Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Tops and bottoms: State tolerance of illegal housing in and Calgary

Alina Tanasescu a,1, Ernest Chui Wing-tak b,*, Alan Smart a,2 a Department of Anthropology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada b Department of Social Work & Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

abstract

Keywords: Governmental tolerance of illegality is a common but poorly understood phenomenon. While illegal Illegality housing is well studied in poorer cities, its prevalence and operation in rich cities is much less examined. Toleration A comparative perspective is necessary to uncover the variety of ways in which illegal housing is Squatters tolerated and regulated. This paper compares two different forms of illegal housing in two rich cities with Irregularity very distinct histories: rooftop squatters in Hong Kong and basement suites in Calgary. As well as considering these irregular housing forms at opposite poles of the vertical spectrum, the paper examines the structuring forces emerging from both the top and the bottom of the social structure, and how they interact to produce the persistence of these housing types. Overlapping and conflicting interests of various groups and limits on governmental actions make toleration of illegal housing useful, in part precisely because of its provisional nature. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction in Calgary. While comparing these spatial opposites, the study will simultaneously examine illegal housing from the “top” perspectives Calgary and Hong Kong, both prosperous urban centres, may not of government agents as well as those from the “bottom,” including be obvious places for illegal housing. Illegal housing evokes images occupants, landlords, and communities. Neither housing form is the of Third World squatter settlements and slums lacking basic only version of illegal housing in the respective city, and not all infrastructure, plagued by poverty and health disparities. However, basement suites are illegal. Rather than comparing them because as all cities compete for investment and skilled labour, their resi- they are precisely comparable forms of illegal housing, the concern dents share unequal access to resources, including housing, and here is to use the comparison as an opportunity to move forward informal responses to their problems. While the struggle for shelter understanding of the process and consequences of state toleration of of developing nations’ urban dwellers has been documented illegal housing. extensively, illegal housing in rich nations has been less studied, A considerable body of literature examines illegal housing in particularly from a comparative approach. poorer nations (Aldrich & Sandhu, 1995; Davis, 2006; Fernandes & Analysis of illegal housing in rich cities provides insights into Varley, 1998; Kumar, 1996; Roy, 2005; Smart, 2001, 2006a, 2006b; processes that give rise to illegal housing. Illegal housing is often Varley, 1998). Studies on housing in developed nations have tolerated, a situation that can only be understood by examining the focussed on the role of the state and policy responses to housing interactions between the state and illegal housing operators, affordability issues (Glasser & Bridgman, 1999; Lyon-Callo, 2004; tenants, and communities. To this end, this paper will explore two Mahler, 1995; Susser, 1996; thomas-houston & Schuller, 2006; examples of illegal housing in Hong Kong and Calgary. The focus in Waterson, 1998). Illegal housing is most often considered as Hong Kong’s case will be on rooftop housing and on basement suites3 “hidden homelessness,” which is admittedly little understood, or systematically studied, though acknowledged as a critical research priority and gap (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2008; Calgary Homeless Foundation, 2009; National Alliance to * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 2859 2092; fax: þ852 2858 7604. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Tanasescu), [email protected] End Homelessness, 2007). This tendency to examine illegal (E.C. Wing-tak), [email protected] (A. Smart). housing in developing and developed nations separately and with 1 Tel.: þ1 403 585 9707; fax: þ1 403 284 5467. distinct approaches has impeded our capacity for comparative and 2 Tel.: þ1 403 220 6707; fax: þ1 403 284 5467. more holistic understandings of the processes that give rise to 3 Basement suites are a form of “secondary suites” defined as a dwelling which housing illegality. Even in books where a comparative approach is exist in addition to a principal residence, which can include garden suites, attic suites, etc., but also basement suites when developed below the principal dwelling promoted, case studies are usually presented separately despite the unit. recognition of the “many points of contact and commonality

