.3 Non-Immigrants 7.68 5.37 4.42 4.09 4.07 25.6  Table 4.3. Comparing the proportion of the data explained by the first five factors. Data source: 2006 Census Public Use Microdata Files (Individuals) Overall, the first five factors explained exactly 25.0 percent of the variation in the 2006 data, which is similar to the cumulative percentage for immigrants (24.3 percent) and non- 90 immigrants (25.6 percent). However, the first factor explained less of the variation for Filipinos than the other two groups, while the other four factors explained slightly more. As we can see in Table 4.4, Factor 1 contrasts homeowners who drive long distances, work more weeks of the year, have jobs in manufacturing and are in their 40s, with those who take transit, work in accommodations/food services, have a secondary school certificate and are in their 20s. As we saw for immigrants and non-immigrants, Factor 1 is mainly about life cycle and attainment, the kind of relationships we would expect with the concentric growth, spatial assimilation and housing career models. But comparing this to Factor 1 for immigrants in general, we can see that industry is more important for Filipinos than income, employment and unemployment (the latter three variables had high loadings for immigrants in general, but are insignificant for Filipino immigrants). This confirms the importance of industry shifts and immigration recency for Filipinos, as indicated in Chapter 3. Commute distance and the 20- 29 age group are more significant for Filipinos as well. For the other factors, the loadings are similar to those for all immigrants. Factor 2 also contrasts transportation mode, industry, and education, but in a very different way from Factor 1. One on end of the spectrum are unemployed people in the manufacturing industry, with a secondary school certificate, who are in their 20s and have a large family size. On the other end are transit users with a high employment rate, working in health/social services, with a Bachelors degree. This is very similar to Factor 2 for all immigrants, where we saw connections between transit, employment, FIRE and the health/social services industry. The only difference is that manufacturing is an important industry for Filipinos, while for immigrants in general the FIRE industry is significant. This confirms the data comparisons done in Chapter 3, which portrayed the decline in the FIRE industry category and the increase in manufacturing for Filipino immigrants; health/social services jobs remained relatively constant. Factor 2 definitely concerns structural changes in the labour market, which impact immigrants’ transportation choices. We still cannot determine whether changes in housing policy have been influential, since homeownership is not an important variable in Factor 2. 91 Factor 3 contrasts employed people with a university certificate/diploma higher than Bachelors, with unemployed people who have a Bachelors degree and are in their 30s. This factor is somewhat different from Factor 3 for immigrants in general: driving is not significant for Filipinos, nor is the education industry, secondary school certificate, or the older age groups. For Filipino immigrants, this factor is about integration in the labour market: university-educated people who are either employed or unemployed. This may indicate structural changes in immigration policy, which have led to an increasingly educated immigrant population: we saw in Chapter 3 that Filipino immigrants are particularly well- educated. It also may highlight the well-documented difficulty having foreign credentials recognized. In Factor 4, we see positive loadings for homeowners who take transit, commute a long distance, work in FIRE and are in their 50s. Negative loadings are seen for those who walk to work and are in their 30s and 40s. Again, this factor is similar to Factor 4 for all immigrants: walking, commute distance, FIRE, and the middle age groups (30-39, 40-49, and 50-59) are all important. However, the loadings for walking and commute distance are much higher for Filipino immigrants. Homeownership and transit are significant for Filipino immigrants, but not immigrants in general. The main contrast in Factor 4 is the same for both groups, again linking transit, long commutes, jobs in FIRE, and for Filipinos, homeownership. As noted in the PCA for immigrants in general and non-immigrants, these relationships are almost the opposite of those seen in Factor 1. Factor 5 contrasts employed people with a secondary school certificate in their 30s, with unemployed people in the health/social services industry, who have a medical/dental/veterinary/optometry degree, and are in their 40s. There are some similarities to Factor 5 for all immigrants: health/social services, medical/dental/veterinary/optical degrees, and the 40s age group. For immigrants in general, secondary school education and the 50s age group are also important. This factor seems to indicate the importance of having foreign credentials recognized in the health/social services industry, which would contribute to employment/unemployment rates for Filipino immigrants, and immigrants in general. 92 Filipino Immigrants Factor Variable 1 2 3 4 5 Owning 0.43 0.40 Driving 0.77 Car Passenger Transit -0.69 -0.31 0.32 Walking -0.43 Commute Distance 0.35 0.43 Income Weeks Worked 0.42 Employed -0.38 0.63 0.33 Unemployed 0.33 -0.63 -0.36 Manufacturing 0.41 0.28 Communications/utilities Wholesale Retail FIRE 0.30 Business services Govt. services Education Health/social -0.35 -0.37 Accommodation/food -0.29 Secondary school cert. -0.25 0.49 0.29 Trades cert. Other non-univ. Univ. cert./dipl. < Bach. 0.31 Bachelors deg. -0.48 -0.37 Univ. cert./dipl. > Bach. Med/dent/vet/opt -0.27 Masters deg. PhD. Age 20-29 -0.32 0.49 Age 30-39 -0.47 -0.28 0.35 Age 40-49 0.27 -0.25 -0.68 Age 50-59 0.47 Age 60-69 Household size 0.40 Eigenvalue 2.35 1.90 1.55 1.48 1.46 Proportion (%) 6.72 5.42 4.44 4.24 4.18 Table 4.4. PCA results for Filipino immigrants in 2006. Data source: 2006 Census Public Use Microdata Files (Individuals). Notes: 1. Variable loadings are shown if they are greater than 0.25 in 2006. 2. Eigenvalue denotes the weight of each factor, and proportion the percentage of variation in the data explained by each factor. Cumulative proportion for the five factors is 25.0% for 2006. 93 As we saw for immigrants in general and for non-immigrants, income is insignificant: it does not appear in the first five factors for Filipino immigrants. Household size is only important in one factor for Filipino immigrants, which is surprising given their consistently larger household sizes, discussed in Chapter 3. Again, household size is not linked to homeownership. Commute distance has higher loadings for Filipino immigrants than immigrants in general: it explains more of the variation in both Factor 1 and Factor 4. Overall, it still only significant in two factors, but it is interesting that for Filipinos its impact should be seen in both a factor depicting traditional growth patterns and one focused on structural changes. In Factor 1, commute distance is linked to homeownership and driving, while in Factor 4 it is linked to homeownership and transit. Overall, since Factor 1 does not explain as much variation in the data for Filipino immigrants, the traditional models of urban growth are even less useful for explaining their housing and transportation patterns than they were for all immigrants and non-immigrants. It appears that industry and employment variables are more significant for Filipino immigrants. In particular, the weak links between housing tenure, household size, and income indicate that labour force activity, industry and education are contributing to differences in this population. Considering Filipino immigrants’ high education levels and high employment, industry sector is definitely the key variable in explaining variation: the fact they are increasingly working in manufacturing and less in FIRE and business services. These shifts in industry sector impact housing and transportation patterns. 4.2 Summary The PCA results tell us that while the older models of spatial assimilation and housing career may help explain some of the housing and transportation choices among immigrants in Toronto (Factor 1), they do not explain everything; Factor 1 explained less of the variation for Filipino immigrants than immigrants in general or non-immigrants. The sectoral growth 94 and structural change models are also useful (Factors 2 and 4). The PCA results show the polarization of the work force, increased educational requirements, and dichotomy between inner-city jobs in FIRE and business services versus suburban jobs in manufacturing, observed in the literature on structural change in cities (e.g. Ley and Smith 2000, Hutton 2006, Peck and Theodore 2010). To this discussion on postindustrial, post-Fordist economies, we can now add the importance of transportation mode and commute distance. There are definitely connections between transportation choice, housing choice and industry sector in the Toronto CMA. Industry sector is a contributing factor to transportation mode choice, not simply work location, which has been discussed extensively in the transportation literature (e.g. Hanson and Pratt 1998, Kwan 1999, Cristaldi 2005, Blumenberg 2008). This is not necessarily because Filipino immigrants are clustered in specific occupations (Li 1998, Liu 2008) but because of the way specific industry sectors, and their required educational prerequisites, have changed over time. One might even say that the structural changes have funneled immigrants into specific sectors, such as manufacturing for Filipinos. Since Factors 1 and 2 were so similar for all three groups, these observations apply to Filipino immigrants, immigrants in general, and non-immigrants. Interestingly, many of the variables that divided these groups in Chapter 3 (particularly income, but also homeownership and household size) were not very influential in the first five factors. It is the industry, educational, and to some extent the age variables that seem to differentiate immigrants from non-immigrants in the first five factors of the PCA. The PCA method, then, has provided additional information that could not be gained from the preliminary data comparison, especially in the context of immigration and labour market shifts. However, the complexity of housing and transportation choices is evident in the inability of the PCA to explain the majority of the variation in the data with a few factors. 95 5 Practicality and Resiliency: Interview Results Elizabeth arrived in Canada as a skilled worker in 1973, after spending two years in the United States. She was able to work as a nurse immediately in both the US and Canada with her B.Sc. in Nursing from the Philippines. In Toronto, she rented an affordable one-bedroom apartment close to the hospital where she worked. She and her husband, also a nurse, bought their first car six months after they arrived, and their first house two years after arrival. After several moves, they now live in a condo in North York. They are about to retire, and have a combined income of over $75,000. Maria arrived in Canada in 2004 after spending eight years in Libya. Her B.Sc. in Nursing from the Philippines allowed her to worked as a nurse in Libya. She entered Canada under the Live-in Caregiver Program and worked in Toronto as a caregiver for three years. During this time she shared a basement apartment with a friend. When she became a permanent resident, she was able to sponsor her husband and son. She took the necessary courses and recertified as a nurse three years after her arrival. They bought their first car five years after Maria arrived in Canada, and they currently rent a basement apartment. Maria and her husband, a machine operator, have a combined income between $40,000 and $49,000. These two stories illustrate how much things have changed for immigrants to Canada over the past few decades. Those who arrived in the 1990s and 2000s, like Maria, face more challenges working in their professions, finding affordable and suitable housing, and travelling efficiently than Elizabeth and her cohorts who arrived in the 1960s and 1970s. However, this somewhat bleak picture is brightened by the remarkable resiliency of Filipino 96 immigrants. Overall, participants made practical housing and transportation choices based on their household size, employment locations, and proximity to shops and services. This flexible approach makes them able to cope with a rapidly changing labour market and policy framework. Filipinos’ social networks, both formal and informal, are also a key to this resiliency. The interview data discussed in this chapter has been instrumental in uncovering these characteristics, as well as the impacts of housing and transportation histories. Following the pattern of Chapter 3, this chapter begins with a discussion of the participants’ education and labour market participation. After this contextual section, the participants’ housing histories in the Philippines, initial housing in Toronto, and successive housing choices are examined. Next, the participants’ transportation histories and choices in both countries are discussed. Structural changes are highlighted throughout the chapter by arranging the quotations chronologically by year of arrival, and are discussed further in Section 5.1.4. The interviews complement the Census data and the PCA, explaining Filipino immigrants’ distinct housing and transportation patterns. 5.1 Interview Results As shown in Table 2.3, there were 32 participants, 12 male and 20 female. They lived in a variety of neighbourhoods across the Toronto CMA, worked in many different occupations, and had a wide range of incomes. Twelve participants immigrated under the Assisted Relative (Family) Class, 13 immigrated independently as Skilled Workers, and 7 under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). 5.1.1 Education and Labour Force Participation Education Like Elizabeth and Maria, Filipino immigrants are very well educated. When they left the Philippines, half of the study sample (16) had Bachelors degrees, and three had Masters degrees. Five participants had college diplomas or trade school certificates, and two had done a couple of years of university. Seven of the participants were still in school. 97 Despite their high educational levels, many needed additional education to work or become certified in their fields in Canada. After arriving in Toronto, four of the five participants with college diplomas retrained as Personal Service Workers or Registered Practical Nurses (three of these had entered the country as Live-in Caregivers and one as a Skilled Worker). At the time of their interviews, five participants were in the process of earning Bachelors degrees and three had finished Masters degrees. Four said they took some retraining courses in their field, but did not finish an entire diploma or degree program: the objective was to take refresher courses to familiarize themselves with their practice in Canada. Employment Most participants were fairly established in their fields in the Philippines, and all but two worked directly in their field of study. There was a concentration in health/social services: nine worked as nurses, medical technicians, pharmacists, and social workers. Three worked in FIRE (accounting) and five in business services (marketing, computers). A few worked in the education, government and retail sectors. Seven of the 32 participants were still in school, and were not yet working. For many of the participants, the prospect of better employment in Canada was a major reason for immigration. [Why did you decide to immigrate to Canada?] Well...uh...I guess the same reason as most people, to improve our way of life, our livelihood, our earnings. I was making good money there but I don't think...it wasn't enough. It just...well it's enough to cover the expenses, but...it's not...it's not good enough. —Esteban, arrived 1974 …our potential here was...future Canadians, education et cetera is...you just can't compare. Unless you have money in the Philippines, you won't get outta there. You get about 6.5 million people leaving there every year for work, right?  We were one of those 6.5 [laughs]. —Mark, arrived 1982 [Why did you decide to immigrate to Canada?] Well, basically what really prompted me to send in my application is that all the rest of my other employees—or, my other co- workers—were talking about migrating to Canada…And then together with that, there were also talks about redundancy, um...budget concerns in the office...there were news of laying 98 off people. So before I was laid off, I already sent in my redundancy so I get a package. So when I got the package, which was really substantial, that's uh...and way back then I was really young. I was 30 when I got the package. So then I applied. —Angela, arrived 2005 Some of the participants had arrived from an intermediate country, where they had worked for several years. These experiences reveal the participants’ transnational identities, as modern nomads trying to find secure economic situations in the international postindustrial labour market. Maria, whose story opened this chapter, illustrates the transnational path: [Why did you decide to immigrate to Canada?] Uh, because...everybody's going, all nurses—it's not all, but most of the nurses are going out. And then the others, not—although, I have a good job already in the Philippines but it's not enough. You dream more. Yeah, you dream more (laughs), like you...you earn money in the Philippines but it's just good enough for you. But of course you have to think for your parents, like that, so...you also want to give. So that's why you need more, so that's why we left. It's the only easier way to get out of Philippines because States, going to America that time it's a lot of exams to do, even now there's a lot of exams to do. So...as a stepping stone my friends, my classmates go to an easier place, like to get um...to go out. So Libya was open, so that's why we went. —Maria, arrived 2004 Yvonne, a licensed phlebotomist in the Philippines, had worked in Germany for ten years before immigrating to Canada as a Live-in Caregiver: I went there, like um...I have my best friend in school, like in college, that was there in Germany. But I cannot go to—I cannot work in the hospital because, you know...it's hard. I was told to study first, the language. But I didn't have time for the language, to study language. It's expensive, just like here, when you study again, so...and I left the Philippines so I could...earn a little more money than my earnings in the Philippines, and also that...So when I went there I wasn't able to work...to work my...my profession, so I just opted to...any jobs that was open. And then, so...the first two years I worked for a diplomat. As a nanny with a diplomat. And then when my diplomat left, I was able to apply in the embassy itself. And I was uh...I was able to work in the restaurant of the embassy. So in the kitchen. —Yvonne, arrived 1993 99 In her view, immigration was merely a step towards a better salary, but it did not turn out the way she had hoped, since she was unable to work in her profession in Germany. Her decision to immigrate to Canada was just as practical: after ten years working at the American embassy in Germany, she had the option of immigrating to the US or elsewhere. She opted for Canada because after two years as a caregiver, she would be able to get her permanent residency and sponsor her family; many countries do not offer permanent residency to foreign workers. Canada is the only country to offer permanent residency to caregivers. Caregivers in this sample found their jobs through agencies or when a friend recommended them to a particular employer. Andrew, who worked in Kuwait as a nurse for twenty years, showed equally practical reasons for immigrating to Canada: [Why did you decide to immigrate to Canada?] Of course, for my future, for my tomorrow, because Kuwait is not like this one...it's just like what you earn, and that's it. After...of course there's no taxes, but you didn't have, like pensions, but...that's the big difference between...Canada and...I mean North America and uh, Middle East. But what you earn goes to income, they give you the gratitude and that's it. No, no...like pension, whatever. Or like medical, something like...coverage? No. They don't have that one there. —Andrew, arrived 2006 He entered the country as a Skilled Worker, but works below his level of training as a Personal Service Worker. At the time of his interview, he was on the waiting list to write his Registered Nursing exam. The immigration paths of Maria, Yvonne, and Andrew, are similar to those found in del Rio Laquian and Laquian (2008), which reveal immigrants’ strategic decisions to migrate. Filipino immigrants profiled in the popular press (e.g. Lee-Young 2001, Hansen 2010, Friesen 2011) also share these transnational employment strategies. Despite their intentions to better their economic situations, working below one’s level of training is a well-documented trend for immigrants in Canada (Bauder 2003, Hiebert 2006, Gilbert and LePetit 2008) and for Filipinos in particular (Darden 2009, Kelly et al. 2009). It was certainly the norm for participants in this study sample to work initially in a job that was a lower level in terms of salary, and often in a different industry. It was easy for most of the 100 participants to find some sort of initial employment. However, earlier arrivals tended to find work in offices or banks (such as office administrators or bank tellers), while later arrivals worked in factories, in food preparation or retail. As we saw in the Census data in Chapter 3, Filipinos now have lower participation in the FIRE and clerical industries/occupations, and higher participation in the manufacturing and service sectors than they did twenty years ago. For a class-conscious society such as Filipinos, this means that there has been a transition from working among those of the middle class and a similar education level, to working among people of the lower or working class with lower educational level. Earlier arrivals had to retrain in Canada to practice in their fields, or at least write licensing exams, but the process took only a few months: Valerie, who arrived in 1966, recertified as a pharmacist in six months. During the transition period she worked as a bank teller. Of the ten participants who arrived in the 1970s, the average length of time to find work in their field was about 2 months. For the ten participants who arrived in the 2000s, the average was 32 months. Many of the participants never ended up working in their field of expertise. This also applied to their spouses: in particular, the men who arrived in the 1990s and 2000s still work in manufacturing. This confirms that Filipino immigrants do not seem to benefit from the shift towards the FIRE industry and managerial/administrative occupations occurring among the general population. For some reason, Filipino men end up working for many years in manufacturing despite their educations and job experience, while the women start out in the service sector and eventually transition back into health/social services. While both men and women work outside their area of expertise initially, men seem less likely to move back into their industry or occupation. Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation choices are influenced by these structural changes in the labour market; however, their experiences in the Philippines contribute to their flexibility and resiliency in Canada. 101 5.1.2 Housing Choice Housing history in the Philippines Most of the participants came from Manila (23 out of 32) but several (5) were from other large cities such as Tondo and Davao City. Only three were from small towns. Some described their neighbourhoods in the Philippines as mixed use (14), some as residential (13); only one described hers as commercial. In most of these neighbourhoods in the Philippines, the presence of small sari-sari stores meant that it was always possible for residents to buy household essentials within a few minutes’ walking distance of their homes. In Manila, our setting is like here [Bathurst and Bloor], there are variety stores, like in every corner you can see variety stores—we call it sari-sari stores—smaller than the variety store. Actually it's usually just in the house. [People operate it out of their homes?] Yes. They sell...the common commodities. Rice, um....sardines, milk, like those things. —Yvonne, arrived 1993 This means that even those living in residential areas lived within walking distance of shops and services, while the rest lived a short transit ride away. Participants generally showed much more diversity in housing tenure in the Philippines than in Canada. It was more common to rent an apartment, townhouse, or house, perhaps due to the fact that housing types are different in the Philippines. Rental units are often low-rise (two or three storey) townhouses, as opposed to the high-rise units commonplace in Toronto. The prevalence of this ground-oriented rental housing likely contributed to the acceptance of rental housing as the norm in the Philippines. Many people were satisfied with the size and quality of their housing in the Philippines (17 of 32), but some said their housing was too small (4), poor quality (4) or unsafe (2). 