The Discourse About Enclaves

Neighbourhoods where a particular ethnic group dominates have multiplied in European and North American cities with the recent wave of global migration. Such neighbourhoods, often called ethnic enclaves (this term will be defined later), are increasingly differentiated from migrants’ ghettos. The evidence from the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia, for example, shows that these are residential concentrations of choice rather than outcomes of discrimination (Logan et al. 2002; Peach 2005; Marcuse 2005; Smith and Ley 2008). Current ethnic enclaves are different from the immigrant neighbourhoods of the early twentieth century because present-day immigrants are very diverse in their socioeconomic background and employment prospects, because the receiving countries’ economies are driven by services and technology rather than manufacturing, and because civil rights and anti-discrimination laws have created more open societies. The differences of the structure and environment of present-day ethnic enclaves raise a question about their trajectories over time: will they dissolve as suggested by the theory of spatial assimilation?

The evolution of enclaves in cities has been discussed largely in terms of their structure at one point in time. What happens to them over time has not been systematically examined, although enclaves are supposed to dissipate as immigrants assimilate in the mainstream. Yet a longitudinal study of enclaves is important both for understanding their internal dynamics and for uncovering processes of ethnic minorities’ integration or segregation. How enclaves grow and change is a topic that remains unexplored.

This article has four objectives: (1) to describe how enclaves evolve over time; (2) to identify factors driving their growth and change; (3) to analyse the dynamics of enclaves’ internal organisation; and (4) to examine the relationship between immigration and the growth of enclaves. Although the topic is of interest to almost all countries receiving immigrants, the article concentrates on major ethnic enclaves in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and analyses their development over the period 2001–2006. All of these enclaves were formed prior to 2001, some of them decades ago, and their growth and change have been tracked over the 5-year period between the two censuses. The limitations of the ethnic categories by which the Canadian census data are reported prior to 2001 make it difficult to extend the analysis to periods before 2001 (Bourhis 2003).

We focus on seven ethnic groups—Italians, Jews, Portuguese, South Asians, Chinese, Caribbean and African—although only five have formed sizable enclaves. These are the main groups whose spatial concentration defines the ethnic geography of the present-day Toronto CMA. Three of these groups—Italians, Jews and Portuguese—largely represent earlier waves of immigrants from the 1950s and 1960s. Comparing these enclaves with those of the recent immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean sets up a unique comparative experiment that allows us to observe if the integration of immigrants results in the diffusion of their enclaves. It will also broaden the discussion of enclaves to groups who are Whites of European ancestry, long integrated into Canadian society. The ethnicity of the resident, not his or her status as immigrant, is the defining characteristic of the enclaves analysed in this article.

Ethnicity is a socially constructed attribute of individuals and groups based on their culture, language, nationality and/or customs (Abercrombie et al. 2000). It can change over time and context and applies to immigrants as well as to the Canadian-born. The term relates to the identity of individuals and the communal awareness of groups. In the census, it is self-reported. Statistics Canada defines ethnic origin as a respondent’s cultural inheritance from ancestors derived from her or his roots and not nationality, language or citizenship (Statistics Canada 2006). Statistics Canada identified 200 ethnic groups in the 2006 census.

Concentrations, Enclaves and Ghettos

The spatial organisation of cities is based on the principle of functional and socioeconomic differentiation. Almost every city has neighbourhoods in which people of a particular social class, lifestyle or ethnicity dominate. In cities that draw large number of immigrants, many areas have concentrations of residents of one ethnicity or the other. Even in the second half of the nineteenth century, the city of Toronto had Irish, Jewish, Italian and Chinese neighbourhoods in its crowded central districts, which Harney (1985) calls “little homelands.” This phenomenon of ethnic concentration has spread all across the CMA in recent times with the annual inflow of about 80,000 to 90,000 immigrants.

An enclave is both a spatial and institutional phenomenon. The ethnic concentration in an area is the necessary condition for an enclave. The sufficient condition is the formation of ethnic businesses, services, institutions and associations. It is the “institutional completeness” (Breton 1964) of a community at the neighbourhood level that makes an enclave. Most contemporary enclaves are the result of the voluntary locational choices of individuals within the prevailing market structures and public policies (Marcuse 2005; Hiebert et al. 2007). Although the term enclave is sometimes used to describe immigrant concentrations in central cities (Logan et al. 2002), it usually refers to neighbourhoods dominated by a particular ethnic group and marked by institutions reflecting its cultural values and symbols.

An enclave is not to be confused with a ghetto. A ghetto is a neighbourhood of racial or ethnic concentration that is largely the result of social exclusion practised by the mainstream society (Marcuse 2005; Peach 2005), characterised by poverty and blight. The spatial segregation of poor Blacks in particular is associated with the term ghetto in North America. A similar situation seems to be developing for non-White immigrants in some cities of Europe (Dib and Sriraman 2009; Hiebert et al. 2007). The spatial segregation reflected in ethnic concentrations gives rise to the branding of such neighbourhoods as “ghettos” in the media.