0197-3975/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.02.004 A. Tanasescu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484 479 between housing debates in Western and Eastern societies” By contrast, Hong Kong is renowned for its achievements as the (Forrest, 2003: 3). world’s largest public rental housing provider of subsidized rental This comparison of state toleration of illegality in the prosperous housing to some 30% of its population and another 15% housed in cities of Calgary and Hong Kong raises new questions about the government for-sale flats (HKSARG Census and Statistics sector’s emergence and persistence. Calgary as the “motor” of Department, 2007). However, due to the fact that the government Canada’s economy during the recent oil and gas boom might seem is not able to meet the demand for public rental housing, it has an unlikely city for illegal housing. One might also expect Hong stringent eligibility criteria, including a 7-year residency require- Kong’s prosperity to have erased the vestiges of its “peripheral” ment and a means-test. As a result, those who are not yet eligible colonial past, including illegal housing like (Smart, 2006a, for public rental housing, and who are unable to afford better 2006b). Nevertheless, illegal housing persists in both citiesemore, private accommodation, rely on other options, rooftop dwellings it seems to be tolerated by the state. To examine this, this paper being one alternative. focuses on two manifestations of illegal housing: basement suites In both cities, demand for affordable housing remains critical for in Calgary and rooftop dwellings in Hong Kong (though in both lower income residents. While both cities’ prosperous economies cities, other illegal forms are also prevalent). In Calgary, the rely on and continuously draw newcomers, market housing and municipal government estimates that there are approximately social housing do not meet demand. Given pressure on lower 18,000 basement suites, likely illegal, while in Hong Kong, more income households, many turn to cheaper, sometimes illegal, than 1700 households own or rent rooftop dwellings. options. The study begins by outlining the economic and political contexts, explaining why the housing forms are considered illegal, Manifestations of illegal housing how they arose and how they operate. It highlights the ways in which illegality is contested, reinforced, and even ignored by the In Calgary’s case, basement suites are the most common form of various state, operator, occupant, and community actors involved in illegal housing, though not always illegal. They are developed in toleration. single family homes or duplexes. Owners build an additional self- contained housing unit that often includes cooking and bathroom facilities, and may have a separate entrance. The unit is usually The Calgary and Hong Kong housing contexts rented out by the owner who may live upstairs. Affordability challenges lead some owners to live in the basement to rent out the Calgary and Hong Kong have experienced economic prosperity, main floor. Some small-scale landlords rent out both the upstairs migration-driven population growth, and accompanying housing and downstairs to maximize rental income. pressures. Both also have increasing gaps between rich and poor, Rooftop dwellings are one of the various types of ‘poor’ or leading to deprivation in the form of growing absolute and relative ‘inadequate’ housing in Hong Kong (Business and Professionals homelessness. Housing cost pressures have led to the development Federation of Hong Kong, 2007). Rooftop dwellings are built on of informal accommodations. the roof of buildings without formal approval by the government In Hong Kong, the most visible illegal housing were the squatter authority. Built by people who either intend to live in them or to sell settlements which occupied hillsides and the urban fringe until or rent them out, some are constructed with concrete and brick, and redevelopment of these areas occurred wood, metal sheets and other flimsy materials. The earning between the 1950s and 1990s, peaking at 800,000 people in 1981. potential of maximizing under-utilized space is a key motivator for Rooftop squatters are less visible but persist. In Calgary, the number Hong Kong landlords of apartment dwellings where rooftop of absolute homeless people increased by 18% from 2006 to 2008, housing is created. Many rooftop dwellings were developed on bringing the total to 4060. Housing affordability is in fact a critical apartment structures built during the 1950s in inner city areas. issue throughout Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing There have been essentially no new rooftop dwellings built for two Corporation, 2007, 2008a, 2008b). Homelessness has grown to decades. approximately 150,000e300,000 persons nationally (Laird, 2007). Unlike Hong Kong, Calgary’s city centre does not accommodate The assertion that in Western nations “absolute housing shortages the existence of basement suites because the single family and are a thing of the past” (Forrest, 2003: 2), should be re-considered. duplex structures that accommodate their development do not These housing problems are related to policy shifts impacting exist in the high density downtown core. Illegal basement suites Hong Kong and Calgary. Alberta has been under the rule of the are not officially counted in Calgary. In 2007, a study commissioned Progressive Conservative Party since 1971, whose centre-right by the municipal government reported that about 20% of rental political ideology focuses on small government, economic liber- listings were classified