Regent Park is Canada’s oldest and largest housing project. Located in Old Toronto, Ontario in Canada, Regent Park is bordered by Gerrard Street East to the north, Shutter Street to the south and River Street to the east and Parliament Street to the west. The project was started in 1948 and was completed in 1959 as the government’s way of curbing slums. The developments were done in two phases of low-rise and town houses and the other composed of high-rise buildings and town houses. This housing project had low cost social houses because the targeted households had low incomes, most earning half of what the rest of Toronto earns. The area which covers 69 acres is comprised entirely of social housing operated by Toronto community Housing Corporation. A Toronto neighborhood then known as Cabbagetown was brought down to make way for the development of Regent Park.
The old Victorian style houses were razed down to make way for 2,083 residential units built for citizens who are classified as low income earners. Rent payment was geared towards income, where one paid according to what they earned. According to Canadian Statistics, 68% of Regent Park residents live below the Low Income Cut-off Rate. This slum clearance project was very popular at the time with residents and even politicians. As time went by, several problems started emerging. Some were due to the design of the project. There was no adequate space allocated for recreation and service providers. As economic times became tougher, more people including immigrants moved in while very few left as had been originally designed. This led to a host of social problems.
This paper will explore the old Regent Park, its facilities and problems before looking at the new project to redevelop it and the steps that are being taken to avoid the pitfalls of the old park. This paper takes the position that redeveloping Regent Park is a viable slum management and community integration concept which requires careful planning and socio-economical adjustment over time .The project was well developed with transportation routes, libraries, schools, and emergency services. The area is serviced by 65 streetcars which use the 501,505 and 506 routes. The Yonge subway and the Don Valley Parkway a major highway are accessible from the park. The residents of the park have access to two Toronto Public Libraries. These are the parliament branch and the one located on the junction between Gerrard and Broadview. Regent Park has a relatively young population.41% of the population living in Regent Park is composed of children 18 years and below. The Regent Park Child Care Centre was developed to cater to the infants and toddlers in the area. The older children attend the two public schools in the area which are run by the Toronto District School Board. Nelson Mandela Park Public School located on Shutter Street caters to junior kindergarten up to 8th grade. The other school is Regent Park/Duke of York Junior Public School which is located on Regent Street. Emergency services are provided in the area by the Toronto Fire Services and the Toronto Police Service. Station 325 located on 475 Dundas Street is Regent Park’s fire station. The 51st division of the police force is responsible for the community (Murphy, 1992, p. 199).
Regent Park up to 2005
Regent Park was originally designed to provide housing for people experiencing some form of financial difficulty. The area was to be a transitional community where people found temporary relief while they got back on their feet. Most of the residents needed social assistance in order to meet their sustenance. This was not the actual case on the ground. As time went by, by the early 1970s more families needed to be assisted and those that were already in the housing units were not moving out because of increased unemployment. In the last decade, increased immigration has turned the area into an immigrant settlement community. The continued administration and apparent isolation of this area has further aggravated the area. With time many social ills have been witnessed in Regent Park and can be directly blamed on the low quality of life in the area. Confrontation between residents and the police are very common especially because of the various illegal activities undertaken by immigrants to improve their income. Crime levels, gun violence, drug use and prostitution are higher in this area compared to other parts of Toronto. The design of the park also omitted open spaces and adequate recreational areas. Various essential goods and service providers had to be squeezed into empty apartments and townhouses. This created a patchwork of service providers who were scattered in the community (Palmer, 2008, p. 42).
Drivers of Change
The tenants or Regent Park had been in the forefront of various change campaigns. Since the 1970, these residents have fought for creation of recreational and community spaces for their children and youth which were lacking. Community based organizations were also created to help them in creating a positive sense of community and the need to pursue a higher quality of life by improving living conditions in the community. The Regent Park Neighborhood Initiative and Residents association (RPNI) and (RPRA) were involved in providing leadership for the building of a healthy and vibrant community. The Regent Park Focus Youth Media Arts Centre used the media and technology to disseminate positive information, engage the youth in civic education and healthy living awareness campaigns. “Pathways to Education” is an initiative by the Regent Park Community Health Centre. It addresses health, education and income level on an individual level. Worried mothers started the Dreamers Anti Violence Work and Peace Garden to prevent violence and promote love, peace, unity and justice within the community (Bell, 2006, p. 72).
With time, it became clear that the old and isolated needed to be revived. The housing units needed to be replaced with a modern more integrated housing project. The Toronto community fully acknowledged the mistakes made in the original Regent Park Project. Redevelopment would only be successful if the Regent Park community was fully involved at all stages of the redevelopment process. This directive recognized that revitalization went beyond the physical environment. Proper consultation of the tenants and service providers was done to ensure successful revitalization. In 2002, Regent Park Neighborhood Initiative then known as Regent Park Residents Council initiated a comprehensive process through which the community would be engaged. The process had three main goals. The first was to give it a distinctive voice in the planning process. The community also wanted the existing infrastructure together with the ones that were to emerge to be strengthened. Finally, their last goal was to build long term working relationship with the Toronto Community Housing.
There were other important decision makers involved in deciding the new landscape of the redeveloped park. Executive directors were drawn from RPNI, Christian Resource Centre, K Club, Regent Park Focus, Dixon Hall and the Yonge Street Mission. They held meetings with the CEO of Toronto Community Housing. Their discussions aimed to plan spaces for service providers within the redevelopment project.
Why Redevelop Regent Park?