Spatial Segregation and Ethnic Enclaves

The literature on ethnic enclaves is rooted in discourse about spatial segregation. It looks upon ethnic enclaves as spatially segregated communities resulting from the social processes of class, ethnic or racial differentiation and clustering (Savage et al. 2003). The discussion in the literature largely revolves around two questions: (1) is segregation the result of discrimination or voluntary choice (Balakrishnan and Kralt 1987) and (2) does it represent some form of ghettoisation and poverty concentration (Kazemipur and Halli 2000; Walks and Bourne 2006)? These questions have implications for the integration of immigrants and minorities, particularly in Canada where immigration contributes about 70% of population growth.

The reasons for the formation of ethnic enclaves are a combination of push factors (housing opportunities, discrimination, etc.) and pull factors (shared identity, desire to live near friends, access to ethnic services), the balance of which determines the clustering of households. Contemporary ethnic enclaves are generally regarded as the products of opportunities and choices in housing markets. The weight of academic literature leans towards viewing enclaves as expressions of ethnic minorities’ and immigrants’ choices to form communities based on their values and interests (Marcuse 2005; Peach 2005; Qadeer 2005; Muller 1993).

Of course, these choices are exercised within the constraints of local and national institutions, policies and markets, which may have institutional “biases” rooted in historic structures. Yet under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada), the Civil Rights Act (USA), multiculturalism policies (Canada and Britain) and universal human rights (Kymlicka, 2007), overt discrimination in housing markets and public institutions has been considerably reduced. Therefore, it stands to reason that researchers would find that the spatial segregation of ethnic enclaves is not necessarily a manifestation of social discrimination. There is almost an academic consensus that contemporary enclaves are not ghettos, particularly in Canada (Dib and Sriraman 2009; Walks and Bourne 2006; Qadeer and Kumar 2006; Hiebert et al. 2007; Murdie and Teixeira 2003).

Hiebert et al. (2007) and Walks and Bourne (2006) probe the question of enclaves being areas of high levels of poverty and exclusion by drawing upon the current literature and analysing a variety of indicators in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and other Canadian cities. Hiebert et al. come to the “unequivocal conclusion that the isolationist narrative identified in recent media portrayals of enclave neighbourhoods is overstated” (2007:99) and that “Canadians should be concerned about the economic integration of immigrants.…But our research suggests that identification of socio-spatial isolation as a problem is misplaced” (2007:100). Walks and Bourne applied the typology of residential areas of Poulsen et al. (2002) to all 28 Canadian CMAs and correlated them to various indices of segregation and poverty concentration, concluding that “association of low income with high levels of minority concentration only holds for some urban areas and only for some minority groups…[and] there is little evidence of ghetto formation along US lines” (2006: 294, 295). Other researchers have come to similar conclusions (Murdie 2008; Qadeer and Kumar 2006; Ray 1999).

The foregoing discussion has some bearing on the questions to be addressed in this article, namely the factors determining the growth and change of enclaves and their internal organisation. The degree of concentration (of an ethnic population) and the institutional context affect the development and structure of enclaves. In our empirical analysis, we have focused on these variables.

Regarding the degree of concentration, Poulsen et al. (2002) have postulated a six-level classification system based on the proportion of minority population in an area, ranging from neighbourhoods in which a minority has a small presence (<20%) to those in which they represent 70% or more of an area’s population. From the perspective of our study, this classification is a cross-sectional typology. Its longitudinal application is limited to the evolution of a neighbourhood from one category to another over time. What it underlines is that degree of concentration is a significant determinant of the internal organisation of an enclave.

The institutional context at the local level is reflected in housing market indicators such as tenure, quality and demand. Our analysis takes account of these variables. What we need to explore are the models and hypotheses that explain the longitudinal growth and change of enclaves. The spatial assimilation model is a widely used explanation of the residential patterns of immigrants and minorities in cities. We will turn to it for guidance.

The Spatial Assimilation Model and Evolution of Enclaves

Ernest W. Burgess’s concentric zone hypothesis about the spatial structure of a city is an enduring legacy of the Chicago school for explaining the residential patterns of immigrants (1929). Its postulated zone of transition, surrounding the central business district, was an area of blighted housing stock and home to new immigrants who formed neighbourhoods such as Little Sicily and Chinatown. Second and third generations of immigrants moved into the zone of better residences (single-family homes). The proposition that the social and economic advancement of immigrants also brings with it their spatial integration continues to underpin the current models of ethnic residential patterns and is known as the spatial assimilation model.

The basic premise of the spatial assimilation model is that new immigrants lack socioeconomic resources and thus begin their lives in their adopted countries at the bottom of the social ladder. They have to live in poor neighbourhoods where they cluster along ethnic lines. As they progress socially and economically, they transform their new resources into higher-quality housing and better neighbourhoods among the mainstream communities. Thus, their social assimilation parallels their spatial assimilation. Massey and Denton have described the process: “minorities attempt to convert their socioeconomic achievements into an improved spatial position, which usually implies assimilation with majority group” (1985: 94). This model is based on the assumption that “the social melting pot also melts the spatial enclave” (Peach 2005:31).