as secondary suites e of which basement alism, privatization of state assets, and individual self-reliance. The suites are the most common. The report estimated that “there are neoliberal shift and accompanying cutbacks to social services and roughly another 68,500 rental units in the form of houses, affordable housing have been underway since the 1990s in Alberta duplexes, and secondary suites that are rented by individuals on the (Black & Stanford, 2005). These trends echoed federal actions, private market (City Spaces, 2007: 9). An estimated 18,000 of these including cuts to social spending and increasing pressure on local could be considered basement suites. In 2002, the City of Calgary governments, organizations, and individual citizens to deal with approximated that 64,000 rental units, or 57% of Calgary’s total poverty and homelessness issues (Carter & Polevychok, 2004: 3). rental stock, were “informal” (i.e., basement/secondary suites, Homelessness, housing affordability and adequacy pressures grew rented condos and houses) (City of Calgary, 2002: 5). among low-income households across the country (Rea, Mackey, & Hong Kong’sofficial census of rooftop dwellings showed that LeVasseur, 2008; Skaburksis, 2004; Smith & Ley, 2008; Walks & 1554 households (3962 persons) resided in this dwelling type in Bourne, 2006).4 2006. In terms of income, 71.2% of the rooftop households had monthly household incomes below the general median household income for the whole territory (HK$17,250, US$2212). Interestingly, 4 As a result, there is an increasing reliance on informal housing resulting from an the rooftop residents were paying a higher level of rent than other inadequate supply that is affordable to low-income earners. In certain cases, this housing provides less security of tenure and can be inadequate for habitation, and tenants: the median rent-to-income ratio was 18.5 for the rooftop can be considered a form of relative homelessness. residents, but only 16 for the general tenant population. These 480 A. Tanasescu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484 indicators suggest that the socio-economic status of the rooftop This complicated the spectrum of definitions further. To summarise population is lower than average (Chui, 2008b; HKSARG Census Calgary’s legal framework, basement suite (il)legality is determined and Statistics Department, 2008). by critical factors including the period when the suite was devel- In Calgary’s case, informal reports about basement suites oped in relation to bylaws in effect, the pre-existing zoning of the demonstrate a range of rents based on the suite’s quality and size principal residence, the presence of cooking facilities, the suite’s comparable to rents in purpose built rental stock. The City of Cal- adherence to provincial building and fire code legislation, and gary reports the average rent in illegal one and two bedroom suites whether the suite is in a developed or developing community (City at $974 Canadian in 2007 (City Spaces, 2007: 10). It is therefore of Calgary, 2008a). difficult to demonstrate, given the lack of data, that basement suites Hong Kong’s treatment of rooftop housing displays similar attract lower income renters given the comparable rents to purpose ambiguities. According to the Hong Kong government, rooftop built stock. However, the shortage of rentals has placed upward structures are illegal when built on the roofs of buildings without price pressure on informal rentals as well. Further, landlord pref- the approval of the building authorities. In accordance with the erences for professionals and discrimination against ethnic Buildings Ordinance, any additional structures or alterations made minorities, families with children and younger people ensures that to the original building structure approved by the Buildings some groups have to live in this housing and do not necessarily save Department are regarded as illegal and must be demolished, and money in the process (Hulchanski, 1994; Ornstein, 2002; the individuals who constructed the illegal structures are to be Skaburksis, 1996; Walks & Bourne, 2006). In other words, it is the prosecuted. However, there is some ambiguity in the administra- basic need for access to housing that drives demand for informal tion’s enforcement and monitoring of these illegal rooftop struc- accommodation in a strained market. tures. The government legitimizes the existence of illegal rooftop structures in various ways: firstly, it delivers postal services to the Exploring the enforcement & toleration of illegal housing addresses of rooftop residences; secondly, the government’s water service supplies tap water to the rooftop dwellings; and thirdly, the Both basement suites and rooftop dwellings are considered government charges rooftop occupants “quarter” rates for provi- illegal according to local government legislation. When these legal sion of various municipal services as well as property taxes. Public frameworks are examined closer, the matter of illegality of these utility services, such as the telephone, electricity, gas, and televi- two housing forms becomes more ambiguous, which is what our sion, are permitted to provide services to these “illegal” structures. comparison aims to explore. Governments