Varied Interests in Redevelopment 148!

Residents discussed their concerns with being able to access housing in Regent Park due to redevelopment. They not only spoke of their own situation, but expressed concern about the barriers that other low income people may experience as a result of redevelopment. In this way, access refers to the ability to be placed in low income units. As of 2011, the number of households on the waiting list for social housing in Toronto was 67, 714 (City of Toronto, 2011). This illustrates a larger systemic problem of the inability of the City to meet the needs of its citizens requiring affordable

housing. The City’s budget and lack of adequate federal and provincial support does not provide enough subsidized housing. Hackworth and Smith (2001) argue that local governments are faced with financial challenges and this pressure brings a pursuance of redevelopments as methods for increasing tax revenue. In the case of Regent Park, an increase in units and population by nearly 7500 and 10,000 respectively will generate an increased tax base for the City. Secondly, Hackworth and Smith (2001) suggest that

of social reproduction and as such, measures to protect the working class are more easily contested” (p.464). In this way, although the predicament local government faces may be a challenge to negotiate, engaging in public-private-partnerships to provide redevelopments of old housing stock garners potentially conflicting priorities. A for- profit corporation may not have the true interest of low-income citizens at heart.

Even if a redevelopment is promised and fulfilled, it not only does not always benefit low income residents, but can deny them access to their original

neighbourhood. Graves and Vale (2012) discuss this idea as it manifests in Chicago where “researchers found that residents did not have equal access to all housing types, for both structural and procedural reasons” (p. 464). The issue of screening residents to require them to meet certain criteria disallows some residents from returning. This was also an issue that emerged in the interviews; three residents brought up their concern that screening out residents was happening in Regent Park. TCHC has assured residents that they have a ‘Right of Return’ meaning that anyone who was living in Regent Park before the redevelopment will have the right to return to new housing. This is not a system used in all redevelopments; for example, in Chicago, Popkin (2010) discussed tactics that the Chicago Housing Authority employs in order to screen residents which results in few residents being able to return to the mixed-income development, and consequently denying access to many original residents. Popkin (2010) suggests that in HOPE VI sites, it is not uncommon to find that return rates are less than 10%.

The interviews have illuminated different stories in Regent Park. The lived experiences that were shared with me created a snapshot of how the redevelopment is perceived and how residents interact with physical and social infrastructure. Residents were forthcoming and candid which allowed me to understand their experiences more fully. For example, the theme of access emerged as residents discussed their acute financial situation. A low income resident discussed that it is not uncommon that her priorities of ensuring food on the table and making rent trump opportunities in the neighbourhood that require payment (LR19). This speaks to a larger trend of divisions between residents being able to access services and opportunities and others who cannot. This is a direct result of redevelopment and it is a complicated dynamic because low income residents can also benefit in other ways from redevelopment that do not price them out of event, such as the Aquatic Centre or free events. However, it creates a power dynamic between people who can afford to attend shows or put their children in music class, and those who cannot. These issues were, to some extent, to be addressed in the SDP. There are three sections specifically that address the issue of access in terms of affordability. Firstly, Regent Park services providers are addressed, and are required to “ensure that services are appropriately distributed by reserving spaces in services for low-income, vulnerable or marginalized participants as necessary and appropriate” (SDP, 2007, p. 42). The second addresses the City of Toronto, and requires that the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division provide provisions for the “continued affordable access to space and programs in Regent Park” (SDP, 2007, p.

across income groups appropriately and affordable for lower income groups, and the example given relates to offering free access to low income families (SDP, 2007). These specific recommendations are intended to address the issues that have emerged in my research: resident access to spaces and programming. At this time, there is a strategic plan being created by the SDP Stakeholders’ Table and its working groups to assess the recommendations of the SDP; however, it seems that some of these

recommendations need more careful evaluation to ensure that they are being met as the experiences and feelings that residents have shared with me conflict with the

recommendations.

Through the analysis of residents’ use of public spaces, I have found that particular demographic groups experience barriers to accessing some of the public spaces in Regent Park. This is significant because of the intentions behind creating these public spaces: to create spaces for all residents of the community and city to enjoy, and to ensure compliance with the SDP. Although the SDP was created through community consultation, not everyone who asked or advocated for space can now access it. For low income residents, a major factor in creating barriers to space was financial. Having events, shows, or programs that require payment can result in the exclusion of some residents within the Regent Park community. Part of living in a mixed-income neighbourhood is that new spaces open up to serve the community; however, this dynamic shift affects original residents. When residents of different incomes live in the same neighbourhood there can be barriers to accessing those spaces for some residents. In other words, original residents experience changes to their neighbourhood, and part of this may include barriers to new spaces in their community. On

the other hand, market rate residents are new in the community, and come with their own experiences, connections, and financial situations. As a result, they may be able to afford different things in the community and thus access certain spaces, but they may also feel unwelcome to participate in events or programs that they perceive to not be for them. All of these perceptions change the kind of access that residents experience with public spaces, and consequently, they can create barriers for the potential mixing that could occur in these spaces. For this study, a goal of understanding how residents use public space was to set the stage for understanding the context surrounding the mixing of residents of varying tenures. Simply put, if residents experience barriers to space, it minimizes their chances of mixing.