The spatial assimilation model is based on the notion of the “stock” of immigration, whereby a few years of liberal immigration conclude with the closing of the doors to the country. Immigration in Canada is a flow that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, bringing about 250,000 new immigrants and many others as temporary workers every year who are drawn to areas where their co-ethnics live. They will keep enclaves thriving, even if the spatial assimilation model works, but the current evidence casts some doubts, particularly in Canada. Fong and Wilkes observe that the model explains the experiences of immigrants from Europe, but not the spatial outcomes for Asians and Blacks (1999:615) and caution against applying this model uncritically. In the USA, ethnicity remains a strong marker of people’s identity, despite the ideology of assimilation, and its lived multiculturalism is vibrant (Glazer and Moynihan 1963). This multiculturalism is reflected in ethnic enclaves in a city like New York (Foner 2007).

The spatial assimilation model does not reflect the contemporary reality of multiculturalism and pluralism. There is a new recognition of the rights of minorities to equality before law, to the preservation of heritage, to freedom of expression and association, etc. (Kymlicka 2007). These rights and freedoms legitimise the spatial expression of ethnic identities as long as they arise from choice. They also support the formation of ethnic institutions and organisations, which help consolidate enclaves. Also, many new immigrants are professionals and businesspeople who do not invariably start at the bottom of the economic ladder despite difficulties experienced by many in finding suitable jobs.

Enclaves are not just residential concentrations of people of a particular ethnicity but also areas where ethnic groups build community life through the formation of businesses, services, places of worship, clubs and institutions. Enclaves may be formed by immigrants, but they continue to thrive on the basis of ethnic identity and institutions in the second and third generations.

The discussion of the spatial assimilation model gives us some insights into the longitudinal analysis of enclaves. First, enclaves may expand with continual immigration, but if the flow of immigrants dwindles, they may contract without dissolving. The comparison of three European groups’ enclaves with the three Asian neighbourhoods in our study will help indicate whether enclaves are on the path of dissolution as immigrants integrate into the Canadian society as is the case of Jews, Italians and Portuguese. Second, it suggests the realignment of the contours of enclaves, with or without immigration. Third, enclaves may continue to exist on the basis of territorial identity and ethnic institutions even if their ethnic population declines. We will test these insights with census data for two points in time.

Method

This empirical study was guided by the questions and propositions discussed above. It uses techniques of GIS mapping and statistical analysis to identify patterns of development of ethnic enclaves’ in the Toronto CMA, including some probing for contributing factors.

The longitudinal analysis of enclaves is carried out by comparing their spatial patterns at two points in time—2001 and 2006. Census data are plotted by census tract (CT), a geographic unit of about 4,000 residents within a metropolitan area, for the two years. The composite maps are compared to observe changes in the spatial structures of enclaves over time. The study builds on a previous work of mapping ethnic enclaves in Toronto (Qadeer and Kumar 2006) and uses the same criteria to map enclaves to ensure the comparability of maps. Almost every major study of ethnic spatial patterns has used the census data for analysis.

The statistical analysis examines the changes in various indices of ethnic concentration, segregation, housing conditions and exposure to others in neighbourhoods for seven ethnic groups. The groups were chosen for analysis because their residential concentrations are the defining elements of the social geography of the Toronto CMA. Three (Italians, Jews and Portuguese) are of European stock and are largely the second and third generations of the postwar waves of immigrants. The other four (Chinese, South Asians, Caribbean and African) are mostly recent immigrants. Since there are no sizable concentrations of Caribbean and Africans (Blacks), our analysis is effectively limited to five enclaves.

The ethnic characteristics in the Canadian census are based on self-identification by the sampled respondents. Self-identification results in slight variations in the number of each ethnic group as census respondents may describe themselves in different terms from census to census. For example, someone may identify himself or herself as Canadian in one census and as Jewish in the next, or vice versa. Yet such variations are small and consistent enough to allow for valid comparisons over time.

Statistics Canada allows respondents to identify themselves as of single or multiple ethnicities. For example, one could identify either as Chinese or as Chinese and Canadian; similarly, one could be British or British and Jewish. We have combined both single and multiple responses to compose respective ethnic categories, a procedure followed by Statistics Canada for reporting ethnic distribution at various levels. Thus, the sum total of single and multiple responses is greater than the total population of an area.

Ethnic categories used in Statistics Canada data are not entirely homogenous (Ghosh 2007). They include a wide diversity of languages, religions or nationalities within ethnic categories. For example, South Asian as an ethnic category includes East Indians, Punjabis, Bengalis, Tamils, Pakistanis, etc. who share a geographic region and some racial and cultural characteristics, but not languages, religions or nationalities. Jews could have German, Russian, East European or other origins. The point is that ethnic enclaves have an internal diversity arising from cultural differences among people that share a geographic origin and some racial or cultural characteristics. There are some commonalities in the ethnic categories by which Statistics Canada reports the census data. Finally, privacy considerations inhibit reporting of data by each nationality or language group for CTs. The categories used in this study are the ones for which reliable data are available at the CT level.