have consistently sent In addition, the government’s Land Registry appears to recognize “mixed messages” with respect to the illegality of these dwelling the formality and legality of transactions relating to the purchase or types. This haziness is evident when we examine illegal housing rental of these rooftop flats by levying the stamp duty on them.5 from perspectives from the “top,” governments, and “bottoms”, Furthermore, lawyers are involved in the processing of legal residents, operators, and communities. Firstly, the legal frame- documents pertaining to these transactions, which suggests to works reveal a spectrum of legality and illegality rather than some that ownership or tenancy of these rooftop structures is a straightforward distinction. Second, these legal frameworks are legally binding and officially endorsed by the courts. Research consistently revised and re-interpreted in changing contexts. Their conducted by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service concludes enforcement must be understood in light of divergent interests that the “legality” of these rooftop structures is still not recognized within and between governments, as well as from the perspectives by the government: of those who engage in and are impacted by illegal housing Unfortunately, as revealed in Report of the Investigation on provision and occupation. Unauthorized Building Works (Office of the Commissioner for In Calgary’s case, basement suites are considered illegal as Administrative Complaints, 1995), all these payments cannot a result of failing to meet local zoning and provincial building and serve as proof of the legality of the structures. Rates, property fire code standards. It is important to note that the legal framework tax, crown rent, water charges, and land registration are for basement suites is extremely complex. Illegality is not defined required for the structures which meet the criteria for charging, in a straightforward manner resulting in widespread confusion. It regardless of their official status (Hong Kong Council of Social has also impacted the local government’s treatment of illegal suites Service, 1997: 1). and zoning policy enforcement. Divergent views of the issue within and between government orders complicate the issue further. The government displays tolerance towards the existence and Because zoning bylaws change in response to shifting contexts, earlier proliferation of these illegal structures, recognizing their the treatment of basement suites has developed over time and role as a buffer to housing shortages. According to informal contacts become more complex (Poverty Reduction Coalition, 2007; City of with government officials, the building authority has actually Calgary, 2008a). The treatment of basement suites changed devised a policy, or “established practice,” of working on the significantly since 2007 due to trends towards legalization and “tolerance versus demolition” dynamic. The building authority has formalization in municipal policy. This has been spurred by designated any illegal structures as “unauthorized building works” increasing pressure towards legalization during the economic and the government is to ensure the legal enforcement of this by boom and housing shortage of the mid-2000s from affordable ordering the demolition of these structures in due course. With housing advocates, City of Calgary administration, private sector regard to the rooftop structures, many are built on tenement employers, landlords, developers and builders, as well as Calgarians buildings constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. There are stringent in need of affordable rents. City Council recognized that secondary requirements for the residents or owners of these rooftop struc- suites played a critical role as a form of lower end rental units and tures to comply with: if the rooftop structures protrude onto the that their proliferation was a reality that the government could not street, are added onto non-structural elements of an existing monitor and control. City Council drew a compromise between building, are built on top of other unauthorized building works, or homeowners concerned with more renters in their neighbour- pose an imminent danger to people living in or around the struc- hoods and legalization advocates by introducing changes to the tures, the owner or resident has to fix the problem upon receipt of Land Use Bylaw in 2008 that allowed opportunities for legalization of existing suites and creation of new suites in developed communities and the upfront zoning of suites in new communities. 