"It was tough on everybody": low-income families and housing hardship in post-World War II Toronto

Journal of Social History, Winter, 2003 by Sean Purdy

Racial assumptions among policy makers, landlords, builders and the general population would make it especially difficult for certain immigrant groups such as Jews, Asians and Blacks. "Restrictive covenants"--informal rules prohibiting certain minorities from renting or buying property--were integrated in to federal housing programs and many urban and suburban residential areas. For instance, in the question and answer section of a Toronto home builder's promotional advertisement in 1918, the question 'Would you sell to foreigners?" was answered, No, Absolutely NOT." (23) There is clear evidence that municipal officials willfully ignored such explicit practices until the 1950s. (24) Racism in the housing market would thus hamper shelter opportunities for certain groups.

The low-income housing crunch returned with a vengeance during the Depression. As David Hulchanski notes, one of the central features of the housing question during the decade was simply the "inability of many urban residents to afford adequate housing." (25) Extensive studies of Halifax, Hamilton, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto in the early 1930s showed a proliferation of dilapidated housing conditions, lack of affordable housing units and rampant social distress. The 1934 Toronto study identified the heavily skewed distribution of income, high unemployment, and anarchic land development as the main culprits of the housing crisis. It documented destitute housing conditions among 2,000 of the most disadvantaged working families, confirming "the inability of the lowest wage earners to pay rents sufficiently high to obtain adequate housing accommodation." (26)

Despite periodic crocodile tears from government officials, little progress was made in providing affordable accommodation. (27) Working families lived out the crisis as best they could, often sharing units with other families, boarding in private homes, frequently moving house in search of better opportunities or in response to evictions, and painfully enduring wretched housing. For thousands of single male workers, the only options were highly-regimented urban hostels, inhumane rural relief camps, or the street. (28)

World War II ended unemployment, but it exacerbated the housing crisis. Toronto's location as a center of war industry aggravated the grave shelter situation for many workers. First, the rapid increase in population was not matched on the supply side by dwelling construction: the building industry suffered from a lack of raw materials and the priorities of industry and government were focused on war production. As a result of family formation, migration, and immigration, the population of the City of Toronto and surrounding municipalities increased by almost 190,000 people from 1931 to 1947 while less than 44,000 new dwelling units were built. (29) Only 2,245 of these units were built as emergency housing by the City of Toronto with assistance from the federal government. (30) The plunge in rental housing construction was particularly acute. Rental controls temporarily eased the crisis but did not address the shortage. (31) The extent of the crisis can be measured by the severity of the emergency measures undertaken to house people during and immediately after the war: families in acute need were placed in community centers, fires stations, police halls, army barracks, and hastily-built emergency houses. (32)