Social Geography of the Toronto CMA

Centred on the city of Toronto and spread over 24 municipalities, the Toronto CMA is the largest metropolitan area of Canada. Its population of 5.07 million in 2006 increased by 424,115 from 4.64 million in 2001. All of this net growth is the result of immigration. In this 5-year period, 447,925 immigrants came to the CMA. Undoubtedly, there was some natural growth in this period, but probably the out-migration of the metropolitan population to exurbia and other parts of Canada has drained away the natural growth. Whatever the reason, the fact that the number of recent immigrants is larger than the net growth of the metropolitan population underlines the significance of immigration as the defining demographic force in the area. The City of Toronto has long been a mosaic of ethnic neighbourhoods, but new waves of immigrants are extending this pattern into suburbs.

Before we analyse their geographic concentration, let us measure the respective ethnic populations of the major immigrant groups in the Toronto CMA. Table 1 shows both the 2001 and 2006 counts for the population of major ethnic groups. Two points are notable: (1) South Asians are now the largest ethnic group of recent immigrant origins; (2) whilst visible minority ethnics, South Asians, Chinese, Blacks and Filipinos, registered large percentage increases over the 5-year period, those of the old immigrant (European) stock—British, Jewish, Italian and Portuguese—increased at modest rates and in two cases actually declined.

Table 1 Ethnic composition in the Toronto CMA 2001–2006
Full size table

The social geography of the Toronto metropolitan area is changing rapidly. Immigrants constituted about 47% of the metropolitan population in 2006, rising from 43.7% in 2001. Canada now draws most of its immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the Toronto CMA, out of 2.39 million immigrants in 2006, only 0.7 million (29.3%) were from Europe. Among the recent immigrants, those who migrated between 2001 and 2006, only 12.8% were of European origin; South Asians, followed by East Asians, made up more than 50% of newly arrived immigrants in 2006. Increasingly, a typical immigrant in Canada is a member of visible minority—a polite euphemism for non-Whites.

In 2006, visible minorities were 42.9% of the metropolitan population, South Asian being the most numerous (13%), followed by Chinese (9.6%) and Blacks, which include those of both African and Caribbean origin (6.9%). The City of Brampton and the Town of Markham in the CMA have majorities of visible minorities and the Cities of Toronto and Mississauga are at the cusp of becoming like them.

Ethnic Concentrations

The spatial distribution of ethnic groups within an urban area is an indicator of their concentration. On a metropolitan scale, the degree of concentration is generally measured by a simple index that relates the percentage of an ethnic group’s population in a metropolitan area to the percentage of CTs in which they live. The smaller the percentage of CTs, the more concentrated is the ethnic group. Table 2 shows the percentages of CTs in which 50% and 90% of various ethnic groups’ populations lived in the Toronto CMA in 2001 and 2006.

Table 2 Concentration of ethnic groups 2001–2006
Full size table

Jews were the most concentrated group, at both the 50% and 90% levels, though between 2001 and 2006, a small degree of deconcentration is visible. Assuming the distribution of British as a marker of mainstream society, other ethnic groups have been compared with them.

Comparing others with the British in the CMA, we find that the Vietnamese, Chinese and South Asians are more concentrated. They are close to each other in the degree of concentration; at the 50% level, they were concentrated in 9% to 13% of CTs and 90% of them lived in 35% to 47% of CTs. The Chinese were slightly more concentrated than the South Asians, and the Vietnamese were the most concentrated among the three groups. Both South Asians and Chinese show a tendency towards greater concentration between 2001 and 2006. Blacks and those of Caribbean origin were the least concentrated in the seven ethnic groups. This observation challenges the popular belief that Blacks are highly segregated.

The most widely used measure of residential concentration is the dissimilarity index (DI). It is a succinct measure of the relative concentration of a (minority) ethnic group assessed against another (majority) group assumed to be near normally distributed. The values of DI are expressed on a scale of 0–1, 0 meaning no segregation and 1.0 meaning complete segregation. We have computed DIs for eight ethnic groups by comparing their concentrations in CTs with those of British Isles ancestry who are the historical majority. The results are presented in the Table 3.

Table 3 Dissimilarity index for selected ethnic groups in the Toronto CMA, 2001–2006
Full size table

By this measure also, Jews not only were the most concentrated in 2006, but their concentration increased from 2001 to 2006. They are followed by the Chinese and South Asians whose concentration increased slightly over this period. Blacks were relatively less concentrated, and this pattern changed very little. A striking change is in the concentration of the Portuguese, decreasing from 0.693 in 2001 to 0.494. This table confirms the observations of Table 2. Overall, the CMA’s ethnic groups are fairly well concentrated residentially.

This is the metropolitan picture. The basis for the formation of enclaves is the concentration of particular ethnic groups in neighbourhoods or other small areas within cities. The measure commonly used is the percentage of a CT’s population that is of a particular ethnicity.

Analysing Enclaves

The first cut in identifying an ethnic enclave is to look for the concentration of a particular group in a CT. Anywhere from 10% to 30% of a census tract’s population being of a specific ethnic background has been used as the criteria for identifying ethnic enclaves (Hou and Picot 2004; Logan et al. 2002).