5 This does not occur for ground squatters. A. Tanasescu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484 481 the authority’s order. Compliance with the order results in further suspected e they must observe signs of illegal activity from tolerance from the authority. There have been cases where the windows. In cases where they establish that a suite exists, its owners or residents have learnt about this practice and got around shutdown is ordered. However, an owner can simply remove the the system by making minor modifications to their structures and kitchen facilities which render the suite illegal and continue to then waiting for another order from the authority, thereby gaining rent it out. The increasing official acceptance of secondary suites more time to stay in their dwellings. The local authorities’ differ- and recognition of their legitimate role as affordable rental units ential treatment of rooftop structures and the range of illegality has further muddies public understanding regarding their illegal some striking similarities to the case of basement suites in Calgary. status. Like Calgary’s changing legal treatment of basement suites, the There also seems to be a lack of knowledge regarding the legal Hong Kong government has shifted policy approaches towards situation of the unit, particularly given the complicated taxonomy rooftop dwellings. In both cases, changing political, economic and of legal and illegal suites. The actions needed to be undertaken to social contexts spur re-definitions of legality. Following a heated address the various aspects that render the suite illegal are again public outcry demanding the proper relocation of the rooftop complicated according to these factors. Limited incentives to residents, the government took the initiative to regulate these comply with bylaws and fire and building codes mean that both illegal rooftop structures by administering a registration system in landlords and tenants are unlikely to address the situation. A legal, 1982. This provides the basis upon which the government allocates registered suite would also mean the need to report rental income public rental housing or temporary accommodation to those and the landlord’s need to comply with provincial Fire and Building rooftop residents evicted as a result of demolition programs. Codes (potential upgrading costs), as well as tenant laws which places restrictions on their ability to evict and increase rents. For The realities and limits of enforcement tenants, reporting an illegal suite generally means they have been evicted from the suite and are retaliating against the landlord, or Distinguishing between the legal and illegal is further compli- are imminently leaving on unfriendly terms. For a tenant that is cated when we consider how the state, through a variety of actors, satisfied with their lodging, reporting an illegal suite means the loss implements these complex legal frameworks. In other words, of the unit either due to landlord reaction to the report or the City despite policy formulation at the “top” by state actors, we must actually ordering the suite to be closed down. Clearly, landlords and consider the contexts in which illegality is negotiated from the tenants have limited interest in increasing the state’s “gaze” on “bottoms” perspective. In both Hong Kong and Calgary, the state illegal basement suites. does not appear to be active in identifying illegal basement suites or In the case of neighbours, the situation differs according to rooftop dwellings and shutting them down. Due to a variety of a number of factors. Firstly, if the suite is not creating a nuisance reasons, the local governments responsible for enforcement display due to unruly tenants, overcrowded street parking, traffic conges- various levels of toleration and any punitive action, if taken, is often tion or uncared for property contributing to an unsightly neigh- the result of neighbour complaints and health and safety concerns bourhood, it is less likely that neighbours will report the suite. If as opposed to proactive enforcement. As long as illegal housing is suites are common in a particular area, for example near post- not being complained about and does not pose a particular safety secondary institutions where suites serve as student housing, they risk, it is by and large tolerated. are also a more accepted feature of the community. In fact, There are several reasons for this state action or inaction, one of a potential tenant can look for advertizing about basement suites in which is a result of limited resources to enforce the policy consis- grocery stores, religious and community centres, and online. tently, another that the social implications of shutting down such Interestingly, homes for sale in these areas often advertise the a large supply of rental stock on the city appear to outweigh the presence of an in-law, or basement suites as an additional income benefits of shutting them down. In Hong Kong, the interplay source. It is not often indicated whether these units are legal or not. between the authority and the residents reflects similar dynamics This acceptance of the legitimacy of basement suites by commu- in the toleration of rooftop housing. The Building Department nities reinforces the state toleration of suites. Since the state seems is certainly concerned about the enforcement of safety regulations to react when illegal housing becomes ‘visible’ from a nuisance or and the Fire Service Department is weary of the fire risks posed by safety perspective, a lack of neighbour complaints reinforces state rooftop dwellings. Yet, limited manpower deters these depart- toleration. ments from taking active steps to launch a systematic demolition Complaint-driven enforcement characterises Hong Kong’s strategy. The demolition of this stock would oblige the Housing treatment of rooftop structures as well. The Hong Kong government Department to provide