Toronto OnePark West | ?m | 13s | Daniels | Core Architects

We need public housing for those who need a supervised or semi-supervised housing option but I still am not convinced of the need for public housing for the poor. The poor, including those recent immigrants, should be given income or rental housing supplements so that they can live in the buildings and neighbourhoods of their choice. The missing peice of the puzzle favouring a mixed-income approach is that not enough emphasis is placed on the influence of incidental social interactions and networks on one's economic status. Both wealth and poverty are entrenched and magnified by interactions with family, peer groups and communities. These networks are likely more important in determining the economic success of an individual than things like education, health, demographics (sex, ethnicity etc.). With respect to poverty large tracts of low income housing or low income neighbourhoods create negative feedback loops and wealthy neighbourhoods create positive feedback loops. People know this instinctually and it is one of the driving forces behind inter-regional migration.
 
Tdot:

The poor, including those recent immigrants, should be given income or rental housing supplements so that they can live in the buildings and neighbourhoods of their choice.
Click to expand...

The word "choice" has been thrown around quite often, but what does it really mean? Are buildings and neigbhourhoods "of their choice" really going to be affordable to this group, with income/rental supplement? It also ignores the issue that these areas of choice often have a decreasing amount of rental properties. Not to mention, how is this income/rental supplement going to be operationalized such that it only goes into living arrangments? If it can be done to ensure that, how will one ensure that these receipents won't be discriminated against by landlords?

I might also add that social housing applicants have a degree of choice over where they live.

These networks are likely more important in determining the economic success of an individual than things like education, health, demographics (sex, ethnicity etc.).
Click to expand...

This is a conjecture - where is the demonstrable evidence?

With respect to poverty large tracts of low income housing or low income neighbourhoods create negative feedback loops and wealthy neighbourhoods create positive feedback loops. People know this instinctually and it is one of the driving forces behind inter-regional migration.
Click to expand...

You've said it here - the issue isn't low income housing per se - but large tracts of it in a self contained neighbourhood. I don't think that's the model TCHC (and other housing provide) will go back to.

AoD
 
Choice is certainly hampered by rental stock availability and landlords can and do discriminate. However, much of this housing distribution and discrimination is based on land owner's reactions to (rightly or wrongly) the governments own housing policies (examples if necessary). "Choice" means choice. I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) that a government housing unit costs around 40,000 to 50,000 a year to operate. That is like $3750 a month, enough to house everyone in a luxury yorkville unit as a rental supplement. I certainly do not suggest we can eliminate public housing as there are many individuals that need semi-supervised and special needs housing which we need to build more of. But government housing should be seen as an option of last resort, not a housing solution in itself.

We must measure the intent of the government's housing policy with it's outcome. I appreciate that the policy of scattering smaller more manageable buildings around is a big improvement. I introduced the notion of social networking (indeed as conjecture) because frankly the assumptions on which social housing policy are based have proven to this point to be an abject failure. Well meaning individuals in creating the Regent Parks of the past somehow inflicted as much damage on the poor as if they were actively trying to hurt the people they were trying to help. This is what I mean by measuring intent with outcome.
 
Tdot:

I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) that a government housing unit costs around 40,000 to 50,000 a year to operate. That is like $3750 a month, enough to house everyone in a luxury yorkville unit as a rental supplement.
Click to expand...

Using the case of TCHC as an example, taking numbers from their 2005 annual report:

Total expenditure (including capital and debt charges): $560M

Total number of units: 58000 units

2005 expenditure/unit: ~$9,500/yr or ~$800/month. This number is at least 15-20% lower if one exclude the capital cost of new projects. When we look at government subsidies, which constitute about 48% of total revenues ($560M), the direct government expenditure/unit drops by half the value quoted above.

I certainly do not suggest we can eliminate public housing as there are many individuals that need semi-supervised and special needs housing which we need to build more of. But government housing should be seen as an option of last resort, not a housing solution in itself.
Click to expand...

But what are the likely outcomes of such a policy option (which is driven from the value that government should only provide housing of last resort)? Market apartment units in desirable areas (read: accessible) will continue to face pressures in terms of rent, such that the poor would likely be priced out (not to mention the secondary effect of conversion to condos). Few new mid-to-low rent apartment units targeting this demographic will be built by the private sector since it's generally not a money-making proposition.

That said, I would more than happy to see some private and third sector involvement in providing more forms of housing, such as Co-ops, etc. In addition, I also wanted to see these sort of developments having the potential for tenant ownership as time goes by.