This is a relatively crude measure because 30% is not a majority. We apply more discriminating criteria. We divide concentrations into two types: (1) a primary concentration in which more than 50% of the population of a census tract is of a specific ethnic background and (2) a secondary concentration which refers to a census tract in which persons of a particular ethnic background are the single largest group, though not a majority (i.e. between 25% and 49%). This differentiation of ethnic concentration is similar in principle, though not as fine-tuned, to the classification scheme proposed by Poulsen et al. (2002).

Using these criteria, CTs with primary or secondary concentrations of the seven ethnic groups have been identified. The mapping was done separately for 2001 and 2006. We mapped all census tracts of the CMA for concentrations of the seven ethnic groups (see Figs. 1 and 2). Comparing the two maps, we have identified the spatial growth patterns of all seven ethnic groups.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Ethnic enclaves in the Toronto CMA, 2001

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Ethnic enclaves in the Toronto CMA, 2006

Full size image

To qualify as an enclave, concentrations of contiguous CTs have been clustered together to indicate areas in which corresponding ethnic businesses and services have also developed. These ethnic concentrations have been transformed into enclaves with the emergence of religious institutions, businesses and community services with a particular ethnic provenance.

There is a remarkable consistency between the two maps in that the enclaves remain anchored to their respective areas over the 5-year period. Together, they show the structure of ethnic spaces in the Toronto CMA. A close comparison of Figs. 1 and 2 reveals patterns of enclaves’ growth and change. Figure 2 indicates that by 2006, several census tracts outside the 2001 enclaves had been absorbed as enclaves have expanded. This is particularly evident in the suburban ring around the city of Toronto. To observe this process, the growth of the South Asian, Chinese, Jewish, Portuguese and Italian enclaves has been closely examined by comparing their configurations in both maps. There are no sizable enclaves of people of Caribbean or African origin.

The Italian enclave has not expanded in this period, but has consolidated its territorial base. Some of its secondary CTs have evolved into primary concentrations, shifting the centre of gravity to suburban Woodbridge and beyond. The Italian population extends northward from its historic base in the city of Toronto, known as Little Italy. From the east, the Italian enclave borders the Jewish neighbourhood, and from the west, South Asians are moving in. The slight contraction of its boundaries is reflected in the reduction of the residential area of the enclave from 98 to 88 km2 in the 5-year period.

The Jewish enclave has expanded northward past Steeles Avenue along its historic axis of Bathurst Street, but thinned out in its core. About nine of its primary CTs became secondary concentrations between 2001 and 2006. Its residential area has increased from 29 to 31 km2, but the concentration of the Jewish population has decreased. This highly integrated group retains its enclave, although its contours and density has changed.

The Chinese enclave, the most striking of the new enclaves, shows two distinct trends. It consists of a spine of CTs with primary concentrations in the centre, surrounded by an expanding band of CTs of secondary concentrations. It is expanding northwards. The residential concentration in the enclave increased over the period, and its residential area increased from 61 to 90 km2 (note that large parts of many CTs are open spaces or industrial or institutional lands). Within this enclave are 16 Chinese malls and 30 Chinese plazas. Apart from the predominant suburban enclave, there are two small but historic Chinatowns, one on Spadina and one on Broadview, representing secondary concentrations in the City of Toronto.

South Asian enclaves are found at two separate locations. One in the east has been consolidated with the emergence of a cluster of secondary CTs fanning to the south and west into the heart of Scarborough over the 5-year period. In 2006, the second enclave in the west has been consolidated by linking together isolated CTs of South Asian concentrations. It has also developed a band of primary CTs radiating northward into Brampton from its base in Rexdale. These enclaves have shown substantial growth, largely by secondary concentrations. Overall, the South Asian enclaves are more spread out than those of other groups. The residential area of CTs in South Asian enclaves grew from 62 to 126 km2. Other than these two enclaves, a few CTs in Thorncliffe–Flemingdon area of the City of Toronto have significant South Asian concentrations.

The Portuguese enclave has been largely static, slightly deconcentrating. Its one primary CT in 2001 became a secondary concentration in 2006. Its residential area of 6 km2 remained unchanged over the 5-year period. If any enclave were to dissipate over time in Toronto, the Portuguese enclave would be it. Yet its commercial and institutional core remains intact along College and Dundas Streets west. As Murdie and Teixeira observe, the Portuguese who have moved away still return “to the ethnic neighbourhood to shop for special ethnic goods and to participate in the institutional life of the community” (2003:149).

Non-Caribbean Blacks had no CT-level concentration in 2001, and there was one secondary concentration in one CT of Caribbean Blacks. By 2006, two CTs of Caribbean secondary concentration appeared at the eastern edge of the CMA, and two scattered CTs of secondary concentrations of non-Caribbean Blacks (Somalis and other Africans) appeared in the northwest of the City of Toronto. There may be apartment buildings or streets with a concentration of Blacks, but those groups are too small to appear at the CT level.

Immigration drives the growth of enclaves. Italian, Jewish and Portuguese enclaves have not expanded much in the 2001–2006 period, whereas Chinese and South Asian enclaves have expanded in this period.

Taken altogether, these figures suggest the following spatial growth patterns of enclaves.