102 Housing tenure: Philippines Housing tenure: Canada Live-in caregiver 0% Rent room 6% Rent apartment 25% Rent house 16% Own condo 3% Own townhouse 6% Own single family house 44% Live-in caregiver 6% Rent room 3% Rent apartment 13% Rent house 3% Own condo 16% Own townhouse 13% Own single family house 46% Figure 5.1. Housing tenure of the participants. These charts represent the most recent housing choices in each country, i.e. the year of migration for the Philippines, and 2010 for Canada. Living with extended family was fairly commonplace in the Philippines: 13 of the 32 participants lived with extended family (usually grandparents, adult siblings and cousins), 16 lived with their nuclear family, and the others with roommates. Half of the participants (16 out of 32) also had live-in household help in the form of nannies, maids and drivers. Household sizes, then, were large: the average household size for this sample was 6.6 individuals, but it was not uncommon to have 10 people living in a bungalow. Well it's small...yeah, compared to here. Like my house is like the kitchen, the living room is on the first floor, and the dining room. And then upstairs are two bedrooms, so...but I have a maid. I have three maids. They are live-in. But, yeah...they live in...they sleep in the other room. And my kids, because they are small, they sleep with us...in the same room. So it is very crowded for all the...family. —Fernanda, arrived 1987 [How many bedrooms were there?] There's actually only two bedrooms in there. There's the one master bedroom where my grandmother, my aunt, and then...my parents and I would also stay in there, and my uncle had his own, it was the smaller one bedroom, and the maid just slept in the couch area. —Lanny, arrived 1994 There was a lot of flexibility in household size: some participants couldn’t remember the number of people living with them at the time they left the Philippines, because it often fluctuated. Those who lived in Manila often hosted other family members from the more 103 distant provinces for various reasons: cousins might come and stay with them while studying at university, for example. Following the traditional custom, participants often lived in the same neighbourhood as extended family members: across the street or around the corner. In some cases, the family property had been divided to make room for the adult children. Generally, the participants did not seem to view property as an investment while they lived in the Philippines. For those whose family owned a home, it was usually because they had inherited the property from their own parents. This is changing as the Philippines adopts a more Westernized approach to the housing market and mortgage system. For this reason, more recent arrivals may have different perceptions of homeownership than earlier cohorts: although renting is still commonplace, owning is now possible for the middle classes. Filipino immigrants seem to retain the tendency to rent housing in Canada, although their perceptions of renting change over time. Initial housing in Toronto The process of finding housing in Toronto has not changed over the years, but there are some noticeable changes in immigrants’ experiences over time. For the earlier immigrants, housing was readily available, affordable, and easy to find; for those who arrived more recently, there were more challenges. Early arrivals only looked at a couple of apartments before finding one that was convenient and affordable; later arrivals spent more time and looked at more units. [When you came here would you say it was difficult to find a place to live?] Not really…we just look around wherever there was a place. [And you had a lot of choice of different apartments?] Yeah. —Lenore, arrived 1978 Oh well, my friend’s they're asking for, like references? Things like that. And then that time the high-rise landlords won't give him a, like a good recommendation, because he didn't want the tenant to move right? And of course you have to settle for an older building. Older is cheaper right? Otherwise you're probably not in a very good...area? Or say...like, generally not uh...well, superior service right? [You're limited to the older buildings and less desirable neighbourhoods?] Yeah [laughs]. Exactly. —Francis, arrived 2002 104 It was a regular apartment, so 2-bedroom, it was a low-rise, only six floors. It was a family of four that we lived with, and uh...they gave us one room, and their children slept with them in the one room, and yeah they left after a month. They were charging us like a thousand, I don't...well we probably had no idea what rent was like, so we just expected that we would get a job right away. And uh, yeah so...they were taking advantage of us...the situation, so...—Alina, arrived 2003 When we...talked to the landlords, they would ask for bank accounts, they would ask for where we work, and when we...we tell them we just arrived a few days ago, they're not very interested to talk to us. And when we got a place, in the opposite building where my friend stays, we were even asked to have the friend sign the paper so we had a guarantor. We had to do that. Otherwise if my friend refused to sign, then we would not have probably got that place. —Angela, arrived 2005 The need for references and a credit history, although present for renters like Lenore in the 1960s and 1970s, was more pronounced for Angela and her 1990s and 2000s cohorts. Informal rental agreements exist, often between recently-arrived and more established immigrants, as Alina’s experience illustrates. Another issue is location: Lenore, like many earlier immigrants, initially settled downtown in the traditional immigrant reception area of the city; Angela and Alina illustrate the more modern path of settling directly in the suburban neighbourhoods. This was solely based on where their friends and family lived, and shows how the immigrant reception areas have changed over time. Obviously, social networks are crucial in initial settlement: many new immigrants were sponsored by family members and would stay with them upon arrival, particularly those who came in the 1970s when family class immigration was introduced. Others came in as skilled workers and had friends or colleagues in Toronto who they lived with initially. However, the length of time that they lived in this transitional housing varied depending on the year they arrived: immigrants who arrived in the 1970s and 1980s usually stayed a very short time (a few days or weeks), while immigrants who arrived in the 1990s and 2000s often stayed with relatives for months or years. Although rental housing was often easy to find in the 1990s and 2000s, the locations were not ideal and rents were usually quite high in relationship to newcomers’ salaries. This seems 105 to confirm the major changes in housing policy that have led to higher rents and lower vacancy rates in major Canadian cities since the 1990s (discussed in Chapter 1). Participants often reflected on this change over time: [How easy or difficult was it to find a place to live?] No, no, it wasn't hard to find a place to live then. It was very affordable, although the salaries then were atrociously small and very low, still the living quarters is affordable. —Lourdes, arrived 1968 [Do you think things are different for immigrants arriving now?] I think um...it's still the same. It's still a challenge to look for affordable housing. I think that's the one thing that is important. Yeah, I think it's the housing policy of uh...the City of Toronto, or...yeah. In the City of Toronto I think there are really less...affordable housing. Or...compared to the number of population. —Fernanda, arrived 1987 …in terms of availability of renting places, so they have to go...outside of the city itself. Like my friend who's coming here, a family, like they want to stay in downtown Toronto because the jobs are here. But then...the cost of renting in Toronto is so much, so high for their budget. Like they're only budgeting $500, a maximum of $800, but they're a family of four. And...I don't know if they can find that within their budget, so they have to move away from the city, so...I'm not sure how it will affect their other...you know, considerations. —Corinna, arrived 1997 Structural changes in housing policy likely affected the more recent participants, although they did not seem to be aware of them. These will be discussed further in Section 5.1.4. Housing discrimination A few participants encountered housing discrimination in their search for an apartment, but otherwise the participants rarely mentioned or alluded to racism. This is a paradox: one would expect that the earlier cohorts of immigrants would have experienced more racism or housing discrimination since, in the 1960s, Canada was still a very white society (e.g. Darden 2004). Very few immigrants from non-European countries had been admitted at that time. [What challenges would you say you faced finding housing as a new immigrant?] I didn't have a problem. It's a problem it's the money, but you have to fit whatever you have. And that's what I say all the time, its really price first, that's really the main thing, yeah. But in 106 terms of getting turned down [for apartments], we didn't really feel it. Or...renting an apartment, we were turned down just because of our ethnicity? I didn't feel it. Although, I know there is a subtle...there is a subtle discrimination but not in terms of housing. Not in my encounter. —Martine, arrived 1972 [What challenges would you say you faced finding housing as a new immigrant?] Oh I never had any problem. I mean I...even...even when we were renting that house, uh...no. I never had…I didn't feel I was being restricted in my choice of place to live. No, I never had that experience, uh...even when I rented this house, and I guess they...they just want to know if I can afford it. That's my feeling. But I never had an...any issue or any experience that because I'm not Canadian, that I'm Asian, you know...that I shouldn't be where I want to be. —Thomas, arrived 1981 While a few had directly experienced housing discrimination, this seems to be a rare occurrence in the Filipino community. It has become more difficult to rent an apartment because rents are higher now in proportion to income, and there have been few new rental buildings constructed since the 1970s. Because of the number of new immigrants settling in Toronto, some landlords may be discriminating based on income. This affects new immigrants precisely because they have not yet secured good jobs; Murdie et al. (2002) detailed discrimination based on income type in their study of Polish and Somali immigrants. Housing quality The quality of rental housing available to new immigrants in Toronto seems to have changed over the years as well. Participants were asked to describe their housing, and what they liked or disliked about it. Earlier arrivals often described their housing as spacious, well- maintained, and adequate for their needs; those who arrived more recently were more likely to describe their housing as small, cramped, or poorly maintained, often basement apartments that they shared with friends or family. Spacious, it's two bedrooms, you know how these apartments are, it worked really very well for us. Spacious, spacious...uh...well located, cause it's right downtown. And accessible. Accessible to wherever you go. You didn't need a...public transit is all you need. Very accessible to everything. Church, everything, stores, downtown, yeah, yeah. —Martine, arrived 1972 107 Um, probably it was cold. Cause it was the basement. And um...it wasn't a carpeted basement. It was like, cement and they had like a patterned, like a wrapping, over...I dunno how to describe it...and there was furniture there, so that was okay…And probably, they were loud at the top, just walking, like we could hear them, um, anything they say we could hear, and the laundry, the washing machine, was in the basement. It wasn't, there was no private entrance, so they could just come in and go, if they want—obviously it's their house, and they want to wash clothes then they could, right. Um, no kitchen. Really it was just...a basement. —Alina, arrived 2003 I was not very comfortable because...at night they're very noisy and...not every day, not every night...on the weekends, no matter how much I complained. And my landlord said the next time you call the police, oh I'm...I said not me. But the lady's aware of it. Actually, I just said to myself, I will sacrifice because I need a place to stay. Yeah. But I forced myself to like it…And very noisy, because I live in the basement. The footsteps, walking, I don't know if it's on purpose but...you know? What really irritates me is that...why in the hell are they washing the clothes in the middle of the night? —Andrew, arrived 2006 These quotations illustrate an important shift in rental housing: purpose-built rental housing has become more expensive because so little has been built since the mid-1980s. Secondary suites, often in the basement of single-family homes, have become the affordable housing type. Toronto has permitted secondary suites since 1999; before this time, there was a proliferation of illegal secondary suites like the one Alina’s family lived in. As Alina’s and Andrew’s stories illustrate, these houses were not designed for two separate households, which leads to noise and privacy issues. Another housing type participants were not used to was the high-rise rental unit; they were not willing to spend much time living in these types of units in Toronto. Historically, overcrowding has always been an issue in immigrant communities, due to the fact that they are usually renting units that were designed for a single person, or a couple with no children. The vast majority of the participants lived with friends or family members temporarily when they first arrived. Even though this mirrored their experience in the Philippines, the participants revealed varying degrees of comfort with these arrangements. 108 At first, we stayed with our...with our brother-in-law's apartment. Close to two months. They lived downtown [Marley and Eglington]. And then I just decided, because it's really hard because she has a kid who is just several months older than my boy...I really find it uncomfortable sharing just a room with a...apartment. It's really hard to adjust to...to people. Especially the wife of my...my brother-in-law. It's just an apartment, like a two-bedroom. —Laria, arrived 1988 You know in the Philippines we're a close family ties. And so I think...I was actually afraid of living alone. I would rather be, you know, I would rather be a live-in, living with somebody that you really know. Even now I—they say you have to...learn to live alone—but, you know...like we in the Philippines, your mother and your father lives with you, your children, married children sometimes lives with you, and things like that. But we're close family ties. —Yvonne, arrived 1993 The sponsored eventually sponsor family members themselves, or host friends when they first arrive in Toronto. [There were three of you living in the apartment?] Yeah. And then we kept on, it was kind of a...a practice among the new immigrant people whoever, any of our friends who arrive, and didn't know anyone, we um...we harbor them, and the agreement of course, they didn't pay rent until they find a job. And that was just how it was, it was the practice... —Martine, arrived 1972 As S. Gopikrishna (2010) noted, new immigrants often live in crowded situations with friends, acquaintances or even strangers. This differs from the cultural practice of living with close extended family members. An immigrant to Canada in 2006 had a 1 in 4 chance of living in an overcrowded house, a major increase from 1971, when the odds were 1 in 13 (Haan 2010). However, little research has been one on reasons why overcrowding is happening: it could be an attempt to increase economic, occupational, social and residential mobility, a “survival strategy in the fact of economic constraint” (ibid, 18). Factors influencing housing location Participants were asked what factors were important when they were looking for housing, initially and in successive moves. Nineteen of the 32 participants chose housing that was close to their workplaces, 22 chose to live near their children’s schools, and 20 chose to live 109 near shops and services. Half of the participants (16) also chose to live near a church; it is significant that the vast majority of Filipinos are Roman Catholic, and Catholic churches are extremely commonplace in Toronto. This likely contributes to their remarkable spatial dispersion in the Toronto CMA. Besides mere practical decision-making, the importance of these factors in housing location mirrors their housing history in the Philippines, where the majority of participants said they always had access to shops, services, schools, workplaces, and churches regardless of whether they lived in suburban or urban neighbourhoods. Access to public transit was a major factor in housing location, since most had very strong histories of transit use in the Philippines, and participants did not purchase cars right away when they arrived in Canada. Twenty-three of the 32 participants mentioned access to public transit as a factor in their initial or successive housing choices, even those who bought cars. This is an example of the practicality that drove participants’ choices. I like the location because uh...it's where the buses and the TTC—the streetcars are—like right at our door, it s the TTC stop. Two ways—if I want to go north-south, I take the Ossington #63 bus. If I want to go east-west I use the streetcar, King. King streetcar. —Corinna, arrived 1997 Affordability was a major factor, both in renting and owning a place. [Why did you choose that neighbourhood?] Actually it's just the price, at that time. We forgot that we have a baby, who'd be going to school one day, me being a teacher I didn't even think of that. It was mostly the money. Uh, it was affordable, it was $63,000 at that time, with $10,000 downpayment. —Lourdes, arrived 1968 …at that time in 1989 we were looking for a place to rent. We can't find because of that, that was the year when everything was so expensive, there's nothing. And uh, when you buy you can't choose a place because everything's so expensive, and interest rates so high...I don't know that year was...not a good time to buy or rent, but then you have no choice. You go there because...you don't want to...stay in a far place from the city...so...so then we decided to get a convenient one, that's all. —Dominique, arrived 1980 [How did you decide on the neighbourhood?] Actually it took me a while before I actually decided to...go as far as Scarborough. Because that time for me Scarborough really is far. 110 Because I'm used to the city...city life. But uh, we have been trying for, I believe three months, to find a house in the vicinity of where...I used to live. But we cannot find, really a...how do you call it? A new house? [So that's why you decided on Scarborough?] Yeah. Our agent finally convinced me that I needed to, uh...to check the suburbs, and...I really like it because...although it's not really my dream house but...it's liveable. —Laria, arrived 1988 Note that both Dominique and Laria were reluctant to move too far outside of the city; affordability pushed them beyond their preferred neighbourhoods. Another note: for the seven participants who did not own a home, five immigrated as Live-In Caregivers, one as a Family Class immigrant and one as a Skilled Worker. This shows the difference immigration category makes: the lower incomes of caregivers, their need to send home remittances, and their requirement to live with their employers (Kelly et al. 2009) impact their housing choices for years to come. Even after they become permanent residents, it takes them many years to regain certification in their fields and sponsor family members. During this time, they are single-person households, a growing demographic that is poorly served in a competitive housing market focusing on ownership. Motivations for moving Since this study traced the participants’ histories, reasons for moving from one home to the next were often discussed. The participants were very mobile. The average number of moves in Canada was 3.5, although obviously the longer they lived in the country, the higher the number: those who arrived in the early 1970s had moved six or seven times. Reasons for moving were often quite practical. Housing size was a factor in 15 percent of moves: moving out of overcrowded apartments, or having additional family members (children or sponsored family members). About 15 percent of moves involved changing housing type (buying a home, moving from a townhouse to a single family house, selling the house and buying a condo). Affordability plays a role in these decisions, in terms of saving money for downpayments, choosing the least expensive home, and being able to afford a larger home. Sixteen percent of moves happened so the participants could live closer to work, and three percent to be closer to their kids’ school. 111 Proximity to a public school, not any specific school, was the motivator. Participants did not relocate to be in a better school district (e.g. Bosetti 2004, Welsh 2010). Housing quality was a minor factor in participants’ moves: only 2 percent of the moves were due to poor housing quality. About 5 percent of moves happened because the participants could no longer afford the rent, and 7 percent because they could afford a nicer apartment. Six percent of moves involved conflicts with neighbours or landlords. Changes in the life cycle were also relatively minor contributors: only 2 percent of moves involved downsizing, 6 percent getting married, and 4 percent involved getting divorced. Moving into homeownership One of the major reasons participants moved was because they had bought a home. Although some of the participants believed homeownership was the norm for Filipino immigrants, this attitude did not seem to reflect the majority. For about half of the participants (17 of the 32), their stated preference did not match up with their current housing choice: either they could not yet afford their ideal housing type, or they preferred to rent, but decided to buy due to the influence of other family members or the practical aspects of ownership (accumulating money or assets over time). Almost every participant acknowledged that their attitudes towards housing had changed since they arrived in Canada: many used to believe renting was acceptable, but their perceptions shifted after living in Toronto for a few years. In the Filipino community, the preference is still to own a house, and not to live in the high- rises. It's almost like a status symbol that like, you've crossed that threshold, "I was able to buy a house." [Is it the type of housing or ownership?] It's ownership, the ownership idea. More of them, even if they own condos, many in the Filipino community would still prefer to have a single-family house…Um...I enjoyed living in an apartment where I don't have to do anything. Right, no maintenance, no...that sort of thing?…And then my husband came, and we got married, raised our first-born there. I was happy there, right? But my husband loves to entertain. So he's like, let's move to a house, you know, like our own house, sort of thing. [So you would have preferred to stay there?] Yes. And even now. Now we're empty-nesters. I would still prefer to live in a condominium. —Jennifer, arrived 1973 112 Nowadays most Filipinos own a house. Very few of us rent apartment. Because they were able to overcome all of those difficulties and buy houses. The housing market is viewed as an instrument to get more money. Until they get burned you know? —Barney, arrived 1973 Um...I think they have adapted to um...I guess, I don't want to call it a Canadian way of living, but like, a living where like, yeah, own property and uh...I—I—I'd consider it maybe a North American way to own your own property. [It's interesting how these values change over time.] Yes.  