public rental housing for the displaced takes prompt action to demolish rooftop dwellings if it receives residents. However, the supply of such subsidized housing is complaints or reports of potential dangers. Neighbour complaints limited and access is limited by criteria that would render some are common as nearby residents see rooftop structures as an tenants ineligible. eyesore and complain to the building authority. Some residents The enforcement of zoning and building codes is extremely living on the floor immediately below the rooftop dwellings have problematic in Calgary as well. The widespread proliferation of also made complaints to the building authority to have their illegal basement suites and rooftop housing is reinforced by rooftop neighbours evicted. In other cases, where the top-floor a culture of non-compliance which is extremely costly and difficult owner may be the landlord renting the rooftop dwelling, for governments to monitor. Illegal housing involves agreements complaints made to the authorities can be a strategy to evade between operators and occupants, as well as compromises with responsibilities stipulated in the landlord-tenant contract. neighbours and state agents. Basement suites are located within Rooftop structures can be subject to demolition if the buildings privately owned single family or duplex homes. It is difficult for upon which they are constructed are redeveloped. Such redevel- the local government to interfere with a homeowner’s use of his/ opment could be initiated by the sole owner of the building or by her property unless given due reason for doing so (hence reliance the Urban Renewal Authority, a quasi-government body vested on neighbour complaints). It is also difficult to monitor the with the authority to promote urban redevelopment. Redevelop- sprawling suburbs where such housing forms occur, and even to ment initiatives are motivated by the promise of higher return to have the manpower to respond to complaints. Bylaw Officers are developers that replace old dilapidated buildings with modern, legally unable to enter the premises of a home where a suite is high-rise residential and/or commercial buildings. Since rooftop 482 A. Tanasescu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484 structures are often located in older urban areas with a high simultaneously. Nevertheless, such mobilizations were only inci- concentration of such older buildings, they are easy targets for dental and reactive upon the government’s action of demolition. In redevelopment. State policy and existing practices render rooftop Calgary’s case, basement suite tenants do not display notable signs tenants extremely vulnerable to becoming dislocated and fails to of collective consciousness regarding their shared concern with protect their security of tenure vis-à-vis landlords. Being margin- state treatment of illegal suites, or safety and security issues. There alized socio-economically, these low-income tenants also may fail has been no coordinated tenant mobilization to push for legaliza- to access available social assistance in cases of eviction. tion or standardization, although progressive social organizations and levels of government have pursued policy changes in this The implications of toleration direction strongly on tenants’ behalf. In fact, collective action has been much more visible from the reaction of homeowners con- Clearly, illegal housing in both cities poses concerns regarding cerned with the impact of legalization and increased illegal base- the health, safety, privacy and security of tenure risks they pose for ment suite activity in their neighbourhoods. As City Council occupants, many of whom can be considered ‘relatively homeless’. considered bylaw changes to accommodate legalization, concerned In interviews with basement suite tenants in Calgary, for instance, homeowners were extremely vocal in denouncing the negative a recurring theme centered on the health implications of basement impacts of renters in their neighbourhoods pointing to increasing living including the presence of mould in ageing structures, density, lack of parking, and deteriorating properties. The lack of dilapidated walls and floors, leaky plumbing, and vermin including mobilization may further reinforce state practices of toleration. rodents and bugs. Some tenants talked about the lack of sunlight and the mental health impact of living “in the dark; in a grave” The future of basement suites and rooftop dwellings (Tanasescu et al., 2009). Many felt they had no recourse to complain about these issues to landlords as they would simply be The futures of basement suites and rooftop housing in Calgary told that “if you don’t like it, leave”. Of course, the more inade- and Hong Kong are dependent on a variety of social, political, and quate a unit is, the likelier it is to be more affordable. In fact, economic pressures and divergent interests, which also character- interviewees reported renting a closet (room without windows) in ise their development and current situation. The future of base- a shared basement for as low as $350 per month to upwards of ment suites seems to be increasingly characterised by incremental $1100 for a large, clean, bright two bedroom unit. Not surprisingly, legalization