Regarding the failures of governmental housing policy - no doubt, the ghettoization of the poor is a direct result of such, but whatever failures there are is part and parcel of the wider social policy on poverty in general as well.

AoD
 
A thrill-a-rific view, looking south-southeast, towards the corner of Dundas and Parliament.

regent_park.jpg
 
This pic just made me wake up to the fact that Moss Park isn't Regent Park. There is a redevelopment plan for Regent Park but not Moss Park. The Moss Park buildings are staying? Oh, please make the bad thoughts go away.
 
From the Toronto Star:

A loss close to the heart

May 19, 2007 04:30 AM
Sandro Contenta

Almost two years into the redevelopment of Regent Park, relocated residents insist their community bonds are being bulldozed in the name of gentrification.

The $1 billion project has stressed out most of the 1,160 people displaced so far in the redevelopment of the subsidized housing project.

Residents initially thought they had the right to return to an apartment in the area. But they're now realizing the city-owned landlord, Toronto Community Housing, is counting on many not coming back. "People are worried that it will only be for the rich," says relocated resident Sureya Ibrahim, 29.

There will be about 400 fewer rent-geared-to-income units in the new development compared to the 2,087 now in Regent Park. Derek Ballantyne, head of Toronto Community Housing, believes there will enough subsidized units for anyone who wants to return. Other countries that redeveloped housing projects found 30 per cent of displaced residents don't return, he adds.

Four per cent of Regent Park's displaced residents have already left subsidized housing. Others are expected to grow roots in new neighbourhoods. Many relocated seniors lack the energy for another move.

Regent Park's residents' experience has become more relevant as another subsidized housing complex at Lawrence Heights faces redevelopment.

"Just because you put in new buildings doesn't mean you have a community," says Andrew Allan, United Church chaplain at Regent Park.

The move has been hard on the elderly. Some were separated from close friends, others from the network of social agencies near Regent Park that helped give meaning to their lives. Many feel isolated.

In one case, Allan had to perform a kind of exorcism for a senior terrified her new apartment was filled with ghostly vibes. "I went in and said a prayer for the place and asked God to banish the evil spirits," he explains.

Allan says five seniors have died since they moved. The deaths aren't being blamed on the relocation, but St. Michael's Hospital is studying the health effects of the move.

Problems emerged from the start. A "first come, first served" policy caused residents to be relocated to line up in the middle of the night in front of the Regent Park housing office. Jostling sometimes broke out, and those unable to attend – the disabled, the elderly, single or working parents – missed out on the best units.

Despite the problems, many involved have expressed grudging support for the redevelopment. The area has a high crime and poverty rate. And social agencies in the neighbourhood credit Toronto Community Housing for consulting with residents and trying to make relocation as smooth as possible.

Ballantyne dismisses thoughts the redevelopment is part of a trend to rid the downtown core of the poor. Regent Park will always have low income housing, he says. "You fear gentrification if a neighbourhood is going to become exclusive only to people who can afford to live there."
 
before clicking on this new post, i somehow knew it would be a toronto star piece lamenting the change.

as the world turns.
 
Change in developer perhaps?

Original folks backed out; Daniels took over.

The Toronto Star always has these embarrassing and patronizing articles; it's so obvious they want to boost readership amongst certain poor demographics in the city. It makes it seem like Toronto is this big mean city but really comes across as a small town. Ugh.
 
I can't wait to see the fully completed Regent Park. As a Cabbagetown homeowner, I'm looking forward to walking with my kids and dog all over the project, something we'd never do in the past (debate that if you wish).

This is one of the most exciting developments in the modern history of Toronto. An increasing group of middle class and up and coming folks who would have fled the city and bought in the 'burbs will now live in the downtown core. IMO, they should drop the Regent Park name, and go with something new, such as Cabbagetown South...of course Regent Park was build on the original Cabbagetown, when today's Cabbagetown was called Donvale, IIRC.

Of course, a cynic might say that the city finally figured out how to get rid of the drug and crime problem in Regent Park, that being of course, getting rid of the population demographic that's involved in those activities.
 
The sooner the "re-located" go back to Regent Park the better. In Riverdale for instance, were some were re-located, the past year has experienced an increase in B&E's, vehicle break-ins, vandalism, graffitti and muggings. I was told this by a cop who was investigating a series of vehicle break-ins (including mine twice in less than six months). He said some of the recent culprits arrested were re-located in the neighbourhood from Regent Park and Don Mount. The police at 55 Div and Paula Fletchers office have asked we be more vigilant and call the cops when we see suspicious activity.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top