Over the years, Regent Park evolved into an isolated community with a myriad of deeply rooted social and economic problems. The noble project had turned into a community ailed by inadequate access to social services, insecurity, unemployment poverty and desperation. The aging buildings had become infested with pests and rodents together with growing families stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. These families could no longer be expected to improve and move out of the community as had originally been planned. In more ways than one, the original purpose of Regent Park had failed. It became inevitable that the project should be revitalized and the idea recreated in a better model.
The Regent Park Revitalization Plan is an ongoing initiative taken by the Canadian Government. The main aim of this ambitious project is social engineering. It is a pilot project that is being used to establish bench marks and standards in low income housing management and slum eradication. The government is very keen not to repeat the mistakes of the original plan. The Regent Park Revitalization plan was approved in 2003 by the Toronto City Council. The Council directed that Social Development, Finance and Administration Division to work in consultation with stakeholders and the Toronto Community to create a viable Social Development Plan.
The Regent Park Revitalization process will bring urban planning up to date with modern living standards. The project will have lower operating costs and adopt an environmentally friendly neighborhood. The new park will provide the much needed connection with the neighboring communities. This connection was missing in the original housing plan (Albert, 1958, p. 79).
The revitalization process will take an estimated period between 10-15 years. The project has also been divided into six phases. The second phase started in April 2010 after the completion of the first phase; both phases will be on 30 acres. The Daniels Corporation was chosen as the contractor and developer for the second phase of the project. In the first phase 400 families were relocated to pave way for demolitions. Construction began in 2006, by the end of which 3 rental buildings had been completed, 47 town homes, 87 social housing units and a Christian community centre. Two condominiums have also completed together with 51 marketable townhomes. There is adequate space for service retailers such as banks, schools, youth centers, day care facilities and a children’s park. The second phase will have 400 varying rental units, additional condominiums, community facilities and retail area.
Benefits of the Project
The Regent Park Revitalization project is an ambitious idea which will create a mixed-income neighborhood. These communities are expected to be safer because they will provide more socio-economic opportunities and a good mix of social classes. The new condominiums and market town houses will be sold to citizens of higher economic ability. The original tenants will move to high-rise buildings which will be use a combination of Rent Geared to Income (RGI) and low end market units.
The project will increase the number of units on the 69 acre area. The contractor will create an additional 3000 market units. These will double the population density of the area. The project employs the latest techniques in land and space utilization. More people will be accommodated the area therefore increasing its efficiency in land use and provision of better housing. The completed housing projects will use the latest architectural designs in their construction. The houses will have better design, efficient utilization of energy and higher architectural integrity compared to the structures constructed in 1942.The houses will have a “green” roof which will have plants to absorb rain water and reduce run-off from storm water. The buildings will also have an underground heating system to provide hot water and heat. When the project is complete, the residents will live in better housing units in a better community with better access to social amenities (Harvey, 2009, p. 84).
The revitalized park will have better allocation of communal and commercial spaces. There will be more public spaces and recreational facilities especially for children and the youth. Some of the communal facilities included in the project are religious centers, swimming pools and playing fields. Service providers and businesses will have specially designed areas which will be easily accessible to the community.
Another advantage of the project is that the settlement will be in contact with the rest of the city. Unlike the old Regent Park which was designed to be closed from its neighbors, the revitalized community will be open and accessible. The expected change in the social profile of the community will also increase accessibility to the area. More businesses will be situated in the area. This is because there will be a larger community of potential customers making the park a viable business location.
Toronto after a redeveloped Regent Park
All the six phases of the Regent Park Redeveloping project are expected to be complete latest in 2020. The East end of Toronto will be transformed into a thriving mixed community with beautiful eco-friendly buildings. The old, shaggy and rundown buildings will be replaced with new condominiums and high rise residential buildings.
The mixed community arrangement will raise the economic profile of the park. Down town Toronto will no longer be considered to belong exclusively to low income earners despite the availability of low income housing. The condominiums and low rise town houses will bring in medium income citizens thus balancing out the area economically. Their children will go to the same schools and use the same recreational facilities. This will increase motivation among low income household children who will be encouraged to work harder in school (Bells, 2006, p.116).
The Regent Park will attract a lot of interest and admiration among tourists and visitors. Many will want to tour the area, tour the buildings and even access some of the recreational activities and amenities available within the park. The park has a dedicated community centre. The centre will have state of the earth recreational programmes, day care and child care services, employment services and an Indoor swimming pool which can be used even in the winter (Albert, 1958, p. 68).
Conclusion
On paper, the redevelopment of Regent Park is noble and viable just like the original Regent Park completed half a century before. The challenges experienced with the first project were caused by complicated economical, social and demographic factors. That is why in the community was fully involved in the Social Development Plan. This was to ensure the same problems were avoided in the new project. So far, the first phase which involved eviction and resettlement of tenants and construction of approximately 500 units has been completed successfully.
Social observers are foreseeing a problem in the integration of the low income earners with the middle income earners. This mix is likely to benefit the newcomers more than the original tenants of the project. The biggest concern is that the low income tenants might refuse to move back to the project from their temporary housing. Short and medium term benefits are reduced crime rates, better education performance especially of the underprivileged children and improved economic opportunities. As the mixed community housing project continuous, it is hoped that the ghosts of the previous project do not haunt the new redeveloped Regent Park (Adams, 2009, p. 78).
References
Adams, J. (2009). Harley Street: a brief history of Regent Park. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Albert, R. (1958). Regent Park: a study in Slum clearance. London: Routledge.
Bell, B. (2006). Toronto: a pictorial celebration. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city: geography of social and justice transformation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Murphy, W. (1992). Toronto: Canada’s shining metropolis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, B. (2008). Canada in the nineteen sixties. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