I remember—I think we were even still kind of content in that small apartment that we had, so that's why we were okay when we moved here to Canada with my grandparents, and my aunt, because we were used to that kind of living conditions. But then after a while, yeah my parents...wanted to like, I guess not felt the need, but...they were slowly developing the need to own their own property. —Lanny, arrived 1994 Jennifer’s quote is interesting, because she talks about the desire to own a home rather than “in the high-rises”. Given that high-rise apartments are rare in the Philippines, she is talking about Toronto, with its wealth of high-rise apartments, mostly built in the 1960s and 1970s: 48% of rental stock in the City of Toronto is in these towers (E.R.A. Architects et al., 2010). She is apparently talking about the Filipino attitude to housing in this country, as opposed to in the Philippines. As seen in earlier, the tradition of ownership in the Philippines was until recently reserved for the wealthy. Although some shifts in participants’ attitudes may be due to changes in life cycle (having children, empty nesters downsizing, etc.), the number of times that participants referred to renting as “throwing your money away” was notable: 12 of the 32 participants mentioned this. The repetition of this phrase, or its variants, is interesting considering their housing histories in the Philippines, where almost half the participants rented and housing did not seem to be valued as an investment. [What would you say are some of the challenges in deciding on housing as a new immigrant? Do you think this is different for immigrants arriving now?] I think part of the challenge is they're not really informed...like Filipinos don't know what a mortgage is. Over there, and in any other country, you pay by cash. I mean there's no such thing as mortgage, no...you don't owe anything, you just...if you have the money you buy it or you don't buy it. [Do you think it's changed since you got here?] Yeah, definitely. I think the Philippines have definitely 113 progressed now, like, I know because I did a mission a couple of years ago and it's totally different from what I remember. And they're...they're right on, they get it now. They have subdivisions that are being mortgaged out, they have new homes that look like here in Miami, so they get the Americanized, the globalization, you know... —Monica, arrived 1972 [You prefer to own?] Yeah, for me yeah. I prefer to own. Because uh, owning is like a savings. In the future you could sell it if you cannot—if you do not need it or if you cannot afford it any more. But uh, renting, I keep on putting money down...of course that's part of your life you know...a place to stay. But after that it's gone...it's gone. But if you own a property—it's only on my opinion—if you own a property and then it's part of your savings. Become your assets. [Have your preferences changed since you came to Canada?] Um...actually...of course when you're sort of progressing...you don't remain stagnant, when you first came here. Of course you learn a lot, you know? Progressing. So you...you want to...have some progress too, you know. And at the same time, I could still help, it doesn't matter you know, I can still send some help back home. As long as I can afford. —Ana, arrived 1991 [What was the main reason for buying a house?] Well, my husband—I didn't really—I wasn't that aggressive to look for a house, but my husband figured out that we're...uh, we don't have so much investment and he was saying that if we have the apartment [here rubs face and looks overwhelmed] we don't claim back what we're paying. Whereas if we have a house, we can sell it and after a while it's a good investment. And also thinking that I already was working regularly and he was working also, so he said it's about time that we got our own place. —Angela, arrived 2005 [Do you have a preference for a particular type of housing?] No, even in some time, if I have a stable job, why not? I want to buy...I want to have a place of my own because renting, it's just throwing your money away, you are not owning the place, right? It's a big difference. But for now I don't have a stable job, so...everyone is telling me oh you shouldn't be in rental, it's really...it's not acceptable. —Andrew, arrived 2006 These quotes illustrate several points: the transition of housing as a place to live to housing as a market commodity, the need to use housing as an investment, and pressure from other people to own housing. Angela shared a relatively common experience: one spouse wanted to buy a house and the other wanted to continue renting. Note that she did not really understand 114 the idea of housing as an investment. Andrew’s case also shows this social pressure towards homeownership: his income is under $20,000 per year and he lives alone, but friends are still encouraging him to buy a home. Ana mentioned remittances, a subject that many other participants mentioned; evidently she considered the ability to own a home and still keep sending money to her relatives. While many participants became convinced that renting is a waste of money, others struggled to understand the sacrifices made to achieve homeownership. But, new immigrants, I think the only problem is...of course in the beginning they have to rent. So as long as they can pay the rent. I used to have two, three jobs, a lot of people have two, three jobs to pay for the rent right? Yep. And how can you save for your, like downpayment? If it goes all to rent, right? —Francis, arrived 2002 I have no experience though, but I can see my friends religiously...spend all their money, like most of their money on mortgages, limited all—limited. Like, they're...I see them...I see them more focused on that. And they have...they work too hard already, like they work too much for those. Yeah, I don't know, that's just what I see but...it's an invest—it will be an investment in time, and the better—the earlier, the better. Yeah, but...I don't know yet. —Maria, arrived 2004 Francis currently works two part-time jobs in the accommodation and food industry. At 34, he has already been through a divorce and is remarried with a young child. Before he remarried, he rented a room in a rooming house. He doesn’t think much about ownership. As the housing trajectory model suggests, there were many reasons why the participants chose to buy a home, or live in a single-family home. Many had always wanted to own a single-family home, but for others it was merely a practical decision based on their household size, the fact that they had small children, or that they would be sponsoring relatives who would be living with them for a few years. Condos were common for young newcomers, singles, and retirees. They are also a practical way to move into homeownership, since their small size makes them more affordable than other housing types. 115 [How did you decide on that location?] Well...at the time, I was looking at the ads, but uh...I was uh...looking for a place to...to rent. But there was...there was the house that...the condo that we saw in the paper. So we went there...we saw it, and we thought we can make it. We can do this. I can find the downpayment, and we can do it. It was farther away, at the time it seemed so far away from downtown Toronto. So...but uh, we took it, and we stayed there for two years...I guess about two and a half years. —Esteban, arrived 1974 Impacts of the life cycle on housing choice Life cycle is widely believed to impact housing and transportation choices: the housing career model is still used in municipal housing forecasts and official plans. Although life cycle stages were not major reasons for moving, they did shape the participants’ choices to some extent. Young singles or childless couples often lived in small apartments or condos, bought a small house when they had children, and later downsized to a smaller unit once the children left home. [So your preference is a single-family house?] Yeah, single family house. [Do you think your preferences have changed] I don't think so, no. [Right, but you first lived in an apartment and did for some years, and you were fine with that?] Well, it was the needs at that time. We didn't need a house at that time. And besides it's really the lifestyle, that's we decided on the condominium, because it's just the two of us. We didn't really want...you know the responsibility of what? Gardening, and maintaining the house, and the big space, it was not really for us, it was not really practical or economical for us. Yes. We didn't have spare money to be grand in our space, so...[laughs] no grandeur in our scheme. —Martine, arrived 1972 Uh...depends on the age. When I was younger I preferred to have a big house. Now as I... now I'm older, I prefer to have small house because...before we have...we have family of six, now we have family of two. So there are a lot of extra... extra room you don't really need. Now I live in a three-bedroom apartm—three-bedroom house, that only one room is being for us, one room is being for TV, one is for...so it's...you only heat part of it. Utilities-wise... I prefer actually a small house. —Rodrigo, arrived 1972 [Have your preferences changed since you arrived in Canada?] Yes. I would agree with that. Well, the...owning a property is basically not so much about uh...when we bought the house we decided to stay there, it's sort of a forced saving in preparation for retirement. So we were 116 able to pay the house in about fifteen years, and uh...I would say the equity of the house is big enough to have a condominium and have some savings at the same time you know. We added to our personal savings. [By having a smaller place?] Yes. —Barney, arrived 1973 It would be—I think owning is still a better—I'd rather own than rent. But with the pension money that we earn now, looking at for regular income, you know it seems like renting is a better...a better, uh, idea. Because all the extras that come up, you have an amount, you think that's all you need but then you need the hydro and you need the phone and you need the internet, and the maintenance, and the taxes and all that stuff. But when you're renting you just have maybe that one fee, that cable or whatever, and that's it. So it—it simplifies things when you're renting. [Have your preferences changed since you arrived in Canada?] Oh definitely, yes, yes, definitely. I was—wanted to own, before, I wanted to have my own. —Evangeline, arrived 1972 Exceptions to the traditional housing career abound in the Filipino community. Many of the participants came to Toronto on their own, either as unmarried individuals or to settle in the city before bringing family members over from the Philippines. Divorce was fairly common among the participants; Hansen (2010) examined the prevalence of divorce in the Filipino community. A significant number enter the country as caregivers. The single-person household is therefore a significant household type for Filipinos, either for a transitional period or permanently. Homeownership, and living in a single-family home, does not necessarily work for single-person households. [Would you say you have a preference for a particular type of housing?] Now, condominium. If I were to buy something I would buy a condominium unit in the Bloor and Yonge area. Uh...because the kids have grown, see, and...now we're getting to something personal. I split with my wife, so...I would buy a condominium if I decide to...but that's by preference. Cause you don't need to take care of a house. When you have a house, there's a yard, and there is a lot of things that you have to do...to maintain it. And my sense is that in a condominium, you just have to pay the maintenance fees and...you just worry about your own little unit. [So your preferences have changed?] Yes. Of course. —Thomas, arrived 1981 [Do you have a preference for a particular type of housing? Have these preferences changed since you moved to Canada?] Like...I would like…as I observe here, there are lots of Filipinas that are also singles, you know, we live alone. So it's hard for us to like...it's hard for 117 us to really own a house, or like...what. So I would...I was really thinking that the government could...make something for us, that you know, uh, that would only accommodate a single person? With maybe, like...housing that uh...housing that will accommodate...with one...like how I was telling you like in Germany, small room, sharing...small room, with your own sink and something that you can wash in. And then you...like if there are four room or five rooms. Just the room. Because most of us are always working, so... —Yvonne, arrived 1993 Later in life, once they were established in Canada, several participants built homes or inherited their parents’ property back in the Philippines. They spent, or planned to spend, six months of the year in Canada and six months in the Philippines. This trend did not seem to replace homeownership in Canada; in fact, it was the more established immigrants, earlier arrivals from the 1970s, who seemed to invest in a home in the Philippines. As Murdie et al. (1999) theorized, housing trajectories are now much more complex than the traditional life cycle-inspired housing career: immigration category, divorce, and transnationalism (e.g. Walton-Roberts 2003, Ghosh 2007) also play a role in housing choice. 5.1.3 Transportation Choice Transportation history in the Philippines Transit was by far the dominant mode of transportation for the participants for commuting to work, errands and social travel while they lived in the Philippines; very few owned cars. Transit options are more varied in the Philippines: participants used buses, jeepneys (small buses or vans), and tricycles (motorbikes with two seats behind the driver). The latter two options were present even in suburban residential neighbourhoods and rural areas, since jeepney and tricycle companies are small and privately-owned, often as home businesses. Several participants’ families in the Philippines had run jeepney companies themselves. There are no set routes for these transportation modes; they operate more like taxis. Thus, most of the participants were quite used to taking transit, albeit in different forms than those that exist in Canada. They also expressed their satisfaction with travelling this way; their only concern was safety due to the heavy traffic and weaving, unpredictable trajectories practiced by jeepney drivers. 118 Transportation mode: Philippines Transportation mode: Canada 5 10 15 20 25 30 Car (driver) Car (passenger) Transit Walking Cycling p 0 5 10 15 20 Car (driver) Car (passenger) Transit Walking Cycling Primary transportation choice Secondary transportation choice Figure 5.2. Primary and secondary transportation modes used by the participants. Participants were asked which mode they used to travel to work, for errands, and other travel both in the Philippines and in Canada. “Transit” in the Philippines includes buses, jeepneys, and tricycles. These graphs represent the most recent transportation choices in each country, i.e. the year of migration for the Philippines, and 2010 for Canada. For trips to school, some walked, but the majority took jeepneys and tricycles; this is not a culture where parents drive their kids to school in their own cars. Older children often had a fair degree of autonomy; they were able to travel on their own using the jeepneys and tricycles. For work trips, the vast majority traveled by jeepney, buses and tricycles, and they did not stick to one mode; it was common to use jeepney one day, tricycle the next. Walking and using taxis to commute to work were rare. Only two participants drove to work. Walking was definitely more commonplace for shopping trips, since most people lived in close proximity to shops and services—within a five-minute walk. In fact, there seems to be a distinct logic in modal choice, based on distance traveled and the speed based on the day’s traffic. Taking public transit did not seem to carry any sort of stigma. Many of the participants had drivers and other household staff, which lessened the actual driving for the participants during the time they lived in the Philippines. While some had drivers’ licenses, they did not actually drive their own cars. …at that time, even when you have uh—like you acquire a car, you never drove. You hire a driver.  Because back home...everything is cheap when it comes to labour. That's why a normal family there would have two maids, and then a driver. And that's cheaper. Yeah. 119 That's probably why most Filipinos didn't learn how to drive. Cause they're so dependent on—on help. They got—you know, we got pampered. It's a different way of living. —Valerie, arrived 1966 Yeah...actually my eldest son, uh...he goes to a nursery school. The caregiver usually, she's the one who brings the kid and waits there and comes back. And later on actually, there is a jeep, like a carpool? They pick up my son and then bring to the school and then come back. —Fernanda, arrived 1987 In Fernanda’s household, she took transit, her caregiver took her son to school by jeepney, and her husband drove to work. Even in the households with cars, driving was not the de facto transportation mode for all trips. [How did you travel to work?] So...with tricycle and walking, yeah. [So you really didn't use the car much?] We didn't use the car to travel around, okay, I mean to go to the market, because first of all, parking is a...it's a big hassle. So we used the car maybe to visit friends and relatives. We used the car to...to go to church, because the church that's close to us is not our church, okay, so we go to a different church. —Esteban, arrived 1974 This behaviour—owning a car, but not relying on it for every trip—carries over into the participants’ travel patterns in Canada. Transportation choice in Toronto As Figure 5.2 shows, fewer of the participants use public transit as their primary transportation mode in Canada than in the Philippines. Transit, however, is still a more prevalent choice than driving. Generally, it was not the case that car ownership represented the pinnacle of transportation choice. As with housing choice, 17 of the 32 participants’ stated preferences did not match their transportation choices. Many of the participants drove for years and then went back to transit use upon retirement. Many continued to use transit to commute to work, reserving the car for household errands. I know some...some people who came here, and within a few months got their driver's license and bought a car. But to me, owning a car...or driving a car was not...a priority for me. It was getting to work. Uh...I like commuting uh, through public transit cause...I find the time to 120 read...and even sleep...and so...I find a use for the time. And...that's how I feel about it, and that's what I've done most of the time, was public transportation. —Esteban, arrived 1974 I don't…actually until now, I don't drive. So my husband and my children, they have licenses, but not me. But in the Philippines I got my license, before going to Canada. But I tried to drive, and my husband—I almost got into an accident. So my husband said, from now on you will not drive. He's more strict than the minister of transportation. —Fernanda, arrived 1987 [Right now you're walking, taking transit, and driving right? So you don't have a preference?] Walking because everything is close by. My husband likes more driving. I...I encourage him to walk…Toronto really...Canada is not really like...it's not really like the other places, with regards to my experiences from other places. Because here it's like, government has the TTC, and you just have to...well there is some mishaps, like they come late, with the schedules...but those are sometimes...it's better than what we have in the Philippines. It's more organized than what we have in the Philippines and what we have experienced. So I don't really find it like, a problem. —Maria, arrived 2004 It's, you know, TTC is so accessible here in Toronto. It's a good system, unlike in other places that I saw. Toronto it's well planned, I mean you can go anywhere, it's cheaper ...transportation. It's a different transportation system than the Philippines. Anybody who came here to Toronto coming from the Philippines will be amazed by system. [The transit?] Yeah, by only $2, I don't know now...$3? You can go wherever, you can transfer, you can go...the system is so nice. —Ken, arrived 2005 Esteban illustrates the pattern seen in the Philippines: he owned a car but continued to use transit for the commute to work. Even Ken, who works in the automotive industry, had high praise for public transit. Social networks were crucial in introducing new arrivals to the public transit system, as well as helping out with driver licensing. Participants usually found out about bus routes, travel times, fares and driving tests from the family members they lived with upon arrival, or other friends in Toronto. As we saw with housing, transportation preferences changed for many participants after they had been in Canada a few years. 121 [How have these preferences changed since you moved to Canada?] It's always been driving. [But in the Philippines you used transit, right?] Because there, you don't have the winter. You know, public transit is accessible, it's right at your doorstep. Here you have to—where we live you have to walk a mile before you can get to the bus stop, you know? And of course, there's winter. Then, it's a different—maybe if the public transit is as accessible as back home, I don't think there's a need for a car. [When you lived downtown did you find it accessible?] It was accessible, sure. Because I didn't know the suburbs then. [So is it just the difference between living in the city and living in the suburbs? Would you have a car if you still lived in the city?] I'd still have a car. But I would be using the public transit more often. —Lourdes, arrived 1968 [Is your preference to drive?]  I think, uh...my preference is to drive. [Why did you always take transit to work?] At the time it was cheaper you know, when I was taking the bus. I started paying only a quart—how much the token? One dollar. [Have your preferences changed] Yes, yes. Driving a car, it's your own car, it saves you a lot of time. And you can go anytime you want. You don't have to wait for the bus to arrive. [As you got older you preferred driving more?] Yes. —Barney, arrived 1973 Yeah, um, for me personally, I would—actually since I commuting to school so I'm used to taking transit, I wouldn't mind transit, but because in Mississauga, um...it's more convenient to own a car...the transit isn't as efficient as the TTC is...if you consider it efficient. Especially if you wanna go visit...other friends, family and stuff, it'd be...it's more convenient to take a car, to drive, yeah. —Lanny, arrived 1993 Driving increased in importance for the participants once they became settled in Toronto, in the absence of jeepneys, tricycles, and household help to carry out some of their travel needs. Transportation and work Many of the participants acknowledged the significant role that workplace location played in transportation mode choice. I didn't have any challenges in taking transit or anything. For new immigrants, it really depends on their work location, whether they can take TTC or whether there are parking costs or whatever where they work. Especially for men, the jobs that they get are often outside the 122 city, factories, manufacturing jobs. So it would be harder to take transit to those places. —Martine, arrived 1972 [What would you say are some of the challenges for new immigrants in deciding on a transportation mode?] Well, it depends on where the work is. That's why when we do our information sharing with newly arrived immigrants, we tell them that as new immigrants, you should settle where your job is. Because it's really hard...to at least commute from Toronto to Markham considering...not only that the fare is double...but...the weather. You have winter. And it's really hard to travel during winter time. —Laria, arrived 1988 Occupational and industrial shifts since the 1970s have several implications on travel. First, for the earlier arrivals, initial employment at an office meant a routine, nine-to-five workday, often in the central city. For the 1990s and 2000s arrivals, initial work would involve more part-time, evening, and temporary work. Secondly, the low pay in service sector jobs means that some work more than one job (although only one respondent mentioned this). It is difficult for more recent immigrants to live close to multiple workplaces, given that access to transit is a major factor in housing choice and jobs in these sectors are dispersed throughout the region. Finally, with the increase in live-in caregivers in the 1980s and 1990s, more Filipinos would actually be living at their place of employment. Darden (2004) and Kelly (2006) theorized that this might contribute to Filipinos’ remarkable residential dispersion across the Toronto CMA. It may also contribute to higher transit use, since caregivers do not typically need a car for the commute to work. Moving into car ownership Many participants bought cars within one to four years after arriving in Canada. Others waited longer because of affordability issues, only bought a car because it was required for work, or chose not to buy a car. Typically, a household would have only one car, so the rest of the household would travel by transit or as car passengers. Almost half of the participants preferred using transit (15 out of 32), while others considered this only a transitional transportation mode until they could afford a car. Reasons for buying a car also illustrate this ambivalence towards car ownership. Participants chose to buy a car because they lived in an area where transit was not very reliable (2), 123 because transit was not convenient to access their workplace (8), because they had a child (5), or because of the cold weather (3). Only six participants indicated that they bought a car because they preferred to drive. Several female participants said that they preferred not to drive, or that their husband preferred driving. For example, Lenore had taken transit for years, until her husband passed away and she was forced to learn how to drive. As she told the story, she didn’t actually like driving, but now considered it a necessity, as did Elizabeth. Um...actually I gave up my car, because I had an accident. So I don't mind taking the TTC every now and then, but most of the time I come with my husband. Because he work here too, so most of the time we come together. But now that he's not working he comes and pick me up. So we save one car. [You didn't really ever want to drive, you said?] I've never been, I've never been really...too keen on it. [So your preferences haven't really changed?] That's right, yeah. A lot of people enjoys driving, but me, you know like uh...I only did it because I had to do it. —Elizabeth arrived 1973 I'm not really a driver (laughs). I'm so used to getting a ride all the time, it's just that my husband got sick and dies that I have to...I have to do it. It's that kind of thing. But I don't really like to drive, I don't drive that far. —Lenore, arrived 1978 Corinna had previously bought a car in order to commute to her two jobs in different suburban municipalities, but gave it up when after she got a job downtown, and was able to buy a condo near her workplace. [How did you travel to work?] Still TTC. I gave up my car when we moved here. I used that to transport all...you know some stuff. But after that I...gave it away. [So you were able to get everywhere by TTC?] Yes. —Corinna, arrived 1997 Many realized the costs of car ownership were beyond them, or had seen others buy before they were financially equipped, in order to maintain their status in the Filipino community. Um, people, you know people, especially owning cars, the first thing Filipino people like to do, our community members, they do the same as well with others, is own a car. And you know they get the big luxury car, the vans that are, you know, for...you have two kids and you have this big van because that's the nice thing to do and...it's prestigious. And I've seen, counseled, families with, with their payments on the car and they're fighting because they 124 can't make their payments on the car, or you know, whatever, it's over their head. You know...it's very...it's a very hard reality to face, and if you are not prepared for it, you know, you're sinking or swimming. —Evangeline, arrived 1972 [You said you prefer transit to driving?] Yes. Mm-hmm. [Why would you say that?] Oh...first thing because the place where I live, and to my workplace is very accessible to transit. And then, at the same time I...I...it lessens my expenses, because if you own a car, you have to pay for parking, for