  • Enclaves are continually realigning, with shifting centres of gravity and changing contours of ethnic density.

  • Enclaves begin with some ethnic households forming a core, expanding outward first as fragmented clusters which tend to coalesce to form a consolidated band over time, e.g. Chinese and South Asian enclaves.

  • Gradually, a band or axis of highly concentrated clusters (primary CTs) emerges, around which zones of ethnically less dense territories (secondary CTs) are formed. This centre of gravity shifts with any growth or contraction of population.

  • Over the long term, an enclave begins to contract as the growth of ethnic population slows down, as seen in the Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, the Jewish enclaves. At present, enclaves do not seem to be dissolving.

  • The enclaves of long-established immigrant groups, such as the Jews and Italians, who have integrated well in the mainstream, appear to be continuing to thrive. This shows that spatial assimilation does not fully follow social integration.

  • The enclaves of the Toronto CMA are not exclusive to their respective ethnic groups. They are largely made up of secondary concentrations in which an ethnic group is the single largest but not a majority population.

  • Suburbs are now the locus of ethnic enclaves. The historic ethnic neighbourhoods in the central city are overshadowed by large, spread-out suburban enclaves.

These findings answer questions (1) and (3) raised at the beginning of this article. They show that enclaves, once developed, have internal dynamics. They are sustained by the ethnic institutions and businesses and by the locational inertia of places of worship, clubs, restaurants and boutiques.

Myles and Hou have found that affluent Chinese and Italian continue to live in enclaves (2004:52). The comparison of enclaves of the old immigrant stock of European origins with those of recent immigrants of Asian and African or Caribbean heritage shows that ethnic enclaves last a long time. Even when the flow of new immigrants of an ethnic group dwindles, its “integrated” generations continue to value their territorial identity. The vibrant urbanism of the Toronto area and its policy of multiculturalism add to the livability of ethnic neighbourhoods.

Dynamics of Enclaves Growth

These findings about the patterns of enclaves’ growth raise another set of questions. What factors drive the growth of enclaves? How do they evolve internally? We will address these questions empirically on the basis of observations drawn from the five enclaves.

An aura of segregation hangs over enclaves. Let us examine how isolated ethnic groups are in enclaves. Table 4 shows the proportion of respective ethnic populations of the CMA living in enclaves.

Table 4 Proportion of the CMA’s ethnic populations living in enclaves
Full size table

An interesting temporal trend can be observed in this table. The proportion of total Chinese and South Asian populations living in enclaves has shot up over the period from 28% and 30% in 2001 to 48% and 49% in 2006, respectively. Whereas the proportions of the Italians, Jews and Portuguese living in enclaves declined, South Asians and the Chinese living in enclaves are approaching the 50% mark. The new immigrants are converging on enclaves, whilst those of the old immigrant stock are leaving enclaves.

More pertinent to the question of ethnic segregation is another set of data, namely the proportion of others (who are not of the dominant ethnic background) living in enclaves (see Table 5).

Table 5 Enclaves’ growth and ethnic concentration 2001–2006
Full size table

Table 5 reaffirms some of the earlier observations. The total population of the Chinese and South Asian enclaves more than doubled in the 5-year period, not entirely because of population growth in a defined area. The areal base of each of the two enclaves has also expanded in the 5 years. As Chinese or South Asians moved into CTs where they had not previously been present in sizable numbers, the base of enclaves expanded and the count of total population increased.

The shrinking of the bases of Jewish and Portuguese enclaves is reflected in the negative growth of the total population. The population growth of the Italian enclave was positive, but modest—3.2%.

What is interesting are the data in columns 5 and 6 of Table 5. Except for South Asians, the proportion of all other four ethnic groups in the total population of their enclaves decreased over the 5-year period. The proportion of Chinese in their own enclaves decreased from 46.6% to 45%; the Jewish proportion declined sharply from 43.7% to 35.6%. The Italian as well as Portuguese proportions in their respective enclaves decreased slightly. These decreases are the result of two separate trends: (1) the expansion of the base area and of the overall population of enclaves and (2) the deconcentration of population, as in the Jewish enclave.

One fact stands out. In all enclaves, ethnics were not segregated. They have a strong presence in these areas, but in all cases, they are minorities. For example, 54–55% of residents of the Chinese enclave were non-Chinese, and 60% in the South Asian enclave were not South Asian. Persons of British origin were often the second largest group, which is an indication of their historic presence in these areas. Their numbers increased in South Asian and Chinese enclaves by about 55% and 37%, respectively, largely because of the new CTs added to the enclaves, which also contain a resident British population. Thus, in these enclaves, it was not “white flight” that accounts for the emerging ethnic concentrations. However, the number of persons of British ethnicity in Italian, Jewish and Portuguese enclaves decreased in this period. It could mean that relatively low-growth enclaves were consolidating in their cores.

These observations suggest that enclaves grow by expansion into new areas as well as by the in-place increase of the ethnic population. Conversely, shrinking enclaves experience both a contraction of their areas and deconcentration of ethnic population. The presence of other groups in large numbers within enclaves is an indication of the low level of spatial segregation.

