Social Interactions in Regent Park 156!

From my research, it seems that the simplest way for people to meet in their neighbourhood and mix with their neighbours is within their building. In discussions with representatives from TCHC and Daniels Corporation, mixed buildings were considered, but due to the financial model of condominiums, were not feasible. Because each unit is owned, that owner has a vote in decisions made. If TCHC owned multiple units within the same building, they would have more than one vote and making decisions could get complicated. For example, condominium maintenance fees may become a challenge as the condominium board sets the fee and has the authority to change it. These details of ownership make the mixing of buildings complicated, according to TCHC. Although mixed buildings exist in other countries and contexts, it does not exist within TCHC’s portfolio yet. Residents of both

During the interviews, it became apparent that most residents believed that there was an importance to knowing neighbours. Some residents stated that it is not essential, but that knowing neighbours would make living in the neighbourhood pleasant. Exclusively market rate residents stated that knowing people within your building is important, but not

necessarily in the wider community. Additionally, the importance, or lack thereof, of resident mixing between tenures was discussed. In this case, even more people said that it was

important to mix in the neighbourhood. However, in spite of residents believing that knowing and mixing with neighbours was important, mixing was fairly minimal between residents of different tenures. In other words, it seemed as though there was a disconnect between people believing that mix is important and knowing your neighbours is import, but not actively making efforts to mix.

The findings of this research do not clearly indicate whether or not social mix is happening in Regent Park; this sample is too small to accurately assess the degree to which people are mixing. Additionally, as the neighbourhood is in the midst of redevelopment, perhaps it is too early to tell if mixing is happening. However, from my sample, I analysed resident experiences in three ways to determine how mixing was occurring. Firstly, if residents did not know anyone from a different tenure than their own, I considered this to be a situation of no mixing. In this instance, eight out of twenty residents reported that they did not know anybody from a different tenure than their own. Secondly, if residents knew at least one person in the neighbourhood from a different tenure than their own, I considered this to be basic mixing. In this way, residents were utilizing space or networks in order to meet their neighbours in at least a superficial way. From the interviews, six of twenty residents stated

that they knew one or a few people in Regent Park that were of a different tenure. Thirdly, if residents had any intentional meeting with other residents of a different tenure than their own, I considered this to be social mixing as these meetings had the greatest chance of resulting in a cohesive community that benefits various income groups and emerging an ethno-cultural mix. In this case, six of twenty residents reported having relationships with residents from other income groups than their own. Through this method of determining mix, it is apparent that basic mixing and true social mixing are happening in Regent Park.

This way of understanding mixing is not foolproof; it can be argued that social mix is immeasurable because it relies on the perceptions of people to report whether they have made friendships, mixed with others, and/or feel included in their neighbourhood. This research study indicated that six of ten low income residents reported that they did not feel as though mixing was happening, however, seven out of ten reported that they knew someone in some capacity (or multiple people) from the other type of housing. Alternatively, five of ten market rate residents reported knowing at least someone in the neighbourhood from a different tenure. Thus, the perceptions of mixing are to some degree divergent from people’s experiences.

The results of this study are in some ways different from the current literature. In the literature, many researchers suggest that despite urban policy to support socially mixed neighbourhoods, actual mixing is not happening. For example, Lelevrier (2013) found that in a French housing development, the mixed neighbourhood resulted in spatial proximity, but social distance between people of different incomes. In a HOPE VI project in Seattle,

for residents, particularly because of the phased nature of the redevelopment they were going through – similar to that of Regent Park. Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn (1998) found that there was minimal interaction between residents in Lake Parc Place in Chicago. In terms of social networks, Atkinson and Kintrea (2000) find that networks are not developed equally among across social groups. In other words, simply introducing mixed income housing is not enough to impact the social networks of low income residents.

While many studies have produced results that are different from what I have found, the results of my study do have similarities with some literature. For example, Chaskin and Joseph (2010) reported that in Chicago, social interaction occurred between residents of different incomes, but that it was limited due to monetary and time constraints among other factors. Although it was happening, it was slow and in particular ways, similar to what I found in Regent Park.

Although the finding that social mix is happening to some degree in Regent Park is not congruent with the literature, there are some possible explanations. Firstly, the sample that I recruited was not necessarily representative of the community as a whole; the people selected in the study are prone to be biased in favour of the work that I was doing for two reasons. Firstly, the newcomer residents who have purchased or are renting market rate units tend to be people who believe in the project of the Regent Park redevelopment. They believe that it is a positive change happening and want to be part of it. Secondly, my recruitment strategy employed volunteer sampling, and thus, the residents of all tenures who agreed to be part of the study tended to be socially active in the neighbourhood already. In this way, I may not have gathered a truly representative sample, and thus my results show that some social

mixing is happening as these residents tend to be invested in the social wellbeing of the neighbourhood. Residents tended to believe that social mix was a good idea; a key informant even said “So [redevelopment] is worth it. What I do know is that leaving Regent Park the way it was wasn’t good for anyone” (KI07). There is a general regard among my sample that the redevelopment in Regent Park is a positive change for the neighbourhood. It is because of this that residents tended to have an interest in making the effort to participate in mixing, and cited the use of public spaces as a venue for that social interaction to occur.

Despite the difference from the literature, the fact remains that some people who are moving in Regent Park do believe in the redevelopment project and the goals it aims to achieve, these are the people who tend to make the effort for mixing as they believe it is important. Another possible explanation for the difference in my findings and the literature could be due to the contentious issue of racial segregation that has plagued United States history has not been as prevalent in Canada. In this way, the diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds of Toronto residents, including Regent Park residents, makes for a different cultural landscape. As a result, it is possible that residents in Regent Park are more willing to participate in social interactions cross-culturally as racial barriers do not prevail in the same way as the United States.

Prior to redevelopment, Regent Park was a place of relatively easy placement for people on the waiting list for social housing as many low income residents described to me. As market rate units open up to the public, there are a variety of reasons to move in to the neighbourhood, and the results of my study indicated that

These same residents who cited price as a main factor were less involved in the

community than those market rate residents who were socially minded and believed in the project. These latter residents showed empathy toward their neighbours and were invested in minimizing the social distance between them and their low income

counterparts. In Lelevrier’s (2013) study of three sites of redevelopment in France, she found a similar dynamic between affluent residents who were empathetic toward the neighbourhood which involved participating in local business, using public amenities, and being open to difference. Alternatively, in my Toronto study, there were those affluent residents with an attitude of distance, disengaging with social interactions and focusing on their networks elsewhere in the city. Affluent residents who moved to Regent Park have different intentions and goals for moving there, and from my sample, they generally fit into the two attitudes described by Lelevrier. The attitudes brought into their new neighbourhood either encouraged or discouraged them to mix with different income groups.

The role that public space plays in Regent Park is significant; having amenity space that is accessible to all residents can encourage mix if done properly. Many of the public spaces are quality spaces which Francis et al. (2012) indicates can be a main factor in whether these spaces are in fact settings for mixing to occur. Communication and advertising of events and services was discussed as a factor that affects whether or not residents partake. This is an avenue for encouraging mix; if residents are

knowledgeable about events, organizations, and service in the community and have an open attitude to participating.

Chapter 7