and formalization of registration, building and zoning the lack of appropriate exits and wiring makes the suite prone to standards, and landlord-tenant relations. Both federal and provin- fatal fires where tenants are unable to exit the premises. In some cial governments support basement suite upgrading and legaliza- cases, landlords have failed to report basement tenants during tion with funding for upgrading and relaxed Fire and Building Code emergencies, fearing repercussions for having illegal suites at the regulations. In the past ten years, Canadian municipalities’ risk of tenants’ lives. Because rooftop structures are often built approaches to basement suites have moved towards legalization in with wood and other flimsy materials, they are susceptible to fire Land Use Bylaws (Greater Vancouver Regional District, 2002). The and structural risks too. Furthermore, with limited space, there Government of British Columbia and various municipalities in that could be cases where the cooking devices are placed immediately province see legalization as a way to increase the supply of next to the toilet tub (Canham & Wu, 2008), that would pose affordable rental stock assuming that this form of housing is sanitation and health problems. Shared tenancy and facilities like generally rented at lower costs. Of course, prices are determined by kitchen and washrooms render the rooftop residents vulnerable to supply-demand forces and thus suites’ affordability is not guaran- intrusion of privacy and even personal safety, especially to the teed. Nevertheless, there is an assumption that secondary suites female residents. allow the expansion of lower cost rental housing without the need These health and safety concerns are closely related to the issue for government subsidies (Alberta Urban Municipalities of tenure security in both Calgary and Hong Kong. Although land- Association, 2000; Government of British Columbia, 2005; lord and tenant legislation impacts all forms of rental, the illegality Toronto Dominion Economics, 2003). In fact, in September 2008, of Calgary basement suites resulted in landlords and tenants Calgary’s City Council used provincial funds for affordable housing making agreements outside of this act. Tenants are often unaware to create homeowner incentives to upgrade existing or create new of the act, or make concessions because they need the lower cost secondary suites under the auspices that this would increase housing. For landlords, complying with this act would be an affordable rental stock in the city. admission of illegal activity, and therefore unlikely. This shift towards formalization and legalization follows Hong Kong’s local government recognizes the tenuous situation neoliberal policy trends in social housing that reinforce the impor- many rooftop dwellers face, being marginalized from public and tance of private property and individual enterprise, increasing market housing. The government is unable to accommodate the re- household capacity for homeownership, and the need to buffer the housing of rooftop residents in public housing and past attempts to failure of the market to deliver affordable options. It is not surprising place those displaced by demolition in marginal areas have resulted to see higher orders of government promoting secondary suites as in their return to city centres. Many low-income people prefer a form of affordable housing in the context of state retrenchment living in these old districts to moving to the new towns, where from social housing in Canada. Secondary suites allow for the there are scant employment opportunities and high transportation creation of lower end rental stock without government subsidies, costs (Chui, 2008a). Households may also experience social dislo- while promoting homeownership through additional income from cation as the move to new town results in the dismantling of pre- rents, and individual solutions to systemic social issues. Federal and existing networks. All of these factors explain why some rooftop provincial governments have an interest in municipal government residents who are eligible for public rental housing fail to benefit legalization of basement suites. Their withdrawal from social from the public housing “safety net”. housing in the last twenty years and the failure of the private sector Another similarity between the Hong Kong and Calgary cases is to meet demands for lower end rental units, has resulted in an in terms of the level of rooftop and basement residents’ mobiliza- increasing need for affordable rental. Lower wage earners are critical tion for owner and tenant rights. The co-location of rooftop tenants to economic growth and governments recognize that housing must on shared rooftops in concentrated areas facilitates common action be available in order to attract and keep this labour pool. Basement as state demolition impacts large numbers of residents suites are one means of providing lower end rentals without state A. Tanasescu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484 483 subsidies. Where severe affordability issues challenge home buyers, Rooftop housing and basement suites in Hong Kong and Calgary the additional rental income from suites makes homeownership respectively demonstrate the