insurance, plus the maintenance. Whereas if I just travel, commute, although I have...I just be patient with time, but I don't mind, you know...I only spend $96 a month you know, for the Metropass...for now, so. It's...it's a good...for me, that's all I can afford, I cannot afford to have a car. —Ana, arrived 1991 Some simply preferred taking public transit. I have no interest in getting [a car], because I don't have any interest in driving. Never in my life I have drive a car, or whatever. I have no interest…TTC is there, subway is there, it's just about the flexibility…you feel more safer. —Andrew, arrived 2006 Five of the six participants who did not own cars immigrated as Live-In Caregivers in the 1990s or 2000s. Although part of the issue may be income, another part is likely necessity. This is an important observation considering the significance of female caregivers and higher percentage of women in Toronto’s Filipino community, and may have a long-term impact on the car (driver) mode share of this population. Life cycle impacts on transportation It is often assumed that young, single people will take transit more than older age groups: becoming an adult, getting married, and having children seem to be linked to car ownership. For the participants in this sample, travelling on transit became more difficult once they had to transport a small child in a stroller, but they still waited as long as possible before investing in a car. I still...I still took the bus and the subway to work at that time. But I bought a car around...I would say March of 1976 because I had a son that was born in January, and it was so hard to bring him to the doctor's appointment because I had to bundle him up, and take the stroller, take the bus...it was so hard to...to travel. But with the kids, we have the four year old...well 125 actually it's not four, it's just three and a half, and we have a new baby, and uh, it was so hard to travel. So I bought a car. —Esteban, arrived 1974 You know initially, we didn't have...when we were in the Annex we didn't have kids, so it was just my wife and I and yeah, we were walking and TTC-ing it the whole way. I had a monthly pass, so... [And when you moved to Davisville?] When we moved to Davisville, we had our first child, my daughter, so yeah, we still, for the longest time, didn't have a car. It's funny because when we finally did get a car, and my daughter would have been two and a half or three by then, um, she wouldn't adjust—she wasn't able to adjust to the car right away. —Robert, arrived 1999 Robert had lived in the US for several years before coming to Canada, and had driven a car during his time there. He switched to transit when he moved to a central neighbourhood in Toronto, and enjoyed living a car-free life. In fact, he still commutes by transit, leaving the car at home for his wife; they now have three children. For many participants, the decision to buy a car did not necessarily indicate a preference for driving. Therefore, it makes sense that when possible, the participants reverted to transit upon retirement. So now I use the...the public transport a lot. So now I use the subway and the bus a lot. [Why did it change?] Oh because I...I got rid of my Cadillac when I was living downtown. Actually our house where we are is close to a bus stop, and then I said well, I don't really need a car here. And it's actually quite efficient, it's easy to get to downtown Bloor and Yonge. So now I don't have a car. So I take the subway and the bus. The Dufferin bus is actually one of the busiest routes. Every three minutes, or every five minutes…And uh...in...if you wanna be practical, if you are living downtown and you don't really really need a car, if you need a car occasionally on trips, you can always rent a car, you know what I mean? I was, you know, for me it was cut and dry. It was easy. —Thomas, arrived 1981 Right now [my parents] are trying to get rid of the car. Cause they wanna start taking the subway again. But I think that it has more to do with health as well. Like at night my dad's not comfortable driving anymore. So—and then costing, right? It's—I mean if you think about it, a small car with insurance and gas is gonna be $600, $800 a month. A Metropass is, uh—$120 a month. But the only thing is, you have more time when you're older, so the time issue's not even an issue, so...See that's the magic number, right, when you get to 60-65, you start thinking of downgrading back to the TTC. It's amazing. —Mark, arrived 1982 126 Thomas had long been a car driver—he was one of the few who drove to work in the Philippines—but he had switched to using transit after he moved back downtown and transitioned into semi-retirement. Mark’s parents had resisted both car ownership and homeownership for many years, and were now going back to transit. Many participants indicated an appreciation for transit, both in terms of affordability and practicality. Significantly, there also does not seem to be a class component to transit use, particularly for those who have been in Canada for decades. Initially, there may be the desire to own large houses and cars, but eventually many realize that these traditional markers of success have their costs. The housing-transportation trade-off Much has been written in the transportation literature about trade-offs between distance and travel time, implying that there is some logic to individuals’ decisions about travel mode and housing location (e.g. Alonso 1970). Allison (1997) noted that transportation models generally only consider travel time and costs as factors in housing location, and not housing price. While Alonso described the complexity of housing location decision-making, he simplified these relationships in his land use-rent model: An individual who arrives in a city and wishes to buy some land to live upon will be faced with the double decision of how large a lot he should purchase and how close to the center of the city he should settle. In reality he would also consider the apparent character and racial composition of the neighbourhood, the quality of schools in the vicinity, and a thousand other factors. However, the individual in question is an “economic man”, defined and simplified in a way such that we can handle the analysis of his decision making. He merely wishes to maximize his satisfaction by owning and consuming the goods he likes and avoiding those he dislikes. (1970, 18) In this study sample, it was clear that many of the participants made tradeoffs. [Do you think you make the housing choice first, and then transportation is secondary?] Very good question...uh...gosh...I would think that people would think of it simultaneously because if they don't...you just don't buy the house because it's a nice house. What if it's a big house but it's in Timbuktu and then you're the only one, entertaining yourself. I wouldn't make that 127 judgment based on that house, I would look at the location and how it is in retrospect to convenience of transport, in, in what culture it has around it, you know, those will be my primary reason, not so much having a 10,000-sq. ft. home in...in a farmyard somewhere, and I would be on my own. But I don't know how people, other people may decide differently... —Monica, arrived 1972 [What did you like or dislike about your house?] It was too...it was a bigger house, and more work, more money, you know, to maintain, gas and everything like that, so...It was a long drive...and um, we decided that, you know, you cannot have everything. [You mean, because of the commute time or...?]  Well, because you have to set priorities. If you get a big house, nice car and stuff like that, you'll always be working forever. For us, for us we wanted to be able to...pay off the house sooner, yeah. When we sold the house and then we bought the condo, then we were able to pay it...[The house] was bigger, it was...it was my dream home. But as I said, more work. But at least I have experienced that part of my life, you know what I mean? —Elizabeth, arrived 1972 [What would you say are some of the challenges in choosing housing as a new immigrant?] Um...I don't see really any big challenges are there, the only challenge there is the location. Cause uh, we wanted to get a better, let's say, a good one or a new one, or a close by but we can't at that time so...we have no option but to take what's convenient to us cause we prefer what's convenient rather than traveling that long, you know? You know like, when we were looking for a place, there's some places that's really really better, compared to the prices we paid, then it's far. So...you have to, uh...choose what's your priority, would you like to have a...a bigger place or a little bit new place for the same price, or...like travel and you know...that. —Dominique, arrived 1980 In Elizabeth’s case, she had moved further out of the city into Mississauga, but felt that the higher cost of the Mississauga home and longer commute time just wasn’t worth it. This may indicate a reversal of the traditional spatial assimilation theory; several participants moved from suburb to city over time. These quotes also demonstrate that people may not initially understand the impacts of living far from their workplace. They may downsize or move closer to their jobs in order to improve their quality of life (commuting time, mortgage payments). For some, the desire for increased social standing complicated the issue. 128 If you're—if you get into a class issue where you're supposed to be somebody and you don't have—that's when it becomes difficult because now you're gonna go outside your means. [And do you find that, people live outside their means?] Absolutely. Because of the class orientation…I have guys right now, guy's making $30,000—I know that—wife makes $15,000 part time, so it's $45,000 in. Three kids. Why the hell would you buy two cars? I...like it's crazy. When—when your housing and your—your transportation is like 80% of your income... [Would you say that people don't understand this concept of if you live far out, you can get a cheaper place but then you have to buy two cars?] You know, logically, it's pretty straightforward. But most people don't… —Mark, arrived 1984 As Mark indicated, some choose to live above their means to maintain, or augment, their social standing. There are aspects of rational choice at play, but decisions are often made without a full understanding of advantages, disadvantages, and costs of different options. Even Alonso (1970, 130) acknowledged that housing locations depended upon more than mere economics: “in reality, men are social animals as well.” Hoyt (1939), in his sectoral change model, also acknowledged that the neighbourhood preferences of civic leaders contributed to the location of high-rent districts. 5.1.4 Structural Changes As the previous sections have shown, structural changes in housing policy, immigration policy, the labour market and transportation infrastructure were evident in the participants’ stories. The participants’ level of awareness of these changes varied: while they were very knowledgeable on changes in immigration policy and the labour market, changes in housing policy and transportation infrastructure seemed to go largely unnoticed. This is likely because of the major effects of immigration policy and the labour market on their everyday lives: they are all aware of the shift from Assisted Relative (Family) Class immigration to Skilled Worker Class, for example, because they have tried to sponsor relatives or had difficulty entering the country as a skilled worker. Immigration policy Changes in immigration policy were widely acknowledged as having a major impact on immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. 129 [Canada has seen some major shifts in immigration policy. Do you think these shifts have had an impact on immigrants' housing and transportation choices?] Of course. If—the most in the 80s, 90s, and turn of the century, not very much in the 80s—90s and turn of the century, coming from the Philippines are mostly caregivers and nannies. It has impact on housing. Because these are people whose pay is very low. It will take them at least 5-7 years to own a house, if not more…And then, once they become landed immigrant, their aim is to get their families. So you have to spend for that. And before they can own a house...it's ten years. So it has impact on the housing. Some of them manage to get...if they live down—in the City of Toronto, they don't have to have a car. Because transit, public transit is accessible. But not too many of them will live in the suburbs where you need a car. —Lourdes, arrived 1968 A lot of [caregivers] are nurses and they have to go back to school, you know, they have to retrain, and they have to get...you know, those kind of things. [Why would you say that people come in under the LCP if they're educated?] Why would they?  It's because of poverty back home. Because that's the only thing available. I think that's the only...they can come here faster. It's like stepping stone for them. Because if you know, they'd rather come here to work as caregivers than stay home, not earning anything. So it's a big sacrifice for them. A big adjustment. —Elizabeth, arrived 1973 I've noticed, especially with the Philippine government, they try to push for overseas worker, so like that's the biggest export...and I noticed, yeah like that's something the Canadian government has also noticed, and I guess taken advantage of to a certain extent, because they know these people are willing...to like, be part of living in these conditions, and uh...do this work that no one else really wants to do.  So the immigration laws are seeing these kinds of trends, and I know the Canadian government, they look for specific areas that need to be filled. And then, if like, uh...the citizens of the country don't want to do those jobs, then they find the sources from third world countries or developing countries, and get those people to come in and satisfy those needs. And like they make it only easy to come to Canada only if you can fulfill those needs, but if you want to come here as a professional, oh it's gonna be a lot harder process, and all the skills so...you can only come to Canada if you do this one thing. —Lanny, arrived 1994 The shifts, the major shift at least recently in immigration is they've brought in more temporary foreign workers than permanent immigrants. That's the more recent one. But since the 90s, late 80s they've also stripped family class. They've taken out...you can't sponsor a 130 sibling for instance. That doesn't exist anymore, they've stripped that. So yeah, they've reduced the family class, the family reunification group, and increased the economic class. And live-in caregivers fall under the economic immigrant category, umbrella. Temporary workers fall under that category as well, but they're also not considered immigrants because they're here strictly temporary. Most of my clients who are foreign workers are...yeah, they rent. I mean there are a few who earn enough to buy their own homes regardless of their status, but...I don't know how they do it. —Robert, arrived 1999 When immigration policy changes, potential migrants change their strategies: when Family Class immigration became more difficult in the 1980s, people came in through the LCP. Since the Skilled Worker application process was known to be longer, many chose the LCP as an expedited entry to Canada during the 1990s and 2000s. The resulting gender imbalance does have an affect on immigrants’ choices: most of the seven caregivers in this sample did not own homes or cars. However, it should be noted that the decision to enter under the LCP, rather than the lengthier Skilled Worker process, was often viewed as a strategic decision (as discussed in Section Despite the obvious challenges these participants faced, they still considered conditions in Canada to be better than those in the Philippines or other countries where they had worked. Labour market Changes in the labour market over time were often mentioned during the interviews. There were several main changes: difficulty having foreign credentials recognized, the increase in temporary jobs, and sectoral shifts in industry and occupation. While earlier arrivals did have to re-train or upgrade to pass licensing exams in their professions, the process was much quicker than it was for those who arrived in the 1990s or 2000s. Well, I taught right away. I came in June, and I taught in September. And that hasn't changed. For those who are qualified, they can teach right away although, it's hard. The equivalency question then is still the equivalency question now. For all professions. It hasn't changed. We were fighting—I know I had friends who were engineers and architects at that time who were fighting to get their equivalency. And it's still the problem, same problem! Nurses, same problem! Doctors, the same problem! And I've been here forty years...it hasn't changed. Because the professions don't budge. They think they're the best. —Lourdes, arrived 1969 131 I think finding the work you were trying to do back home is just as hard as it has always been…So much paperwork, so much hassle, so much still to go through, too many hurdles to uh—before you can settle into your profession. Which was the same way back...yes, it hasn't changed, even...in spite of all these new regulations for accessibility and...professional development, blah blah blah. I don't think it has done anything much. It...and uh...like anything, long time ago when I came and now, if you want just a tide-over job, okay...there's a lot of them. You can flip hamburgers and go to sell coffee at coffee shops, and all that to take you through the times when...you just need a job, and some money to spend on your family and your rent and...that stuff I mean. [But not the more professional jobs.] No. Professionally, no...it's a—it's a sad plight, unfortunately. —Evangeline, arrived 1972 Well I think um...there is more access to the professions compared to when we came. Other professions too...there is a...it's an inch, there is an inch...of advancement [laughs] in the access of professions. Um...well, I...I...I've seen at least people that were able to access their profession, like, there are bridging programs that they attended to, unlike in the past, twenty years ago, those are not...those were not available. [So you think the government policies have improved?] Yes, yeah. And um...there are programs, like for nurses—my sister is a nurse, so—there's a care centre for internationally educated nurses, um...there were, um, for engineering...there are bridging programs, which I think is an improvement. —Fernanda, arrived 1987 [Do you think the labour market has changed for immigrants since you arrived in Canada?] Um...from what I'm hearing. They say that it's really difficult...these days. You have trainings, you have uh...you have the registration to...licensing, and what...and that job is still far from you. [Was it hard for you to become a social worker here?] Actually I'm not a social worker here. I did not work on my...registration or anything. It's just uh...we're so fortunate at that time that we're able to get a job close to my profession, as a settlement counselor. It took me...over a year. —Laria, arrived 1988 Earlier arrivals often perceived their challenges to be the same as recent arrivals, but their stories contradict these presumptions. There has been considerable research in the area of foreign credential recognition in Canada, which has led to the policies and programs that Fernanda describes (e.g. Bauder 2003, Gilmore 2008, Gilmore and LePetit 2008). However, most researchers agree that there is still considerable work to be done in this area (e.g. Kelly et al. 2009, Pendakur and Pendakur forthcoming). 132 Temporary work, while always available for newly-arrived immigrants, became more prevalent since the 1990s. This is due in part to the structural changes in the labour market: since the economic recession of the early 1990s, employers tend to hire contract workers, offer work without benefits, and avoid replacing permanent employees (e.g. Peck and Theodore 2010, Walks 2011). In recent years, immigration policy has also shifted to allow temporary workers in fields such as construction and natural resource extraction to enter the country. Uh...at the time...during my time, the employers will offer you all times of benefits so you can work for them, you know? Like for example in my case, I decided to work with the provincial government because of the benefits. Because you have to look into the future. You cannot be young all the time you know? Nowadays uh, even if you are a graduate of the university, when you get—when you are hired, they will give you as much salary as possible but there's no benefits. —Barney, arrived 1973 [Do you think the labour market has changed for immigrants since you arrived?] Like I didn't have a problem. I only worked two hospitals, and I didn't have a difficulty really. I think nowadays, nursing, it's easy to get a job, like there's lots of jobs for nursing. But I just heard it's sometimes hard to get a full-time job. They said they hire you as temporary full-time...I think the reason is they're trying to avoid the benefits. You know, I was surprised, even in hospital...usually the openings would all be full-time. Unless somebody really...left the hospital, you know, and they're really hiring a full-time, then you get a full-time... Not unless you work for a long time, and they really want to hire you...Nowadays, that's what I heard, they hire you temporary full-time. —Lenore, arrived 1978 I feel that it was really difficult to find jobs...because I don't know where...to apply really. [But you think it's easy to find the temporary work?] Yeah, but for now it's difficult to find a permanent job. It's not what, but whom you know in Canada. Because you know I have some friends who are RNs, and they have trouble finding jobs in Canada too. I mean they have their license so I don't know what the problem is now? I guess nobody is hiring because employment...there are no jobs. —Andrew, arrived 2006 Industry shifts from business services and FIRE to manufacturing, accommodations/food services, and retail were noticed, and occupational shifts were significant. 