New Housing and Movers

A substantial component of the enclaves’ growth comes from the building of new housing. Table 6 shows that 20% of the housing stock in the fastest growing South Asian enclave was built between 2001 and 2006, much higher than the CMA average of 11.5%. The proportion of new housing stock in the booming Chinese and consolidating Italian enclaves is also above the overall proportion for the CMA. By contrast, in the relatively deconcentrating Jewish and Portuguese enclaves, the percentages are equal to or much lower than the CMA average. New housing brings new households, mostly of the immigrant background, we surmise.

Table 6 New housing stock in ethnic enclaves, 2001–2006
Full size table

This observation is reinforced by the fact that both Chinese and South Asian enclaves had higher proportion of movers (those changing residences between 2001 and 2006) than the overall CMA average. In the South Asian enclave, 54.5% moved and in the Chinese 46.5%, whereas the average for the CMA is 44.9%. The proportions in the Portuguese and Italian enclaves were lower—39.5% and 35.8%, respectively. The Jewish enclave was in line with the CMA average on this indicator. These data support the finding that the growth of enclaves is partially the result of filling newly built housing to some extent.

Another interesting feature of enclaves is that the growing enclaves had rates of homeownership that were higher than the CMA’s, at 67.7%.

Table 7 shows that the Italian, Chinese and South Asian enclaves had homeownership rates of 81.2%, 73.6% and 70.5%, respectively. Conversely, the contracting enclaves, Jewish and Portuguese, had rates below the CMA average, 65% and 59.4%, respectively. These enclaves reflect a degree of housing attainment by immigrants; although South Asians and Chinese, for instance, were not necessarily all homeowners, they may dominate areas that have high rates of homeownership.

Table 7 Homeownership in enclaves 2006
Full size table

This brief analysis of housing conditions in enclaves suggests that these immigrants are not living in poor neighbourhoods with older housing stock. These enclaves embody the North American dream of homeownership and may be more lasting than what is envisaged in the spatial assimilation model.

How much do recent immigrants contribute to the growth and change of enclaves? We devised a location quotient (LQ) of recent immigrants at the CT level, dividing the percentage of recent immigrants (arriving in 2001–2006) in a CT by the percentage of all recent immigrants in the CMA. A value of 1.0 or less means that the number of recent immigrants in a CT has grown at a slower rate than the CMA; in other words, it has received less than its share of recent immigrants. An LQ value of more than 1.0 indicates an above-CMA-average rate of immigrant settlement or a larger share of recent immigrants. The results should be interpreted cautiously. Recent immigrants are likely but not necessarily of the same ethnicity as the group dominant in an enclave. The data refer to all recent immigrants, not just to those of a particular ethnicity. We focused on the five enclaves.

Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 show the LQs of recent immigrants by CTs in enclaves. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the South Asian and Chinese enclaves and clearly indicate that most of the CTs in these enclaves have LQs of more than 1.0; that is, they are attracting more than the CMA average of recent immigrants. Only a few CTs have LQs of <1.0, indicating a below-average rate of recent immigrant settlement.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Location quotients of recent immigration into ethnic enclaves, 2006. South Asian cluster (West)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Location quotients of recent immigration into ethnic enclaves, 2006. South Asian cluster (East)

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Location quotients of recent immigration into ethnic enclaves, 2006. Chinese cluster

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Location quotients of recent immigration into ethnic enclaves, 2006. Italian cluster

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Location quotients of recent immigration into ethnic enclaves, 2006. Jewish cluster

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Location quotients of recent immigration into ethnic enclaves, 2006. Portuguese cluster

Full size image

Figures 6 and 7 for Italian and Jewish enclaves show that many more CTs have LQs below the CMA rate of recent immigrants’ settlement. In both the Italian and Jewish enclaves, many CTs have LQ values of well below 1.0. These figures point to another factor contributing to the growth and change in enclaves. The presence of recent immigrants contributes to enclaves’ growth and their absence to its deconcentration. The Portuguese ethnic cluster, shown in Fig. 8, has also experienced relatively low levels of recent settlement. Only one of its CTs matched the CMA average, and several tracts received less than half of the CMA average.

Changes Within Enclaves

Enclaves are seldom static. Whether expanding or contracting, they are continually realigning. Households move in and out. Levels of ethnic concentrations shift up or down. Some parts draw more ethnic households, whilst others lose them, resulting in changing ethnic densities. Some of these internal changes have been discussed above. They are the outcomes of the processes of neighbourhood and housing mobility.

Another test of growing exclusivity is the comparison of ethnic concentrations in 2001 to those of 2006 by CT. Only CTs for which the boundaries did not change could be compared. Among the 32 such CTs in the Chinese enclave, the percentage of Chinese in the CT population seems to rise to a maximum of about 80% (two CTs) and shows a tendency to slide downward over time. Overall, ten CTs (39.2%) decreased in percentage terms between 2001 and 2006. Of 25 comparable CTs in the South Asian enclaves, five (20%) declined in the percentage of South Asians in the CT’s population. These are expanding enclaves.

