by J. Paul Grayson

The objectives of the annual surveys are to compare the quality of urban life in Toronto and Montreal, and to examine change in the quality of urban life from one year to the next in each city. Moreover, as the first survey for the project started in January 1998, information collected in Toronto will provide a baseline against which changes resulting from amalgamation, property assessments, and provincial downloading can be determined.

Unfortunately, just days before the beginning of the first annual survey of Toronto and Montreal, the latter was struck with a crippling ice storm. As any quality of life survey carried out in the immediate aftermath of the disaster was likely to reflect more the impact of the storm than the general quality of life in the city, it was decided that Montrealers would not be included in the survey until 1999.

Quality of life in Toronto is high

First, along many dimensions, the quality of urban life appears to be high (see Figure 1). For example, Torontonians are very satisfied with the neighbourhoods in which they live, feel that their neighbourhoods are safe, and are satisfied with their housing, jobs, and leisure time activities. They are also satisfied with, or give high approval ratings to, municipal activities and institutions such as services, the police, and public transportation.

There are area-based differences

Second, despite this overall high quality of urban life there are important differences that parallel the boundaries of the six municipalities recently amalgamated into the one megacity of Toronto. By way of example, residents of the former City of Toronto engage in more neighbourhood activities, and feel safer in their communities, than residents of other parts of the new city. Residents of the former Borough of East York express slightly more approval with the services they receive than people in other parts of the city. And people in North York express more approval of their politicians than residents of other parts of Toronto. Indeed, it is likely that when surveys are carried out with residents of Montreal and possibly other Canadian cities next year, city to city differences will be no greater than those observed among the former municipalities making up Toronto.

Comparisons are needed

Third, although the quality of life in Toronto appears to be high, comparisons will have to be made with other Canadian cities before this suspicion can be confirmed. It is possible, for example, that what appears to be a high quality of urban life in Toronto is the norm for Canadian cities. It would be gratifying to find out that such is the case.

The public presence is important

Fourth, it seems obvious that municipal government is responsible for many of the factors that in Toronto contribute to a high quality of urban life such as conscientious park maintenance, an effective police force, and attempts to keep the city clean. Indeed, it is likely that without a strong public presence in the city the quality of life would be far lower than currently is the case. At this point we do not know if the burdens of amalgamation, changes in property tax assessments, and provincial downloading of social services will impair the municipality's ability to sustain the existing quality of life. Through annual quality of life surveys at least it will be possible to plot the results of these forces.

Some groups are at risk

Fifth, not everyone in Toronto enjoys a high quality of life in many of the realms that have been examined in this study. Most obvious, perhaps, is that, despite their enjoyment of many of the general benefits of life in Toronto, a large minority of Torontonians has difficulty finding the money to purchase some of the necessities of life. With increased municipal taxes, and the possible erosion of many municipal facilities and services, this group is most at risk of a declining quality of life.