133 [Do you think the labour market has changed for immigrants since you arrived?] Yes, very much so. Well, we're in a recession now, so it's not great, but there are still lots of jobs that are easy to get, but they're mostly temporary jobs in the service sector. Back then you had offers...you had your choice of jobs. And they were clerical jobs, in office, not these lower service sector jobs. So it has really changed. —Martine, arrived 1972 [You said when you came to Canada, other people had trouble getting jobs?] I think so. My husband never had a problem too, at that time. Cause there was already some... [There was still this need for Canadian experience?] Yeah. But some of the friends that we had, like they were probably engineers back home but they ended up doing um, you know, like housekeeping, or... [This is when you came, in the 70s?] Yeah. They did too, and lot of portering, you know. Like uh...yeah, a lot of them, a lot of the guys that were doing orderly jobs and housekeeping and...even when you became a citizen, you know, you're like a second-class citizen, you know? —Elizabeth, arrived 1973 [It took you a couple of years to find work in your field.] Yeah. [And your husband?] He's working in a factory. [What was his training?] Yeah, he uh...he had his Economics degree. —Angela, arrived 2005 The gender implications become clear in the participants’ comments: while earlier arrivals had few problems, Filipino men who arrived in the 1990s and 2000s often did not recertify in their field of study. The women, who are often the first to enter the country under the LCP, eventually retrained, perhaps because their accumulated years of Canadian work experience made it easier to recertify and work in their desired field. Housing policy shifts Structural changes in housing policy or transportation infrastructure were not as visible to the participants, but they were obviously affected by these changes. Very few would be aware of changes such as the introduction of the Condominium Act in 1976 or the end of federal funding for affordable housing in 1993, but one can see these changes in their lived realities. [Is it different for immigrants arriving now?] Yes yes. Because nowadays, husband and wife both has to work to buy a house. At that time we only set aside 25 percent of our income to rent an apartment. So...there is a big difference now…It was easier then, and cheaper. —Barney, arrived 1973 134 [Do you think it's harder for immigrants arriving now, or the same?] Oh yeah, it's harder now. Because um...they have to go far. There's no...not much available now in the city. And they're very expensive. I mean it's not that affordable compared to...ten years ago. —Dominique, arrived 1980 [Do you think housing choices are different for immigrants who arrived later, or earlier?] Um, I think so...because um...now there's a lot of townhouses being developed, and complexes, which are generally, like easier to, um...I guess easier to afford as opposed to a single detached house, or renting an apartment. Townhouse is more convenient starting families to um...invest in I guess. So yeah, that's one thing I noticed is townhouses everywhere, like when ours was built, like in that same area, like a few blocks down, other townhouses popped up. [And it used to be single-family houses?] Yeah, mostly single family houses, a couple of the low-rise, high-rise condominiums. —Lanny, arrived 1994 As discussed earlier, the participants were affected by the decrease in new rental construction in the 1980s and 1990s, the resulting competitive rental rates, and the adoption of secondary suites as an affordable housing type by the City of Toronto. Transportation infrastructure Like changes in housing policy, only a few participants noticed changes in transportation infrastructure. [Do you think the availability of transportation has affected immigrants' choices?] Well I think the availability of public transit in the suburbs gave rise to the boom—gave the leg up for housing projects in the burbs. Because now you have GO Trains, and GO Buses, and the subway goes right up to Kipling, whereas before it was Islington. So buses from Mississauga can go to Kipling. You can live in Mississauga and hop onto the Mississauga bus and onto the subway. So it has improved, transportation has improved, and that's why the boom of housing in suburbs like Mississauga, Peel, uh, York, and Durham. —Lourdes, arrived 1968 [Do you think things have changed since you arrived?] Actually I'm not too sure it has changed that much. I know what has changed is there's a lot more people, so there's a lot more transit routes being opened. But I know for new immigrants when they come here, I know that they still, maybe cannot afford to purchase their own vehicle yet, in the first couple years that they live here. So they adapt to the transit system here. [Do you think this is related 135 to policy or trends?] Yes I think it is. I can see that...Mississauga is trying to improve their transit system, so they know there are a lot of people who rely on transit for their daily um, life, commuting, or going grocery shopping, or doing their daily errands. So I notice that Mississauga is trying to cater to it, like now compared to before I notice there are a lot more bus routes. —Lanny, arrived 1994 There was a lot of variation in terms of how many years it took for the participants to buy their first home and their first car. This depended upon how much capital they brought with them, how quickly they found jobs, and their attitudes towards housing. While it seems to take longer for more recent cohorts to buy homes and cars, this is difficult to determine since many of those who entered in the 1990s and 2000s are still renting and taking transit. Also, as the interviews revealed, some have decided against homeownership and car ownership. The cohorts are too small for these averages to be applicable to the general population, but the average time was from four to eight years to buy the first home, and from one to four years to buy the first car. There was not a steady increase in the average length of time these steps took, for obvious reasons: uneven cohort size being the foremost, but also the fact that many have not made this transition, and in fact may never buy homes or cars. 5.1.5 Resilience and Practicality The availability [of rental housing] affects the capability of immigrants to look for affordable housing. And just like a person who is on the edge of a cliff, he'll have to hold onto something in order not to fall. And if they have to live in a basement, or live in a squalour, they'll do that. Immigrants are...resilient. They can adapt. There's no problem there. They came here—most of us came here—for a better life. —Lourdes, arrived 1968 The participants, regardless of when they arrived, displayed a remarkable persistence to find jobs in their field, to retrain in new careers, and to find homes that met their families’ needs. This indicates a resiliency in their lives in Canada that, along with their dense social networks, supported the participants through their many difficulties. …instead of like doing their own field, [new immigrants] just come and...you know have to start their life, they have to start from the bottom. But you know, you just...they...are willing to do that, to be able to start their life here, otherwise it will be harder for them to come. That 136 they have to...just do that, it's the only way they can start in this country. Then they find their own way and...as soon as they got their papers, they can start updating their certification again and they can start...working in their own field like what they were...what they are in their profession. And it's a big challenge, they have to...sacrifice everything. —Dominique, arrived 1980 …when I'm doing filing, I'm always crying [laughing] upon reaching home. Papercuts, and my back is hurting, although according to some, I'm lucky. Because for so many, the job that they used to do is factory job, uh...in the stores, doing odd jobs or whatever, whereas me I'm doing office work. But I'm always thinking, telling my husband, filing, monkeys can—even monkeys can file. Because I'm not really...[You were trained for something else?] Yeah, and not only that, my frame of mind is always to go back home and do what I have to do there. That's why I'm a counselor now, I'm always telling my clients that when you decide to settle here...give yourself time. And if you feel that you will not be able to do a job which you will be happy to do, then you have to decide. And uh...give Canada a try. Because that's the way to do it. That's the way to do it. You cannot really expect that you will be doing the same job you do back home. And uh...if you will continue to pursue what you want to achieve, you will be able to do it. And you always have to give it...some thought and you have to give it some time. And through perseverance, and keep up with...what's going on in here, and you will really succeed. You will really succeed. —Laria, arrived 1988 Yeah, when I first came here I said I look for jobs and it's so...competitive, any...just don't be picky on the job, as long the job, you earn a decent uh...you earn a decent wage...you can survive. Minimum wage here is different [It's higher or lower than...?] No, if you say it's minimum wage, you can survive. $10 an hour, uh, you can survive. [Compared to the Philippines?] Compared to the Philippines of course. We are third world country. —Ken, arrived 2005 In many cases the participants referred to their choices as practical; indeed, overall, they displayed a lot of practicality in their decision-making. They had an uncanny ability to weigh their incomes, job prospects, household size, and life cycle issues, against the costs of homeownership and car ownership. [What about owning vs. renting?] Um, if you'd asked me that when I was 17, I'd probably just probably rent. Knowing what I know now, that's what I've been drilling my kids: don't waste 137 it on rent, buy something, get a mortgage and own it at the end of the day. So I would prefer to own. [So it's mainly the investment aspect?] Correct, correct. [Do you think it's because the rents are really high?] True, you're right...yeah…I mean at least with a mortgage you can lock it in for...however long, five years and you get a mortgage and your rate is better. —Monica, arrived 1972 Actually it wasn't really, uh...I didn't find it difficult at all. Because we were working on what we had. And I've always, my parents always told us don't spend money that you don't have. And that has always been in the back of my mind, you know? Like it's better for you to save first, and then once you have, and then you buy what you want. You know, don't get any credits because, you know...you know all these things, and of course your parents told you that too. And that has always, always been at the back of my mind. —Elizabeth, arrived 1973 [Once your kids were grown up would you consider moving to a condo or getting rid or your car or...?] I am open to anything, it depends on what my needs are, so my wife and I, what our needs are. So it's not like I'm strictly an apartment guy or a condo guy or a house guy, right. I'm more practical in that sense. —Robert, arrived 1999 I...I prefer to drive actually. I like driving. But I don't see the...where I am right now I don't see the need for it. Because the subway system is quite efficient. [Would you say your preferences have changed?] Uh...yeah. Well, only because...I'm in the downtown area...and I find the TTC, the subway system quite efficient in the city. So...I don't....I mean even when I was living downtown but if I was working out, like at Beecham, right, and I needed a car, and I was working on Queen and Carlaw but I was living in Leslie and Sheppard, I needed a car, you know what I mean? Now, I'm half-retired, pretty much, and you know, I...just to get around the city. Because if I really need a car, then I can just rent for the weekend. But uh...I don't...I don't see a need for it now. —Thomas, arrived 1981 Considering the recent interest in resilient cities (e.g. Pickett et al. 2004, Hester 2006) and adaptive management of natural systems (e.g. Hollings 1978, Tomkins et al. 2004), the ability of the respondents to respond to changing jobs, household sizes, and neighbourhoods is commendable. Filipino immigrants can be said to have “staying power, flexibility and adaptability”; Pickett et al. (ibid, 370) use these characteristics in their “cities of resilience” metaphor. Tomkins et al. (ibid) define “social resilience” as the capacity for positive adaptation despite adversity. Filipinos do seem to have a commitment to higher education 138 and hard work, although it is not clear that these characteristics arise as a response to racism (Hall and Lamont forthcoming) since most of them were educated in the Philippines. They are not as enamored with consumption or other neoliberal values as other groups profiled in Hall and Lamont’s research on community resilience. Hall and Lamont also described the desire to retain unique cultural characteristics differentiating the group from the norm as a strategy in achieving community resilience. The pattern of making decisions based on need, and not on desire, can be traced to the participants’ tendency to rent and take public transit in the Philippines, where these options are readily available, affordable, and convenient. If the Census data on housing tenure and transportation mode is any indication, this decision- making strategy is in fact distinctive; in the Canadian context, renting and transit use are often perceived as impractical or undesirable choices. Another unique characteristic of Filipinos, contributing to their resilience, is their level of engagement in community. Lourdes, a pioneering interview participant who arrived in 1968, worked as a teacher in Toronto for several decades. After retirement she began working full-time at a Filipino non- profit organization. Like many of her cohorts, she volunteers her time to help recent arrivals. Filipinos excel in community-building: there are hundreds of non-profit organizations, community groups, and social justice and advocacy associations in Toronto that help new immigrants with job training, career advice, and legal issues. Similar groups exist in every Canadian city with a sizeable Filipino population (e.g. Vancouver, Winnipeg). Filipinos depend upon their friends and family members for information on public transit and housing options, but also make use of formal assistance. An interesting note is that few of the community groups seem to address environmental or ecological issues; it would seem that the often-sustainable choices made in the Filipino community, such as public transit use or living close to their workplace, were not necessarily motivated by a desire to protect the environment. 5.2 Summary Despite their high education levels and job experience in the Philippines, the interviews confirmed that most participants worked in low-paying jobs when they initially arrived in 139 Canada. Earlier arrivals worked in offices or clerical settings, while later arrivals worked in factories, food preparation or retail. As Chapter 3 indicated, there is not only a shift in income, but a shift in industry and occupational sectors. Becoming licensed or certified to work in their professions took much longer for later arrivals: several years instead of several months. Some never returned to their field of expertise. This is disconcerting, considering the prevalent use of immigration as an employment strategy among the participants, but confirms many previous studies on immigrants in the Canadian labour market. Housing choices have also changed over time. For more recent immigrants, it was harder to find affordable rental units, and harder to find good quality rental units and buildings. Living with relatives or friends upon arrival in Toronto was common, but the length of time the participants lived in this transitional housing seems to have increased over the years. Most participants chose housing that was close to their workplaces, children’s schools, services, and social networks; this was similar to their decision-making process in the Philippines. While some preferred renting and some owning, many changed their attitudes towards housing after being in Canada a few years. Motivations for buying a home or living in a single-family house ranged from mere practicality to the desire to own. Nevertheless, there is a hint of housing policy influence in the fact that so many referred to renting as “waste of money” when the majority had rented for many years in the Philippines. While life cycle issues undoubtedly impacted the participants’ choices, relatively few moves were due to changes in the household size or family status. Access to public transit was important, since the participants had strong histories of transit use in the Philippines, and also because none had access to a car when they first arrived. About half the participants preferred to use public transit in Canada, while for others it was a transitional mode until they could afford a car. Gender and immigration policy likely played a role here, as most of the LCP respondents did not need to travel to work during the two years of live-in requirement, and low incomes likely played a role in their lower car ownership rates over the years. Participants chose to buy a car for reasons as diverse as changes in life cycle, weather, or because transit access to their workplace was inconvenient. In both housing choice and transportation choice, about half of the participants’ stated 140 preferences did not match their choices. While participants often understood the housing- transportation trade-offs and made practical decisions, some were eager to maintain or augment their social standing in the Filipino community with homeownership or car ownership. The interviews explained that the choices often did not indicate the participants’ preferences; rather, preferences were often suppressed in the interest of practicality. Practicality, rather than ideology, seemed to drive the participants’ choices. If anything, the participants seemed to maintain the “single-family home with two cars” ideal for as short a time as necessary. This made them resilient to the many changes in their household size, household type, and career. They participants acknowledged that structural changes in immigration policy and the labour market affected their choices, but were not aware of the impacts of changes in housing policy and transportation infrastructure. Nevertheless, their housing and transportation histories illustrate the influence of these changes: difficulty finding affordable rental housing, having to commute suburb-to-suburb to jobs in manufacturing, retail, and food preparation, and living in suburban areas with less efficient transit systems. Shifts in the labour market, immigration policy, housing policy and transportation infrastructure have had a major impact on the participants’ housing and transportation choices. Filipino immigrants are an instructive case for researchers precisely because of their distinctive housing and transportation patterns in Canadian cities. More Filipinos have trouble finding work at their educational levels than immigrants in general. More enter the country as caregivers. Filipinos have seen sharper decreases in the FIRE industry and increases in the manufacturing industry. Their presence in the managerial, administrative, and clerical occupations has decreased while their presence in the service occupations has increased. Filipinos display the extremes of increasingly polarized labour markets, competitive housing markets, and economically-driven immigration policy. However, Filipino immigrants also have an innate resiliency that comes from living in a culture with many different housing and transportation options, and strong social networks. Their stories, and the data behind them, offer researchers an opportunity for analytic generalization: to what other groups in Canada might the theory of structural change apply? How are 141 immigrant groups in Canadian cities resilient to these changes? Resiliency strategies may provide a key to immigrants’ ability to navigate increasingly complex and competitive labour markets and housing markets. 142 6 Lessons Learned from a Distinctive Case: Discussion and Conclusions Filipino immigrants can be described as distinctive among immigrant groups in Canadian cities; this case study has illustrated their unique housing and transportation patterns. Some characteristics, such as very high education levels and large household sizes, may be unique to the Filipino culture. However, in other ways Filipino immigrants illustrate the integration challenges discussed by researchers and policy makers alike: they earn lower incomes than the native-born populations, often work below their skill level, and often live in overcrowded housing. Increasingly, they face barriers to working in their professions and end up working in the manufacturing, food preparation and retail industries; in some cases they never recertify or work in their field of training. The fact that Filipino immigrants experience problems in the labour market, despite their English proficiency and high education levels, indicates the pervasiveness of these issues in Canada’s immigrant population. This is significant considering the importance of immigration in the Canadian political, economic, and social contexts. Because the theoretical framework used in this study addresses both housing and transportation research, the findings from this case study contribute to several bodies of literature. First, the findings add to the growing body of research on immigrant integration and “success” in Canadian cities (e.g. Picot et al. 2007, Teixeira 2008, Kelly et al. 2009). 143 Filipino immigrants undoubtedly face barriers in the labour market, have low homeownership and low car ownership, yet in other ways they are very integrated into Canadian society. We cannot deny the possibility that institutional racism is preventing Filipino immigrants from earning higher incomes, since they are working in different industry and occupational sectors than they were in the 1960s and 1970s despite high education levels. However, their language facility, spatial dispersion and participation in community and non-profit associations undoubtedly aid their integration. Secondly, this study confirms many previous studies on immigrants’ housing choices and settlement patterns (e.g. Owusu 1999, Hiebert et al. 2006). This case illustrates how high rents, low vacancy rates, and high immigration levels have contributed to a critical need for affordable rental housing in Canadian cities. Like many other groups, Filipino immigrants have a high rental rate and stay in rental housing for significant periods of time. Small household types, due to the dominance of LCP entrants in this population and the relatively high divorce rate, contribute to this trend. Filipinos’ housing histories also indicate the prevalence of renting in the Philippines. However, despite their high rental rate, Filipinos’ social networks do not lead to spatial concentration, as the ethnic resources model suggests; it would seem that the Filipino culture encourages non-spatial interactions. Filipinos’ extensive, dispersed social networks and Christian religion have led to a very different pattern from those seen in the Chinese, South Asian and Italian populations in Canadian cities. Like Walks and Bourne’s (2006) study of ethnocultural spatial concentrations across Canadian cities, this finding contrasts the spatial assimilation model and suggests cultural characteristics are significant in housing location. Third, the findings confirm studies of transnationalism and socio-cultural networks among immigrants to Canada (e.g. Ghosh 2007, Walton-Roberts 2007). Social networks have emerged as a crucial factor in Filipino immigrants’ initial housing and successive housing locations. In many cases, the participants had lived with friends and families when they first arrived, and later they hosted new arrivals themselves. Although many mentioned sending remittances home to family members in the Philippines, it is not known how these expenditures impacted their housing or transportation choices. Social networks were 144 influential in orienting newcomers to the transit and vehicle licensing systems, employment and recertification procedures in their professions. Even though the participants often made very practical decisions, social pressure can be an influential factor in Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation choices; therefore, social groups and community organizations offer an opportunity for planning programs and initiatives. This confirms the work of Murdie (2002), del Rio-Laquian and Laquian (2008), and many others. As Chapter 5 revealed, the number and variety of Filipino organizations also contributes to the group’s resiliency. Finally, this study has some theoretical implications in terms of economic geography (e.g. Ley and Smith 2000, Hutton 2006, Walks 2011). The traditional models of housing career, concentric growth and spatial assimilation still influence the growth and development of cities. Their impact on the physical infrastructure of cities will likely continue for years to come. However, structural changes in housing policy, immigration policy, the labour market and transportation infrastructure also play a significant role in immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. Other housing studies have mentioned these structural shifts (Hiebert et al. 2006, Hulchanski 2007, Hulchanski 2007b), but none has specifically explored structural changes as a major factor in immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. The link between industry sector and transportation mode, notably manufacturing with driving and the FIRE industries with transit, has not been discussed in the home-work literature (e.g. Hanson and Pratt 1998, Kwan 1999) or the literature on immigrants and transit use (e.g. Blumenberg and Smart 2010). Because the PCA was conducted with Census data for immigrants and non-immigrants in the Toronto CMA, this finding is in fact generalizable. Structural changes were sometimes very obvious to the interview participants: everyone noticed the shifts in the labour market and in immigration policy. Although shifts in housing policy and transportation infrastructure often went unnoticed by the participants, their stories show the impact of these changes. Outside of the contributions to the literature, this study has implications for municipal, regional, and transportation planning, a major point of intersection between housing and transportation. It is obvious that many Filipino immigrants are not able to buy homes or cars for many years because of structural changes that have made these options more difficult. For 145 example, women working under the LCP have low incomes; as they become permanent residents and sponsor family members, they compete for rental units in a tight housing market, where they remain for many years. However, it is also evident that homeownership and car ownership are not the preferred choices for the majority of the interview participants: the decision to buy a home varied from mere practicality to the desire to own, while the decision to buy a car was often dependent upon transit reliability, proximity to the workplace, or life cycle. Rather than being defined by a particular ideology (e.g. homeowners or transit users) participants chose the most practical options for their current situation and were quite flexible when their situation changed. The ability to make housing and transportation choices also depends on the choices available: evidently, in their native country, taking public transit and renting are prevalent, so Filipinos often chose these options when they arrived in Canada, and reverted to them whenever necessary. The practical nature of their decisions resulted in many of them making sustainable choices due to the affordability and convenience of these options, and not necessarily because of pro-environment attitudes. Immigrants’ housing and transportation histories will inevitably impact their choices in Canada: many come from parts of the world where renting, living with extended family members, bicycling or taking transit are the norm. Policies and plans at all three levels of government must support a variety of housing types and tenures, and a variety of transportation modes. However important life cycle stages may seem to be in predicting housing and transportation needs, they are not nearly as significant as structural changes. As planners, we need to move beyond the housing career model, which elevates ownership of the single-family detached house and multiple cars to the ideal. Demographic shifts alone indicate that the most rapidly-growing groups (immigrants, seniors, single-person and single- parent households) often do not have sufficient incomes to access this type of housing. This needs of these increasingly significant demographic groups must be communicated to the upper levels of government as they develop Bill C-304, the latest piece of legislation to support affordable housing. 