The case of contracting enclaves, Italian and Jewish, is illustrative. All 14 comparable CTs in the Jewish enclave declined in their level of ethnic concentration over the period 2001 to 2006. The Italian enclave was not far behind. About 73% (11 out of 15) of comparable CTs declined in the percentage of Italians in the CT’s total population.

What these statistics suggest is that ethnic concentration does not reach the level of exclusivity. Even the most highly concentrated areas change over time. Furthermore, enclaves have a rhythm of growth—stabilisation—followed by contraction. Enclaves of groups that are demographically static and have little immigration tend to dilute whilst sustaining the core. As enclaves of recent and continuing immigration are expanding, they tend to reach a peak at about 80% in parts of their core areas and then begin to deconcentrate. All in all, enclaves are neighbourhoods under the influence of the usual processes of the metropolitan community, with the additional dimension of ethnic identity and institutions.

The previous two sections have provided some answers to questions (2) and (4) of this article. They show that immigration is a strong force in the expansion of enclaves and the suburbanisation of enclaves is prompted by opportunities to become homeowners and live close to new job centres that have emerged in Toronto’s suburbs. Certainly, the booming centre of Toronto is a housing market that is both expensive and that comprises relatively small housing units for immigrant families. The opportunities to develop community institutions and ethnic economies are other draws of suburban locations. Suburban enclaves may be more stable than the historic downtown ethnic neighbourhoods.

Conclusions

A longitudinal analysis of the growth and change of the Toronto CMA’s enclaves over a 5-year period, 2001–2006, casts some light on the patterns and processes of the development of ethnic enclaves. The enclaves show two parallel trends: some are growing and consolidating, whilst others are deconcentrating and stabilising. Yet none is about to dissolve completely. Although enclaves are spatial expressions of ethnicity, their growth is largely driven by immigration. The growing enclaves are those of ethnic groups who are continuing to draw large numbers of immigrants, e.g. Chinese and South Asian groups. Conversely, enclaves of ethnic groups whose immigration has slowed down stabilise around a core whilst contracting at the periphery, e.g. the Jewish, Italian and Portuguese enclaves. Yet the ethnic institutions and services that develop in the process of enclave formation acquire a life of their own. Churches, mosques or temples, for example, are long-lasting institutions, just as ethnic commercial establishments do not disband easily.

One point to be particularly noted is that the enclaves of Jews, Italians and Portuguese, who are White and long integrated into the Canadian mainstream, remain vibrant. This observation has two implications: (1) enclaves do not consist just of new and non-White immigrants and (2) enclaves do not dissipate, even with social integration. The latter observation reinforces what other researchers have found about enclaves in Canadian cities (see, for example, Hiebert et al. 2007; Walks and Bourne 2006; Myles and Hou 2004; Fong and Wilkes 1999). The process of spatial assimilation seems less strong, even in the case of European ethnic groups of long standing.

The role of metropolitan housing market in the structuring of enclaves appears to be significant, as is spatial clustering, which is considered “vital to the success of an enclave immigrant economy” (Preston et al. 2003:217). The locus of contemporary enclaves has shifted to the suburbs. With the exception of the Portuguese enclave, in the City of Toronto, the other four enclaves are largely in suburban municipalities. This pattern reflects the metropolitan structure. In the Toronto area, housing prices are high in the central city compared to those in the inner and outer suburbs. Also, in the suburbs, homeownership is within the grasp of immigrant households and there is space for ethnic places of worship, institutions and services. The suburbanisation of enclaves also signals a basis for the continuation of enclaves as these are the places where homeownership is the primary form of tenure and newly built houses are plentiful, which give them a basis for permanence.

Although it was not our objective to probe if enclaves are the home of poor households and thereby determine their propensity to be ghettos, the fact that homeownership rates in enclaves are above the metropolitan average indicates their relative prosperity. Furthermore, the evidence weighs against the image of enclaves as highly segregated neighbourhoods. In the CMA’s five enclaves, certain ethnicities dominate without being majority groups. Residents of enclaves are exposed to people of other ethnicities on their streets and in their parks, stores and bus stops every day.

The social benefits of enclaves include economy of delivering culturally, linguistically and religiously sensitive services as clients may live within walking distance. Places of worship, settlement services, English/French language classes, ethnic restaurants and grocery stores, doctors, lawyers and other professionals conversant with the language and culture of an ethnic group become economically viable. Among the social costs of enclaves, however, may be some degree of school segregation because of the domination of a particular ethnic population. This effect can be mitigated by the deliberate planning of school boundaries and curricula to ensure children’s exposure to other groups.

Finally, enclaves are not local jurisdictions. They are not identifiable neighbourhoods as a whole, although they are collections of local communities. They bear the mark of ethnic identity, but there is no political or social organisation to tie them together. Residents usually identify with their locality and enclaves are linked together by ethnic institutions, businesses and identities.

All in all, enclaves are the new building blocks of an emerging metropolitan structure and elements of ethniCities. The imprinting of the urban landscape with ethnicity is a phenomenon observed in the USA, Europe and Australia as well. This new reality of the multicultural city is the product of both continual immigration and globalisation. A new framework for analysing enclaves is needed as the discourse of spatial segregation and assimilation does not take into account today’s world of civil rights and group identities and diversity.