146 6.1 Answering the Research Questions 6.1.1 Choice and Preference Throughout this study, I have attempted to determine how Filipino immigrants make housing and transportation choices, with a particular focus on choice versus preference. The interviews confirmed that choices, as expressed in Census data, do not always reflect preferences: over half of the participants lived in a different type of housing than they would prefer, and the same applied to transportation mode. Filipino immigrants’ decisions were often very practical, based on affordability, household size, and employment location. While they used a similar decision-making process in the Philippines, the outcomes were very different: almost half of the participants rented in the Philippines and very few drove. The availability of different choices was a major factor: jeepneys and tricycles combined the convenience of a car with the affordability of transit. The prevalence of ground-oriented rental housing, mixed-use neighbourhoods, and household help also impacted the participants’ choices in the Philippines. In short, it was quite easy to make what Canadians would consider sustainable choices “back home”. Although an economic view of the situation might be that in a country with such depressed wages, the participants were simply unable to afford to buy houses or cars, their decision-making processes contradict this. The interviews confirmed the complexity of housing and transportation choice, and emphasized that drivers, transit users, homeowners, and renters are not so easily defined. Strong histories of renting and transit use in the Philippines did not necessarily predict renting and transit use in Canada. The participants’ decisions did not define them: they could be transit users one year and drivers the next; they might own a car, but still choose to commute to work by transit. The relationship between choice and preference can be described as flexible. This strategy of resiliency, the ability to adapt to changes easily, is an admirable approach in the context of structural changes. The ability of the participants to adjust to major life changes is remarkable in light of their depressed incomes, deskilled jobs and long periods of separation from family members. 147 This finding contradicts many Canadian housing studies, particularly where high homeownership rates among certain groups have been taken as proof that ownership is preferred. In this case study, even well-established individuals with high incomes often chose to live in a smaller home, to give up one or both cars, to move back into the city, or to return to transit use. Given the differences in housing and transportation choice between Toronto and cities in the Philippines, these decisions could not have been easy ones. This confirms that, as Frank (2004) and Leinberger (in CNT 2006) have written, there is in fact a latent demand for transit-accessible, mixed-use neighbourhoods. In this sense, Filipino immigrants may be part of a larger trend: several articles in the popular press have documented the decrease in automobile sales in the US, (Maynard 2009, Mittelstaedt 2010) and negative attitudes towards driving (Zimmerman 2009). This finding may contradict assumptions that immigrants “assimilate” to North American preferences (e.g. Blumenberg and Evans 2010); considerable research gaps in this area make it impossible to determine whether immigrants prefer driving over transit, or whether the availability of different options is more significant. But even taking demand out of the question, there is a valid reason for policy makers to support affordable and rental housing, and mixed-use neighbourhoods that support public transit infrastructure. At some level, preference is secondary: it is choices that ought to inform planners and policy makers. Perhaps, as many policy makers seem to believe, we all want to own houses and cars; we want to live in suburban neighbourhoods and drive everywhere. However, the fact remains that we don’t: about a third of Canadians still rent, despite over 60 years of policy encouraging, subsidizing, and otherwise enabling homeownership. In 1943, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Planning presented the Curtis Report to the House of Commons. The report stated that there were three income groups in Canada: those who could afford to build their own homes without assistance, those who could afford to pay market rent or, given appropriate financial assistance, own their homes, and those who could not afford to pay the rents for satisfactory housing (Oberlander and Mallick 1992). As Hulchanski (2001, 1) wrote, some people “will never be able to afford homeownership and will always depend on the private rental and social housing sectors”. This is a powerful reality, one that the federal government has struggled with for years: homeownership just isn’t affordable, at least not for the low- and middle-income population. 148 Nor, in our current land use planning system, is it sustainable: municipalities depend upon property taxes for survival, allowing developers to use up more and more greenfield sites at low densities, relying on sparse road infrastructure. Areas with good transit access quickly gentrify, with luxury condominiums replacing formerly affordable rental units. Given Toronto’s sectoral and concentric growth over time, the high-rent areas of the metropolitan region are either in the transit-accessible inner city or on the periphery of the region, which has sparse transit service. Affordable housing areas are dispersed throughout the region, many in areas with lower transit accessibility, as Hoyt’s sectoral growth theory suggested. In order to support the types of choices that immigrants are making throughout their lives, we need a variety of housing types and tenures and a variety of transportation options. Policy needs to acknowledge the economics of land development and the many incentives in place encouraging the construction of units for high-income owners. However, the federal government has a decades-long history of ignoring the needs of low- and middle-income renters and of prioritizing homeownership over renting; the Curtis Report was the first of many recommending low- and middle-income rental support. 6.1.2 Structural Changes Over Time In addition to the research question contrasting choice and preference, this study also asked whether structural changes have affected Filipino immigrants’ choices over time. The theory was that concentric growth, housing career, spatial assimilation, and spatial mismatch theories are not very useful in explaining housing or transportation patterns of immigrants in Canadian cities. Structural changes, on the other hand, showed immense potential, and seemed to be making immigrants’ choices more difficult over time. In fact, even a quick glance at Filipino immigrants’ housing and transportation patterns hints at this explanation. The Census data reveals lower incomes for Filipino immigrants than non-immigrants and a growing income gap at the higher percentiles. Income is significant, but not in itself: Filipinos have high employment levels, but they are increasingly employed in low-paying sectors. While earlier cohorts had a major presence in the FIRE industry, later cohorts do not; the major shift has been towards manufacturing, particularly for men. Women often work in 149 lower-paying jobs in the same industries (education and health/social services), as caregivers or personal service workers. The PCA results confirmed that structural changes in the labour market are closely tied to housing and transportation choices. The five factors explaining the majority of variation in the data show not only the effects of life cycle and attainment, but also polarization of the work force and increased educational requirements. They illustrate the dichotomy between inner-city transit users working in finance and business versus suburban drivers working at manufacturing jobs. Income was not a very significant factor in the PCA; again, it is changes in industry that seem to influence housing and transportation choice. The interviews confirmed that structural shifts in the labour market and immigration policy are especially important. Participants’ initial employment in Toronto changed over the years: earlier cohorts worked in the FIRE industry and clerical occupations while more recent cohorts worked in the manufacturing industry and service sector occupations. Shifts in housing policy, supporting homeownership and making renting more difficult and expensive, impacted the participants in more subtle ways: their initial housing search took longer, the apartments they found were often secondary suites instead of purpose-built rental units, and affordability became a major concern. While some were aware that it had been easier for earlier cohorts to buy homes, many were only aware of their own experiences and those of their close friends and family. Beyond this, there was a vague understanding that things have changed since the 1960s and 1970s, but as one participant noted, “it’s difficult to pinpoint.” The participants were not generally aware of housing policy or transportation infrastructure shifts, and like many Canadians, they seemed to have no comprehension of the complex governance involved in issues like affordable housing or transit provision. Although the participants may not have been aware of it, their social networks played a major role in their housing locations—most chose to live near friends and family, and for more recent cohorts, that often meant living in suburban locations. While the population in general has become more suburban over time, the current trend does not seem to be to moving outward: there was a limit to how far the participants were willing to commute to work. This hints of Alonso (1970) although distance optimization was not the only factor in housing 150 choice. For the most part, participants chose to live in suburban areas because their friends and family were nearby; they also made a point of choosing transit-accessible locations close to work. This is an important observation: although participants chose to live in suburban locations, the suburbanization of employment opportunities has meant that many actually live within transit access of their workplace (e.g. Hulchanksi 2010). Very few mentioned access to open spaces or natural features as reasons for their housing choice; affordability was far more prevalent as a factor. As noted in Section 3.1.2, there is no evidence of spatial mismatch for Filipino immigrants; the PCA and interviews confirm this. Commute distances have increased only slightly in the past decade. Because their experiences in the Philippines allowed them to rent and take transit easily, even in suburban and gated communities, they fully expected to encounter this flexibility in Toronto. It was only after commuting long distances with infrequent transit, suburb-to- suburb, in cold weather, or with a small child, that they made the decision to buy a car. Similarly, the participants arrived in Canada without preconceived notions of homeownership as an ideal: renting had been commonplace in the Philippines. After a few years in Toronto, however, they often gradually began to perceive renting as a “waste of money” and started saving for a home. This transition is interesting, and shows how subtle structural changes can be. While other factors, such as life cycle and the perception of homeownership and car ownership as status symbols, also affected the participants, these factors were not as influential as structural changes. This evidence can be seen in the data, the PCA, and the interviews. 6.2 Policy Recommendations Major increases in immigration at a time of economic recession, postindustrial changes in the structure of the labour market, and decreased construction of rental and affordable housing have evidently affected Filipino immigrants’ choices. This study has also shown that access to public transit influences housing choice as much as factors such as proximity to the workplace, schools, services and social networks. While immigration policy and labour market changes fall outside of the responsibility of municipal planners, they are often aware 151 of policy shifts in these areas. Municipalities can bring issues such as foreign credential recognition and institutional racism in the labour market to the attention of the provincial and federal governments. This has already been done to some extent, and has resulted in innovative bridging programs and streamlined professional certification processes, but needs to continue to bring immigrants’ incomes closer to the native-born population in the long term. The research findings confirm that urban growth policies and objectives in Canadian cities should continue to emphasize transit-accessible housing, a variety of housing types, and affordable housing. Not only have Filipino immigrants have become the largest source of immigrants to Canada, but other immigrant groups also share their high rental rate and high rate of commuting to work by transit. The increased, and prolonged, dependence of new immigrants upon rental housing and public transit are particular challenges for municipal and regional planners in Toronto, Edmonton, Waterloo, and other Canadian cities. These challenges need to be articulated to senior levels of government, with whom rests the responsibility for housing and transportation infrastructure. Currently, Bill C-304, the Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is working its way through the House of Commons. Municipal planners and those working in transportation authorities should support this bill, and tie it into their local plans and programs. In the absence of federal initiatives supporting public transit, the struggle to get Transit City built and the election of a conservative mayor in Toronto in 2010 illustrate the difficulties municipalities have building transit infrastructure to serve suburban areas. This struggle needs to reach the higher levels of government who fund infrastructure, either on their own or through public-private partnerships. Clearly, as this study and Heisz and Schellenberg (2004) have shown, immigrants take public transit even if they live in the suburban areas of the city. Since these areas have a majority of foreign-born households, transit infrastructure is badly needed, and in fact many of the suburban municipalities supported Toronto’s Transit City initiative. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo recently approved an LRT proposal, in part to deal with increased immigration to Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. The dire need for public transit in Canadian cities was one of the first issues raised when the 2011 federal election was announced (Agrell et al. 2011). 152 The City of Toronto, City of Mississauga, and the Peel Region, among others in the Greater Toronto Area, have already shown in their Official Community Plans and reports that they want to build more affordable and rental housing. They have shown that they want better public transit, transit corridors, and mixed-use development. What they have not done is linked these initiatives to the needs of immigrants, a rapidly-growing demographic. The most compelling finding in this case study has been that immigrants may only choose to live in the suburban single-family house with two cars (the supposed “American Dream”) for a decade or two. Outside of these two decades, which represent a mere fraction of an ordinary lifespan, immigrants likely rent, live in more central areas of the city, live in smaller units, and/or take transit. The life cycle model that is currently so influential upon housing and transportation predictions has resulted in plans that focus upon certain life phases: namely the child-rearing and child-launching phases. Federal, provincial and municipal policies have under-invested in housing and transportation options for the other life cycle phases, options such as rental apartments, rental houses, and co-operative housing that would benefit many demographic groups. Immigrants are a major component in population growth, but other rapidly-growing groups (seniors, single-person and single-parent households) are also poorly served by housing policy focusing on the child-rearing and child-launching phases. Given the minor role of the life cycle upon decision-making in this case study, and the major role of structural changes, planners need to move beyond the housing career model in housing policy development. Homeownership need not, and indeed should not, be a marker of success in Canadian cities. In unstable economic environments and precarious labour markets, choices that lead to community resiliency should be more highly valued. For Filipino immigrants, practical choices were often sustainable, even if this was not their primary intent. The participants often chose to live near their workplaces, chose homes suited to their family size and situation, and chose to use public transit over driving when possible. The mere affordability of renting, living in a smaller home, or taking transit appealed to the participants, not just upon their initial arrival, but for their entire lives. Not only do Filipinos (and many other immigrants to Canada) come from a country where living in mixed-use neighbourhoods and taking transit are the norm, they also come from a poor country and never stop making choices that are affordable and practical, even when they are well- 153 established. This finding should inform municipal and transportation planners, who often advocate more sustainable neighbourhoods, transportation corridors, and streets. However, this area of policy development needs to protect affordability, rental tenure, and employment opportunities in transit-accessible areas, which has been done in transit-oriented developments in several US cities. As the Center for Neighbourhood Technology proposes, planning for low-income families does not need to be done in each new transit-oriented development, but should be promoted and tracked at the system-wide scale (CNT 2006b). Little has been done in Canadian cities to prevent gentrification in areas with rapid transit, such as the Yonge and Bloor subway lines. Walks (2011, 153) points out that as Canadian inner city neighbourhoods gave gentrified, valuable rental housing has been removed from the market, which has “hurt the immigrant reception function of the inner city.” But, as a recent report on housing in Toronto stated, “the rental sector offers at least as much potential for compact, transit-oriented development as the condo sector.” (ONPHA and COHFC 2010, 19) Since rental housing is badly needed in the City of Toronto, and generally in Ontario, policy initiatives supporting rental housing construction in transit corridors makes sense. And, as the Tower Renewal report shows (E.R.A. Architects 2010), this is actually a trend that Toronto followed in the 1960s and 1970s, before there was talk of sustainability issues. Forty years after their construction, renters in these towers are still more likely to take transit, walk, and cycle, and less likely to own cars; yet the majority of these units are three- bedroom, built for families. The types of retail attracted to TOD are often dictated by major retailers, because of the high development costs. But local chambers of commerce and economic development-focused community-based organizations could play a role in identifying local entrepreneurs. Local funds set up by community banks could help fund these small enterprises. Business training through a small business development center can educate and prepare new entrepreneurs within a community, helping them develop a business plan and secure financing (Ecker, 1998). Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) have also been used in many American TOD developments (Good Jobs First, 2006) to help secure affordable housing, employ local residents, and establish neighbourhood programs and services. In some cases, like Noho 154 Commons in Los Angeles, CBAs have been negotiated to include a requirement that at least 75% of new jobs would pay a living wage. In terms of housing, Vancouver’s inclusionary housing policy, requiring residential developers to include a specified percentage of affordable units in new developments, is a useful tool. However, developers must be required to construct the units, and not merely contribute to an affordable housing fund: in Vancouver, this second option has resulted in little affordable housing being built. Developers can transfer development rights to designated areas around transit stations. The municipalities could designate these areas as receiving areas for development rights. If developers receive density bonuses, a tool that has also been used in Vancouver, affordable units could be built and the extra density used for commercial or office development near transit stations. Land and air rights leasing allows the municipality or transit authority to generate income from lands around transit stations while encouraging new commercial or residential development; Toronto has used this mechanism for some time. Tax increment financing is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those gains. The increased site value and investment creates more taxable property, which increases tax revenues. The increased tax revenues are the "tax increment". Tax Increment Financing dedicates that increased revenue to finance debt issued to pay for the project. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development would not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for public projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities. The St. Louis County Economic Council and the City of Wellston used a variety of tools to redevelop the Wellston Station area (Ecker, 1998). In addition to the donation of public land, the use of tax increment bonds was planned to finance infrastructure improvements. Municipalities can designate Tax Increment Financing districts: this helped revitalize the Emerson Park Station in St. Louis. The funds are distributed through the municipality and can be used for acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, infrastructure, soft costs (legal, engineering, marketing) and education and training. Projects requesting TIF assistance must generate property taxes and are subject to a lien on the property for three years. Almost every state in 155 the US has enabling legislation for tax increment financing: Arizona is the sole exception. TIF has never been used in Canada; currently, Mayor Rob Ford of the City of Toronto is proposing its use in a possible Sheppard subway extension project, but it would require changes to both municipal and provincial legislation. Some municipalities encourage development by offering streamlined processing for certain types of projects, such as those that include affordable housing. Development permits are given out quicker for these projects in order to encourage development; delays cost developers money each day (FTA, 1999). In short, there are many tools available to municipal planners to ensure that initiatives to build transit-accessible, mixed-use neighbourhoods create more choices for people without displacing the low-income population. However, many of these tools are not widely used in Canada. In the US, the prevalence of these tools is likely due to the fact that many new transit lines and stations are located in low-income neighbourhoods, often neighbourhoods with established social networks and identities. These neighbourhoods have been able to negotiate CBAs or otherwise draw attention to their particular needs, whether it be employment, housing, or community facilities. In Canada, on the other hand, most of our rapid transit is in our city centers, which have high land values, a high percentage of ownership and higher- income populations. It is also clear that immigrants often do not understand the governance structures in place for developing housing policy and programs, or public transit infrastructure. There is a great potential here for planners in public education through community-based organizations. The efforts to create new transit-accessible neighbourhoods (such the Province of Ontario Places to Grow initiative) should take into consideration the needs of immigrant, single-person, single-parent, and senior households, the majority of whom are renters and transit users. 6.3 Future Research While this is a single-case study, it confirms the research findings of many previous studies on immigrants’ housing patterns in Canadian cities, such as the need for more affordable 156 housing, rental housing, and public transit, and the need for foreign credential recognition. The interviews correspond with many of the findings in other small-n mixed-methods studies, such as Ghosh (2007), del Rio-Laquian and Laquian (2008), and Teixeira (2008). Indeed, Filipinos’ resilience is even seen in the numerous articles on immigration in the popular press (e.g. Lee-Young 2010, Friesen 2011). Thus, while many of this study’s conclusions may not be statistically generalizable, the study is analytically generalizable. As a highly dispersed group with a significant presence in smaller Canadian cities, the Filipino case is instructive for researchers interested in the effects of structural changes in policy. The theory of structural change as a major factor impacting immigrants’ housing and transportation choices could be explored using another immigrant group. Researchers might also explore how structural changes affect immigrants in small and mid-sized cities. A multiple-case study, comparing two or three immigrant groups in a particular city, would also give the theory more weight. The possibility of doing a follow-up study using the new 2011 Census data was removed by the federal government’s decision to discontinue the long-form Census in 2010. Without this data, a much more robust quantitative survey would be needed to explore immigrants’ housing and transportation choices. Since the PCA showed that structural changes were influential for both immigrants and non-immigrants in Toronto, a survey could be designed to ask specific questions on housing and transportation choice. This would, of course, have a much smaller sample size than the Census. Several other themes explored in this study provide opportunities for future research. What is the impact of different housing and transportation histories upon immigrants’ choices in Canada? How do the concepts and perceptions of homeownership and renting differ among immigrant groups? More research in these areas would help develop housing and transportation policies that respond to the needs of immigrants, which may be different than traditional (North American) models suggest. Resiliency in immigrant communities, in terms of strategies that help them adapt to adversity and change, is an emerging area for future research. The mixed-methods approach used in this study shows the importance of 157 qualitative methods in uncovering issues such as resiliency in housing and transportation choice, which was not seen in the Census data or PCA. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the area of immigrants’ transit use is still largely unexplored. How does living with friends and relatives impact immigrants’ travel patterns? Do immigrants’ social and transnational networks limit their housing choices by encouraging spatial concentration? How transit-accessible is affordable housing in Canadian cities? Does spatial mismatch, which did not apply to Filipinos in the Toronto CMA, apply to immigrants in other Canadian cities? Does societal racism either encourage or discourage transit use? Does using public transit help new immigrants adapt to life in Canada, enhancing their language skills and exposing them to a variety of people? These and many other questions are still unanswered. Given the major impact of immigration upon transportation systems in Canada, it is crucial that Canadian researchers begin to explore these questions. 6.4 Final Conclusions The Filipino immigrant population is practical and resilient; with their high education rates, work ethic, English fluency and Christian faith, they should face few challenges integrating into Canadian society. However, the impact of structural changes on this particular group illustrates the difficulties immigrants face in finding affordable housing, finding suitable rental housing, finding work in their professions, and travelling around the Toronto region. Many immigrants do not understand the Canadian housing market; they rely upon social networks to inform them on housing types, neighbourhoods, and the advantages/disadvantages of owning and renting. Innately, Filipino immigrants make practical choices, which are often sustainable; however, they are often not aware of the governance structures and policies impacting their choices. This indicates a crucial role for planners in public education, and in existing programs aimed at involving immigrants in democratic and participatory processes. As planners, we should be concerned about immigrants’ ability to buy homes and cars, but we cannot be too fixated on what might be; we need to respond to immigrants’ current 158 choices. Current research indicates that there is a housing crisis in Canada, and that immigrants have a pressing need for affordable, suitable rental housing and public transit. Not only do our municipal initiatives and plans need to integrate these observations, but the need for affordable and rental housing, and public transit infrastructure, must continually be articulated to the provincial and federal governments. The upper levels of government have consistently made decisions that have supported housing and transportation options for the higher-income populations while ignoring the needs of the vast majority of Canadians. This cannot continue in the context of high immigration rates, persistent income disparities, and increasingly polarized labour markets. 159 Bibliography Agrawal, S.K. and Qadeer, M.A. 2008. Faith-based Ethnic Residential Communities and Neighbourliness. Joint Centre for Excellence in Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Ontario Metropolis Centre. CERIS Working Paper No. 63. Agrell, S., Perreaux, L., Stueck, W. and Wingrove, J. 2011. Transit problems across Canada prompt calls for politicians to address issue. The Globe and Mail March 25, 2011. Alonso, W. 1970. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Allison, M. 1997. The Effects of Land Use, Transportation Infrastructure and Affordability on Growth Management in the GVRD: A Study of Household Travel Behaviour and Location Decisions. Masters Thesis. UBC. Balakrishnan, T.R., and Hou, F. 1999. Socioeconomic integration and spatial patterns of immigrant groups in Canada. Population Research and Policy Review 18: 201-217. Balakrishnan, T.R. and Wu, Z. 1992. Home ownership patterns and ethnicity in selected Canadian Cities. Canadian Journal of Sociology 17(4): 389-403. Bauder, H. 2003. “Brain abuse”, or the devaluation of immigrant labour in Canada. Antipode 35(4), 699-717. Bauder, H. and Lusis, T. 2008. Local, Regional and Transnational Networks and the Integration and Settlement Dispersal of Filipino Immigrants. Joint Centre for Excellence in Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Ontario Metropolis Centre. Blumenberg, E. 2000. Moving Welfare Participants to Work: Women, Transportation, and Welfare Reform. Affilia 15:2  (259-276). 160 Blumenberg, E. 2008. Immigrants and transport barriers to employment: The case of Southeast Asian welfare recipients in California. Transport Policy 15: 33-4. Blumenberg, E. and Evans, A. E. 2010. Planning for demographic diversity: the case of immigrants and public transit. Journal of Public Transportation 13(2): 23-45. Blumenberg, E. and Shiki, K. 2006. Transportation Assimilation: Immigrants, Race and Ethnicity, and Mode Choice. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Transportation Research Board. Blumenberg, E. and Smart, M. 2010. Getting by with a little help from my friends…and family: immigrants and carpooling. Transportation 37(3): 429-446. Booth, C. 1902. Life and Labour of the People in London, 3rd ed. London: Macmillan and Co. Bosetti, L. 2004. Determinants of school choice: understanding how parents choose elementary schools in Alberta. Journal of Education Policy 19(4): 387-405. Bourne, L.S. 1999. Migration, immigration and social sustainability: The recent Toronto experience in comparative context. Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Toronto. Bourne, L.S., Britton, J.N.H. and Leslie, D. 2011. “The Greater Toronto Region: The challenges of economic restructuring, social diversity, and globalization” in Canadian Urban Regions: Trajectories of Growth and Change, eds. L. Bourne, T. Hutton, R. Shearmur, and J. Simmons (UK and Canada: Oxford University Press) 182-288. Bourne, L.S. and Murdie, R.M. 1972. Interrelationships of social and physical space in the city: a multivariate analysis of Metropolitan Toronto. The Canadian Geographer 16:3 (211- 229). Bourne, L.S. and Rose, D. 2001. The changing face of Canada: the uneven geographies of population and social change. The Canadian Geographer 45(1): 105-118. Bryman, A. 2006.  Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research 6(1) 97-113. Burgess, E.W. 1925. “The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project” in The City, eds. R.E. Park, E.W. Burgess, R.D. McKenzie (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) 47-62. Carter, T. 2010. The challenges of increasing diversity in areas of urban decline: A Winnipeg case study. Canadian Issues Fall 2010, 100-103. Association for Canadian Studies: Montreal. Centre for Neighbourhood Technology. Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods. 2006. 161 Center for Neighbourhood Technology. Housing + Transportation: moving the region toward greater affordability. Presentation to the Fannie Mae Foundation. 2006b. Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and the Environment 2:3 (199-219). City of Brampton. 2008. Official Plan. Brampton. City of Toronto. 2006. Toronto Plan: Flashforward: Projecting Population and Employment to 2031 in a Mature Urban Area. Toronto. City of Toronto. 2006b. Perspectives on Housing Tenure. Toronto. City of Toronto. 2006c. Perspectives on Housing Affordability. Toronto. City of Toronto. 2006d. Profile Toronto Bulletin: Housing Supply and Demand Indicators. Toronto. City of Vancouver. 1991. Central Area Plan: Goals and Land Use Policy. Vancouver. City of Vancouver. 1995. CityPlan: Directions for Vancouver. Vancouver. City of Vancouver. 2009. Burrard Bridge Lane ReAllocation Trial: Backgrounder. Vancouver. Cristaldi, F. 2005. Commuting and gender in Italy: a methodological issue. The Professional Geographer 57(2) 268-284. Darden, J. T. 2004. The Significance of White Supremacy in the Canadian Metropolis of Toronto. Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd: Queenston, Ontario; Lewiston, New York. Darden, J. T. 2009. Filipino immigration to Canada and the United States: a comparative examination. Paper presented at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting. Las Vegas, Nevada. Deka, D. 2003. “Social and environmental justice issues in urban transportation” in The Geography of Urban Transportation, 3rd ed, ed. S. Hanson and G. Giuliano (New York and London: The Guildford Press) 332-355. del Rio-Laquian, E. and Laquian, A. 2008. Seeking a Better Life Abroad: A Study of Filipinos in Canada 1957-2007. Anvil Publishing: Manila. Duncan, M. and Cervero, R. 2003. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health 93:9 (1478-1483). 162 Ecker, C. 1998. East St. Louis Action Research Project: Economic development at the Emerson Park Metrolink Station. Emerson Park Development Corporation. http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/durp/UP499-S98/index.htm E.R.A. Architects, planningAlliance, and the Cities Centre of the University of Toronto. 2010. Tower Neighbourhood Renewal in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: An Analysis of High-Rise Apartment Tower Neighbourhoods Developed in the Post-War Boom (1945-1984). Prepared for the Ontario Smart Growth Secretariat. US Department of Transportation. 2000. Travel Patterns of People of Color. Washington, D.C. Federal Transit Administration (US). 1999. The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development. Legal Research Digest Number 12 (January 1999). Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2009. Quality of Life in Canadian Communities: Immigration and Diversity in Canadian Cities and Communities. FCM: Ottawa. Florida, R. 2008. Financial recovery needs money – and a massively different mindset. The Globe and Mail. Saturday, November 29, 2008. Flyvberg, B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Frank, L.D. 2004. Economic determinants of travel: Resulting trade-offs between active and sedentary forms of travel. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(3S):146–153. Friedmann, J. 1986. The world city hypothesis. Development and Change 17(1): 69-84. Friesen, J. 2011. The Philippines now Canada’s top source of immigrants. The Globe and Mail Friday March 18, 2011. Frumkin, H., Frank, L.D. and Jackson, R. 2004. Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Gagnon, M., Apparicio, P. and Shearmur, R. 2009. The Chicago School approach to largest Canadian metropolises: Still relevant or not? Paper presented at the Association of American Geographers annual conference, Las Vegas. Ghosh, S. 2007. Transnational ties and intra-immigrant group settlement experiences: A case study of Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis in Toronto. GeoJournal 68:223-242. Gilmore, J. 2008. The Canadian Immigrant Labour Market in 2006: Analysis by Region or Country of Birth. Statistics Canada: The Immigrant Labour Force Analysis Series: Catalogue no. 71-606-X2008002.  Ottawa. 163 Gilmore, J. and Le Petit, C. 2008. The Canadian Immigrant Labour Market in 2007: Analysis by Region of Postsecondary Education. Statistics Canada: The Immigrant Labour Force Analysis Series: Catalogue no. 71-606-X2008004.  Ottawa. Goldring, L. 2010. Temporary Worker Programs as precarious. Canadian Issues Spring 2010, 50-54. Association for Canadian Studies: Montreal. Good Jobs First. 2006. Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Development and Jobs. Gopikrishna, S. 2010. Housing and Neighbourhoods: Future Research Directions. Policy Roundtable, 12th Annual Metropolis Conference. Montreal. March 19, 2010. Gurnett, J. 2010. Finding a place to call home: The challenge of housing security for immigrants in Alberta. Canadian Issues Fall 2010, 100-103. Association for Canadian Studies: Montreal. Haan, M. 2005. The decline of immigrant home-ownership advantage: Life-cycle, declining fortunes and changing housing careers in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Urban Studies 42(12): 2191-2212. Haan, M. 2010. The residential crowding of immigrants to Canada. Canadian Issues Fall 2010, 16-21. Association for Canadian Studies: Montreal. Hall, P. and Lamont, M., eds. Forthcoming. Social Resilience in the Age of Neoliberalism. Handy, S. 1996. Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15(3): 183-198. Hansen, D. 2010. The Filipino Factor: Tears today hoping for a better tomorrow. Vancouver Sun June 15, 2010. Hanson, S. 1980. The importance of the multi-purpose journey to work in urban travel behaviour. Transportation 9(3): 229-248. Hanson, S. and Pratt, G. 1998. Reconceptualizing the links between home and work in urban geography. Economic Geography 64(4) 299-321. Hanson, S. and Pratt, G. 1995. Gender, Work, and Place. Routledge: London. Harris, N. 1997. Cities in a global economy: Structural change and policy reactions. Urban Studies 34(10): 1693-1704. Harris, R. and Lewis, R. 1998. Constructing a fault(y) zone: Misrepresentations of American cities and suburbs, 1900-1950. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88(4): 622-639. 164 Heisz, A. and Schellenberg, G.  2004. Public transit use among immigrants. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 13(1): 170-191. Hiebert, D. 2006. Winning, losing, and still playing the game. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 97(1): 38–48. Hiebert, D., Germain, A., Murdie, R., Preston, V., Renaud, J., Rose, D., Wyly, E., Ferreira, V., Mendez, P. and Murnaghan, A.M.  2006. The Housing Situation and Needs of Recent Immigrants in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Canada Mortgage and Housing Research Report. Hiebert, D. and Ley, D. 2003. Assimilation, cultural pluralism, and social exclusion among ethnocultural groups in Vancouver. Urban Geography 24 (1): 16-44. Hester, R. 2006. Design for Ecological Democracy. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. Holling, C.S. 1978. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 4, 1-23. Hou, F. and Picot, G. 2004. Visible minority neighbourhoods in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Canadian Social Trends. Statistics Canada Catalogue 11-008, 8-13. Hoyt, H. 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Patterns in American Cities. Washington, D.C: Federal Housing Administration. Hulchanski, J.D. 1999. Housing Again database: Housing Policy History for 1984, 1985, and 1986. www.action.web.ca/home/housing/resources.shtml?x=67207&AA_EX_Session=0a09763f82 484c28d794af24e913577d File accessed December 20, 2010. Hulchanski, J.D. 2001. A Tale of Two Canadas: Homeowners Getting Richer, Renters Getting Poorer. University of Toronto Centre for Urban and Community Studies Research Bulletin 2. Hulchanski, J.D. 2007. The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization among Toronto’s Neighbourhoods, 1970-2000. University of Toronto Centre for Urban and Community Studies Research Bulletin 41. Hulchanski, J.D. 2007b. Canada’s Dual Housing Policy: Assisting Owners, Neglecting Renters. University of Toronto Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Research Bulletin 38. Hulchanski, J.D. 2010. The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization among Toronto’s Neighbourhoods, 1970-2005. University of Toronto Cities Centre. Update to Research Bulletin 41. Hutton, T.A. 2004. The new economy of the inner city. Cities 21(2), 89-108. 165 Hutton, T.A. 2006. Spatiality, built form, and creative industry development in the inner city. Environment and Planning A 38(10): 1819-1841. Institute of Transportation Studies. 2007. California’s immigrant commuters: “on the bus” for now, but not for long. Institution of Transportation Studies News 5(1). Jarvis, H. 2003. Dispelling the myth that preference makes practice in residential and transport behavior. Housing Studies 18(4) 587-606. Joh, K., Boarnet, M.G., Nguyen, M.T., and Fulton, W. 2008. Interactions Between Race/Ethnicity, Attitude, and Crime: Analyzing Walking Trips in the South Bay. Paper presented at The American Collegiate Schools of Planning/Association of European Schools of Planning Fourth Joint Congress. Chicago, Illinois. Johnson, R.J. 1970. Geographica: on spatial patterns in the residential structure of cities. The Canadian Geographer 14:4 (361-367). Kain, J. F. 1969. Race and Poverty: the Economics of Discrimination. Prentice-Hall. Kain, J. 1975. Race, Ethnicity, and Residential Location. Urban Planning Policy Analysis and Administration Discussion Paper D 75-3, Department of City and Regional Planning. Kelly, P. 2006. Filipinos in Canada: Economic Dimensions of Immigration and Settlement. Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement—Toronto. Working Paper No. 48. Kelly, P., Astorga-Garcia, M., and Esguerra, E. 2009. Explaining the Deprofessionalized Filipino: Why Filipino Immigrants get Low-Paying Jobs in Toronto. Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement—Toronto. Working Paper No. 75. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P.L., and Daidet, L. 1997. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighbourhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 24(2): 125-158. Knight, R.L. and Trygg, L. 1977. Evidence of land use impacts of rapid transit systems. Transportation 6(3): 231-247. Krugman, P. 2008. Home not-so-sweet home. The New York Times June 23, 2008. Kwan, M-P. 1999. Gender, the Home-Work Link, and Space-Time Patterns of Nonemployment Activities. Economic Geography 75(4): 370-394. Lamont, M. and Molnar, V. 2011. How blacks use consumption to shape their collective identity: Evidence from marketing specialists. Journal of Consumer Culture 1(1): 31-45. Lands, L. 2008. Be a patriot, buy a home: Re-imagining home owners and home ownership in early 20th century Atlanta. Journal of Social History 41(1): 943-965. 166 Lee-Young, J. 2010. The Filipino factor: From immigrant achievements to mainstream influence. Vancouver Sun June 15, 2010. Ley, D. 2010. Millionaire Migrants: Trans-Pacific Life Lines. Chichester, UK and Malden, Mass.: John Wiley & Sons. Ley, D. and Germain, A. 2000. Immigration and the changing social geography of large Canadian cities. Plan Canada 40(4). Ley, D. and Smith, H. 2000. Relations between deprivation and immigrant groups in large Canadian cities. Urban Studies 37(1): 37-62. Li, W. 1998. Anatomy of a new ethnic settlement: the Chinese ethnoburb in Los Angeles. Urban Studies 35:5 479-501. Litman, T. 2003. Social Exclusion as a Transport Planning Issue in Canada. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Liu, C. Y. 2008. From Ethnic Enclave Residence to Ethnic Niche Employment? Understanding Latino Immigrants’ Longer Commutes. Paper presented at The American Collegiate Schools of Planning/Association of European Schools of Planning Fourth Joint Congress. Chicago, Illinois. Lo, L., Shalaby, A. and Alshalalfah, B. Forthcoming (2011). Case study: Relationship between immigrant settlement patterns and transit use in the Greater Toronto Area. Journal of Planning and Development. Macdonald, D. 2010. Canada’s Housing Bubble: An Accident Waiting to Happen. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Ottawa. Maher, C.A. 1974. Spatial patterns in urban housing markets: filtering in Toronto, 1953- 1971. The Canadian Geographer 18:2 (108-124). Mason, J. 2006. Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research 6(2) 9- 25. Maynard, M. 2009. Is happiness still that new car smell? The New York Times October 21, 2009. Mendez, P. 2008. Immigrant residential geographies and the “spatial assimilation” debate in Canada, 1997-2006. Metropolis Working Paper 08-07. Mittelstaedt, M. 2010. US car ownership shifts into reverse. The Globe and Mail January 4, 2010. Murdie, R.A. 1969. Factorial Ecology of Metropolitan Toronto, 1951-1961: An Essay on the Social Geography of the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Geography. 167 Murdie, R.A., Chambon, A.S., Hulchanski, J.D. and Teixeira, C. 1999. Differential Incorporation and Housing Trajectories of Recent Immigrant Households: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Housing New Canadians Research Working Group: Working Paper. Metropolis Website. Murdie, R.A. 2002. The housing careers of Polish and Somali newcomers in Toronto’s rental market. Housing Studies 17(3), 423-443. Murdie, R.A. 2008. Diversity and Concentration in Canadian immigration: Trends in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, 1971-2006. Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Research Bulletin #42. Murdie, R.A. Forthcoming. The spatial settlement patterns of immigrant groups in the Toronto CMA. Oberlander, P.H. and Fallick, A. L. 1992. Housing a Nation: The Evolution of Canadian Housing Policy. Prepared by the Centre for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and Co-Operative Housing Federation of Canada: Ontario Region. 2010. Where’s Home? A Study of Affordable Rental Housing in 22 Ontario Communities. Owusu, T.Y. 1999. Residential Patterns and Housing Choices of Ghanaian Immigrants in Canada. Housing Studies 14(1): 77-97. Paperny, A.M. 2010. Toronto’s food processing sector eclipses automotive. The Globe and Mail Friday December 31, 2010. Paperny, A.M. and Dhillon, S. 2011. Poverty looks like this. The Globe and Mail Saturday January 8, 2011. Peach, C. 1996. Good segregation, bad segregation. Planning Perspectives 11: 379-98. Peck, J. and Theodore, N. 2010. “Labour markets from the bottom up” in Handbook of Employment and Society: Working Space, eds. S. McGrath-Champ, A. Herod, and A. Rainnie (Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited) 87- 105. Pendakur, K. and Pendakur, R. 2011. Colour by numbers: Minority earnings in Canada 1996- 2006. Working Paper 11-05, Metropolis British Columbia. Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.C. and Grove, J.M. 2004. Resilient cities: meaning, models and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(4) 369-384. 168 Picot, G. & Hou, F. & Coulombe, S. 2007. Chronic Low Income and Low-income Dynamics Among Recent Immigrants. Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series 2007294e. Statistics Canada: Ottawa. Province of Ontario. 2008. Places to Grow: Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Toronto. Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. 2005. Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: a comparative analysis of bicycling trends and policies. Transport Policy 13(3) 265-279. Ray, B. and Bergeron, J. 2006. Geographies of ethnocultural diversity in a second-tier city: moving beyond where people sleep. Our Diverse Cities. Metropolis website. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2011. Rapid Transit Implementation Options. Report E- 11-021, February 11, 2011. Reinhart, A. 2008. New immigrants prefer suburbs to living in core neighbourhoods. The Globe and Mail March 31, 2008. Saelens, B.E, Sallis, J.F. and Frank, L.D. 2003. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: Findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioural Medicine 25(2): 80-91 Sanders, D. 2009. Are poor ethnic areas ‘cages’? The Globe and Mail February 28, 2009. Sharma, M. 2004. A Study of Gender and Racial Differences in Trip Chaining Behavior in Columbus, Ohio. Masters Thesis. Ohio: Ohio State University. Schimek, P. 1996. Automobile and public transit use in the United States and Canada: Comparison of postwar trends. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1521: 3-11. Shearmur, R. 2006. Travel from home: an economic geography of commuting distances in Montreal. Urban Geography 27(4) 330-359. Sheppard, E. 1995. “Modelling and predicting aggregate flows” in The Geography of Urban Transportation, 2nd Ed., ed. S. Hanson (New York: The Guildford Press) 100-128. Siemiatycki, M. 2010. Marginalizing Migrants; Canada’s rising reliance on temporary foreign workers. Canadian Issues Spring 2010, p. 50-54. Association for Canadian Studies: Montreal. Siemiatycki, M., Rees, T., Ng, R., and Khan, R. 2001. Integrating Community Diversity in Toronto: On Whose Terms? Working Paper No. 14, Joint Centre for Excellence in Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Ontario Metropolis Centre. 169 Small, M.L. On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10(5): 5-38. Statistics Canada. 2001 Census Public Microdata Files for Individuals. Ottawa. Data accessed March 2009. Statistics Canada. 2003. Longitudinal Study of Immigrants to Canada: Progress and Challenges of New Immigrants in the Workforce. Statistics Canada: Ottawa. Catalogue no. 89-615-XIE    Statistics Canada. 2005. Longitudinal Study of Immigrants to Canada: A Portrait of Early Settlement Experiences. Statistics Canada: Ottawa. Catalogue no. 89-614-XIE Statistics Canada. 2008. Chart: Foreign-born as a percentage of metropolitan population, 2006. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2008001/c-g/10556/5214733-eng.htm. File accessed July 13, 2009. Statistics Canada. 2009. 2006 Census Community Profiles: Toronto CMA. Ottawa. File accessed July 13, 2009 and October 15, 2010. Statistics Canada. 2009b. Visible Minority Groups, 2006 Counts, for Canada, the Census Metropolitan Areas, and Census Agglomerations, 20% sample data. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97- 562/pages/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=CMA&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&StartRec=12 6&Sort=2&Display=Page&CSDFilter=5000.File accessed October 15, 2010. StatSoft Electronic Statistics Textbook. www.statsoft.com/textbook/principal-components- factor-analysis/#index. Accessed October 20, 2010. Suhr, D. 2005. “Principal components analysis and exploratory factor analysis” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, SAS Institute Inc. (Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute Inc.), Paper 203-30. Teixeira, C. 1995. Ethnicity, housing search, and the role of the real estate agent: a study of Portuguese and non-Portuguese real estate agents in Toronto. The Professional Geographer 47(2): 176-183. Teixeira, C. 2008. Barriers and outcomes in the housing searches of new immigrants and refugees: a case study of “Black” Africans in Toronto’s rental market. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 24(4): 253-276. Teixeira, C. 2009. New immigrant settlement in a mid-size city: a case study of housing barriers and coping strategies in Kelowna, British Columbia. The Canadian Geographer 53(3): 323-339. Taylor, Z. and Van Nostrand, J. 2008. Shaping the Toronto Region, Past, Present, and Future: An Exploration of the Potential Effectiveness of Changes to Planning Policies 170 Governing Greenfield Development in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Neptis Foundation: Toronto. Tompkins, E.C. and Adger, W.N. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society 9(2): 10-24. Ungar, M. 2008. Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work 38 (2): 218-235. United Way (Toronto). 2011. Poverty by Postal Code 2: Vertical Poverty. Declining Income, Housing Quality, and Community Life in Toronto’s Inner Suburban High-Rise Apartments. Toronto. US Department of Transportation. 2000. Travel Patterns of People of Color. Washington, D.C. US Department of Transportation. 2009. Smart community planning, more transportation options lead to reduced carbon emissions. http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/07/smart-community- planning-more-transportation-options-lead-to-a-reduced-carbon-emissions.html. Accessed July 30, 2009. Vincent, D. 2010. Light rail urged for low income communities. The Toronto Star December 15, 2010. Walks, R.A. and Bourne, L.S. 2006. Ghettos in Canadian Cities? Racial segregation, ethnic enclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. The Canadian Geographer 5(3): 273-297. Walks, R.A. 2011. “Economic restructuring and trajectories of socio-spatial polarization in the twenty-first-century Canadian city” in Canadian Urban Regions: Trajectories of Growth and Change, eds. L. Bourne, T. Hutton, R. Shearmur, and J. Simmons (UK and Canada: Oxford University Press) 125-159. Walton-Roberts, M. 2003. Transnational geographies: Indian immigration to Canada. The Canadian Geographer 47(3): 235-250. Walton-Roberts, M.  2007. Immigrant Settlement and Retention in Second-tier and Small Urban Regions: a Case Study of Kitchener-Waterloo Ontario, Canada. Joint Centre for Excellence in Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), Ontario Metropolis Centre. Warne, K. and Fehr, C. 2010. Is Canada Nearing a Housing Bubble? Edward Jones April 2010. Welch, D.M., Statz, B. and Skidmore, M. 2010. An examination of inter-district school transfers in Wisconsin. Economics of Education Review 29(1): 126-137. Wessel, D. 2010. Is the homeownership system broken? National Public Radio broadcast, June 22, 2010. 171 Wyly, E. 1999. Continuity and change in the restless urban landscape. Economic Geography 75(4): 309-338. Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Ed.  Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California. Zimmerman, M. Rebel without a car? Los Angeles Times October 8, 2009. 172 Appendix 1: Census Variables The data sources were the Public Use Microdata Files (PUMF) for Individuals from the Censuses of Canada (1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006); and interviews from 32 Filipino immigrants who entered the country between 1967 and 2010. Stage 1: Comparing Census variables from 1986 to 2006 It was necessary to use the Census data, as the main source of housing and transportation data in the country, for the comparison of data (Stage 1) and for the PCA (Stage 2). The twelve Census variables of interest for this study were total individual income, weeks worked, labour force activity, industry, occupation, education, age, immigration period, housing tenure, household size, transportation mode, and commute distance. This section explains the variables and how they were compared throughout Census years. It is possible to isolate data for the Toronto CMA for Filipino immigrants as far back as the 1986 Census. Before 1986, the information on ethnicity and place of birth was largely limited to European countries, with only a few general categories for non-European places of origin. Data was compared for the twelve variables of interest across the 1986-2006 period. Total individual income: This variable is constant from the 1986 to the 2006 Census. A number of income variables are constant during these years, but “Total Individual Income” is 173 one of the only income variables that is constant and easily comparable over time, and it is also a continuous variable; others, such as source of income, are nominal and change slightly over time. One note: Statistics Canada excludes individuals living in multiple-family and non-family households (such as roommates or live-in caregivers living with their employers) in their Community Profiles, which leads to higher median incomes among their reported household types. Number of weeks worked in the year prior to the Census: This continuous variable has also been constant since 1986, making it simple to compare over time. The Census question always asks the number of weeks worked in the year prior to the Census, so for 2006 that would be the number of weeks worked in 2005. There are many other employment variables in the Census, but many have been introduced and dropped over the years, or their categories changed significantly so that it would have been difficult to compare them. Labour market activity: Labour market activity has been recorded for many years, and has changed very little over the twenty-year period: it records the individual’s employment status during the week the Census data was collected. There are many categories, making this a complex variable to examine. There are two categories for individuals who were employed, eight for unemployed, and four for those not in the labour force. For the purposes of this study, these were consolidated into three categories: employed, unemployed, and not in the labour force. Industry: The industry categories used for most of the Census comparison were the 1980 Standard Industry Classification (SIC) categories, because these categories remained constant in the Census all the way from 1986 to 2001. However, in the 2006 Census the 1980 SIC categories were dropped, making the 2002 North American Industry Classification (NAIC) categories the only source of data on industry. They are relatively similar to the 1980 SIC categories with a few exceptions as follows: 174 1980 SIC Categories 2002 NAIC Categories 1 Agriculture Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 2 Other primary industries Mining and oil and gas extraction 3 Manufacturing Manufacturing 4 Construction Construction 5 Transportation and storage Transportation and warehousing 6 Communication and other utilities Utilities 7 Wholesale trade Wholesale trade 8 Retail trade Retail trade 9 Finance, insurance and real estate Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing 10 Business services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and support, waste management 11 Government services - Federal Public administration 12 Government services - Other 13 Educational services Educational services 14 Health and social services Health care and social assistance 15 Accommodation, food and beverage Accommodation and food services 16 Other services Other services (except public administration) Information and cultural industries Professional, scientific and technical Arts, entertainment and recreation Table A.1.1 1980 Standard Industry Classification categories compared to 2002 North American Industry Classification (NAIC) categories. The last three categories on the 2002 NAIC do not have any correlation to the older SIC categories, and were not included in the PCA. Only one is significant in this study: “Professional, scientific and technical.” Occupation: The occupation variable has changed in the same pattern as the industry variable. The 1986 and 1991 Census years used the 1980 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). The 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census years used the National Occupational Classification for Statistics (NOCS). Table A.2 outlines the several differences. 175 1980 SOC Categories 1991, 1996 and 2006 NOCS Categories 1 Managerial/administrative and related Senior management occupations (1) Other management occupations (2) Professional occupations in business and finance (3) 2 Natural sciences/engineering/math Occupations in natural and applied sciences (6) 3 Social sciences and related Occupations in social science, government services 4 Teaching and related Teachers and professors (10) 5 Medicine and health Professional occupations in health, registered nurses Technical, assisting and related occupations in health 6 Artistic/literary/recreation and related Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport (11) 7 Clerical and related Clerical occupations and clerical supervisors (5) 8 Sales Wholesale, technical, insurance, real estate sales Retail trade supervisors, salespersons, sales clerks 9 Service Chefs and cooks, supervisors, and other occupations Occupations in protective services (15) Childcare and home support workers (16) Service supervisors, occupations in travel and accom. 10 Farming/horticultural/animal husbandry 11 Other primary occupations Other trades occupations (20) Trades helpers, construction and transportation Occupations unique to primary industries (23) 12 Processing Labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities 13 Machining/fabricating/assembling/repair Supervisors, machine operators, assemblers in mfg. 14 Construction trades Construction trades (19) Contractors and supervisors in trades and transport. 15 Transport equipment operating Transport and equipment operators (21) 16 Other occupations Table A1.2. 1980 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) categories compared to National Occupational Classification for Statistics (NOCS) categories. “Farming/horticulture/animal husbandry” and “Other occupations” do not have equivalents in the 1996-2006 NOCS. However, they were insignificant occupations (0.00 or 0.01) for Filipinos, all immigrants and non-immigrants. Note that in two variables of interest, there is no true analogue in 1996-2006: processing and manufacturing cannot be perfectly linked to 176 their analogues because the former now includes supervisory roles and the later labourer roles. This is unfortunate considering that it would have been interesting to track supervisory roles in manufacturing and processing for Filipinos. However, processing is also insignificant (between 0.01 and 0.03) for Filipinos, all immigrants and non-immigrants. Education: The variable “Highest Degree, Certificate or Diploma” is constant from 1986 to 2001. In 2006, the “Other non-university certificate or diploma” category was expanded to include “Registered apprenticeship certificate” and “College/CEGEP or other non-university certificates” of varying lengths. For the purposes of comparison to earlier Census years, these 2006 categories were consolidated into “Other non-university certificate or diploma”. 1986 Census 2006 Census No degree, certificate or diploma No degree, certificate or diploma Secondary/high school graduation certificate Secondary/high school graduation certificate Trades certificate or diploma Trades certificate or diploma Other non-university certificate or diploma Registered apprenticeship certificate College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate <1 yr. in length College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate 1-2 yrs. in length College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate >2 yrs. in length University certificate or diploma below University certificate or diploma below Bachelors degree(s) Bachelors degree(s) University certificate or diploma above Bachelors level University certificate or diploma above Bachelors level Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary Masters degree(s) Masters degree(s) Earned doctorate Earned doctorate Table A1.3. Educational categories in the 1986 and 2006 Census. Age: In every census year up to 2006, age was a continuous variable. In 2006, it was made into a categorical variable. A variable was generated in STATA to create six larger categories from the 21 smaller ones in the Census: under 19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60 and 177 above. These six categories were created in the PCA in each Census year for ease of comparison. Immigration period: In each Census year, the first immigration period is the one beginning forty years before the Census year: eg. “Before 1946” for the 1986 Census, and “Before 1961” for the 2001 Census. In the 2001 Census, the last immigration period is the one beginning five years before the Census year, eg. 1996-2001. Immigration periods have varied considerably throughout the Census years. In the 1986 Census the immigration period categories were irregular, in lengths from one to four years, e.g. 1946-50, 1951-55, 1956-57, 1958-60, 1961-62. By 1991 the Census was recording each year as a separate category. In order to compare immigration periods across Census years, a new variable had to be generated in STATA and the decision was made to create categories corresponding to each decade: 1951-1960, 1961-1970, etc. In other words, the smaller immigration periods were combined to make larger ones. In some cases there are minor inconsistencies in the range of one year, because it was impossible to divide categories. So for example, in the 2006 Census, the desired category 1951-60 could not actually be created because it was impossible to break up the 1960-1964 category. So in this case, the category is 1951-1959. These exceptions are noted in the tables in Chapter 3. However, given the very low immigration rates in these early years, particularly from non-European countries, this is an acceptable compromise. Another note: immigration status (immigrant, non-immigrant, permanent resident) was not a variable until 1991. However, immigration period in each Census year is only recorded for immigrants, with the “not applicable” category reflecting non-immigrants. Thus, in the 1986 Census, it was still possible to isolate immigrants using the data for immigration period. Housing tenure The categorical variable for housing tenure (owning/renting) is relatively constant from 1986 to 2006. In 1991 more detail was added, eg. “Owned (with or without mortgage)” and “Rented (for cash, other) or Band Housing”, and these designations remained the same in the 2006 Census. 178 Household size: This nominal variable is constant from the 1986 to the 2006 Census years. In certain years, other variables have been added, such as “Census Household Size.” There is also a category for “Economic Family Size”, which is constant from the 1986 to the 2006 Census years and shows the same pattern as “Household Size” for Filipino immigrants, all immigrants, and non-immigrants. As a nominal variable, the medians were interpolated using the formula: IM = M + (ng-nl)/(2ne), where IM = Interpolated Median M = Median ng = the number of responses greater than the median nl = the number of responses less than the median ne = the number of responses equal to the median One note: Statistics Canada excludes individuals living in multiple-family and non-family households (such as roommates or live-in caregivers living with their employers) in their Community Profiles, which leads to lower median household sizes. Transportation mode and commute distance: Unfortunately, questions about transportation mode and commute distance were not included until the 1996 Census. At this time, the two questions were added to the long form Census and remained unchanged in the 2001 and 2006 Census years: mode of transportation for the commute to work and commute distance for the journey to work. Both are categorical variables. The comparison of data from the five Census years took place in June 2009. These variables were then used in Stage 2: the principal components analysis (PCA). Stage 2: Principal Components Analysis (PCA) Ideally, the PCA would have been done for the Census years 1971 and 2006, which would have given an overall picture of how Filipino immigrants’ choices have changed over several decades. However, this was not possible for several reasons. First, Filipino ethnicity, along with many non-European ethnicities, were not identified in the Census until 1986. But more 179 significantly, transportation mode and commute distance were not included in the Census until 1996. This leaves only three Census years (1996, 2001, and 2006) to work with. It would also have been ideal to compare Filipino immigrants to immigrants in general and to non-immigrants, the same way that the variables were compared earlier. This would have resulted in six PCA in total. However, it was impossible to do a PCA of Filipino immigrants until 2006, when there was a significantly large and diverse population of Filipino immigrants in Toronto. Earlier years had, to use the STATA software parlance, “too many zeroes in the matrices”, meaning that there were no Filipino immigrants in some of the variable categories. This means that it was only possible to compare immigrants in general to non-immigrants, for a total of four PCA. In order to conduct the PCA, several Census variables had go through a preliminary step, so that each of their categories in effect became a variable: • Housing tenure: renting*, owning • Transportation mode: driving, car passenger, transit, walking, (bicycle, motorcycle, taxicab, other method)* • Labour market activity: not in labour force*, employed, unemployed • Industry: Manufacturing, communications/utilities, wholesale, retail, finance/insurance/real estate, business services, government services, education, health/social services, accommodations/food services, (agriculture, other primary industries, construction, transportation and storage, other services)* • Highest degree, certificate or diploma: no degree/certificate/diploma*, secondary school diploma, trades certificate, other non-university certificate or diploma, university certificate/diploma below Bachelors degree, Bachelors degree, university certificate/diploma above Bachelors degree, medical/dental/veterinary/optometry degree, Masters degree, PhD. • Age: Below 19*, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60 and above 180 * Note: These were used as the reference categories, to which the others were compared, using the “ie” function in STATA. This function creates a variable for each category. The remaining Census variables did not require this step, since they do not have categories. In effect, the PCA had a total of 38 variables (2 for tenure, 5 for transportation mode, 11 for industry, 10 for highest degree, 6 for age, plus commute distance, income, weeks worked, and household size). This is reflected in the PCA results tables in Chapter 4. 181 Appendix 2: Interview Questions Housing and transportation choices of Filipino immigrants in the Toronto CMA Ren Thomas, School of Community and Regional Planning For this study, I’ll be talking to people in the Filipino community who immigrated to Toronto at different time periods.  I’m interested in how people lived in the Philippines before they immigrated, how people found housing in Toronto, and how they travelled around the city. NAME___________________________________  CODE________________________ PHONE_____________________________  EMAIL____________________________ Housing and transportation history Let’s talk about how you lived in the Philippines before you decided to come to Canada. 1. What year did you immigrate to Canada? 2. Before you left the Philippines, what type of city did you live in: Metro Manila, other metropolitan areas, medium-sized city, small town, barangay/village? 182 3. How many people lived with you and what was their relationship to you? 4. What was your last job before you left the Philippines? 5. How would you describe your neighbourhood in the Philippines? (housing only, mix of housing and shops, high-density/low-density, urban/rural/suburban, own/rent?) 6. How would you describe your housing? (prompts: apartment (high-rise, more than 5 stories), apartment (low-rise, 5 stories or less), townhouse, duplex, detached house) 7. What did you like about your home? What did you dislike? 8. How did you travel to work? How did other family members commute? How did you travel for shopping and errands? For recreation? (prompts: Walking, Bicycle, Public Transit, Motorcycle/scooter, Car (driver), Car (passenger) 9. How many in the household had drivers’ licenses? How many cars were there? 10. Were you satisfied traveling in this way?  What about your other family members? Why? Initial settlement 11. Let’s move on to your immigration experience. Why did you decide to immigrate to Canada? 12. What was your immigration category? (skilled worker, family class, refugee, domestic care worker) 13. Why did you decide to settle in Toronto? (prompts: work opportunities, to be close to family, to be close to friends, knew about the city from family/friends, researched various cities in Canada) 14. How did you find your first home in Toronto? 183 15. What factors were important in your decision to live there?  (Prompts: proximity to workplace, other family members’ workplaces, school(s), day care, shopping and retail stores, religious institutions, friends/family members, access to public transit, bicycle paths, highways, new housing, affordable price, backyard space, parks/recreation opportunities) 16. How easy or difficult was it to find a place to live? 17. Did you have a preference for owning or renting a home? 18. How would you describe your first home in Toronto? 19. What did you like about your home? What did you dislike? 20. Would you say your first home was similar to those of your friends and family in Canada? If not, what made it different? 21. How many people were living in the household at that time? 22. How long did you live there? 23. What type of transportation did you use for your daily activities (commuting, shopping/errands, recreation)? Why? 24. How many people in the household had a driver’s license? How many cars were there? (if a car was bought) Why did you make the decision to buy a car? 25. How did you find information on how to get a driver’s license, take public transit, etc.? (prompts: family members, friends, employer/work colleagues, online, municipal websites, TTC, explored the city by myself) 26. Was the first job you found in Canada related to your educational and job background in the Philippines? 184 First move 27. Many immigrants decide to move once they get to know the city better.  Did you move to another place? 28. How did you decide where to move? 29. What factors were important in your decision to live in the new place? (Prompts: proximity to workplace, other family members’ workplaces, school(s), day care, shopping and retail stores, religious institutions, friends/family members, access to public transit, bicycle paths, highways, new housing, affordable price, backyard space, parks/recreation opportunities) 30. How would you describe your second home? (Prompts: Apartment (high-rise, more than 5 stories), Apartment (low-rise, 5 stories or less), Townhouse, Duplex, Detached house) 31. What did you like about your second home? What did you dislike? 32. Would you say your second home was similar to those of your friends and family at the time, or different? 33. Did your transportation choices change when you moved? Why? 34. How many people were living in the household at that time? 35. How many people in the household had drivers’ licenses? How many cars were there? (if a car was bought) Why did you make the decision to buy a car? 36. Did you work in the same job as when you first arrived? 37. Do you still live in your second home?  (If Yes, go to Q42, if No, go to Q38) Later moves 38. In your other moves, how did you decide where to live? 185 39. You mentioned some factors earlier that you used to decide on a home (recall earlier factors).  Were the same factors important in your other moves?  How? 40. What did you like about your third home? What did you dislike? 41. In these later moves, did you keep using the same transportation modes (walking, bus, car, etc.)?  Why? Closing questions 42. Housing preferences vary among different cultures. We could say that in North America, many people dream of owning a home. Do you have a preference for a particular type of housing?  Have these preferences changed since you moved to Canada? 43. Some say that North Americans live in a car culture: most people drive, and fewer take public transit, walk, or bike. Do you have a preference for a particular transportation choice?  How have these preferences changed since you moved to Canada? 44. What would you say are some of the challenges in deciding on housing as a new immigrant?  Do you think this is different for immigrants arriving now?  How do you think this relates to Canadian housing policy or trends? 45. What would you say are some of the challenges in deciding on a type of transportation? Do you think this is different for immigrants arriving now? How do you think this relates to Canadian transportation policy or trends? 46. How would you say the job market for immigrants has changed since you arrived in Canada?  Do you think this is related to labour market policy?  Economic shifts? 47. Canada has seen some major shifts in immigration policy.  Do you think these shifts have had an impact on immigrants’ housing and transportation choices? 186 Basic demographic questions 48. What was your age when you immigrated to Canada? 49. How many people currently live in your household? What is their relationship to you? Ages? 50. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (any education in Canada?) 51. What category does your total household income fall under? • $10,000-19,999 • $21,000-29,999 • $30,000-39,999 • $40,000-49,999 • $50,000-59,999 • $60,000-69,999 • $70,000-74,999 • Above $75,000 Would you be able to recommend someone else for an interview?


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items