dynamic interplay between govern- attainable for the middle class as well. Homeownership is the ment administration and the citizenry in selectively tolerating the consistently preferred form of tenure by all levels of government, existence of illegal structures that serves the critical function of who see it as a means of promoting citizenship, stability, and quality provision of affordable housing to some marginalized groups in of life outcomes. The registration of suites and compliance to safety society. The dynamics exist amidst the ‘rational’ calculation of all standards would also bring about an increased tax base, increased parties involved e the state, the general public, and the residents of safety and reduced neighbour complaints. these illegal housing. As for the state, so long as its legitimacy is not at Despite the 1997 transfer of sovereignty from being a British stake immediately, and given its limited capacity in providing Colony to a Special Administrative Region of China, Hong Kong’s adequate social housing, further coupled by the interlocking toleration of rooftop dwellings will also likely carry on. The selec- approach-and-avoidance stances of various law enforcing govern- tive toleration policy regarding rooftop housing will continue to be ment departments, tolerance is maintained. As for the general public, based on their perceived safety and third-party complaints. A lack there is vested interest in denying access to public services e in this of commitment to address the re-housing needs of rooftop resi- case, government social housing e to a marginal group. The landlords dents diminishes government capacity to engage in massive also have the vested interest in maintaining a viable market for such demolitions. The unorganized action of rooftop dwellers poses no illegal housing. It is only sometimes when the immediate interest of immediate threat to the government’s effective administration or the neighbours or individual landlords inflicting removal of the its legitimacy, thus contributing to the perpetuation of tolerance tenants of such illegal housing that sparked the state’s (selective or and inaction. Despite Hong Kong’s government reputation as the reactive) action to demolish or regulate such illegal structures. In second largest public housing provider in the world, there remains other cases, negative media coverage can also have an effect. As for a considerable amount of poor housing conditions for its pop- the ‘users’ of these illegal housing, their limited ability to afford better ulation. This situation is rooted in the income disparity and social housing, their continued marginalized status defined by residence inequality engendered by its capitalist development, as in Calgary’s requirements or other institutional mechanisms upheld by the case. The government’s inability to provide housing for all has mainstream society, and their genuine need for basic accommoda- spurred the emergence of various types of inadequate housing, tion, all contribute to their sustaining the effective demand for such rooftop housing being one of them. Though rooftop dwellers are illegal housing. Overall, given the dire demand for affordable housing, lower wage workers necessary to sustain Hong Kong’s economic and the general public’s acceptance of selective exclusion of social growth, they are denied access to the government’s public rental provisions to some marginalized groups e migrants and poor people, housing and bear the brunt of the government’s selective admin- further coupled by the lack of organized resistance and/or demand istration of regulatory policies. from the dwellers of these illegal housing, such tolerance by all these various stakeholders will likely continue. The typical ‘muddling Conclusion through’ (Lindblom, 1959) mentality aptly manifests at both the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ of these prosperous world cities. This analysis of illegal housing in two urban centres considered “winners” in the global economy has illustrated the processes that Acknowledgement have led to the development of illegal housing as well as the interactions of actors involved as state agents, landlords, tenants, Alina Tanasescu would like to thank the United Way of Calgary & and neighbours from a comparative perspective. Clearly, illegal Area for their support for academic publication based on her housing not only exists in developed countries, but is tolerated and research on secondary suites while employed there. plays a critical role in economic growth as a key source of accommodation for lower income households. These processes have to be contextualised in the broader economic restructuring References that resulted from the shift towards globalized capitalism in the past two decades (Harvey, 1989). These shifts have created cleav- Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. (2000). AUMA housing policy task force: An agenda to create solutions. Edmonton: Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. ages in urban centers in both developed and developing countries Aldrich, B. C., & Sandhu, R. (Eds.). (1995). Housing the urban poor: Policy and practice and resulted in increasing inequality in “world cities” competing in developing countries. and New Jersey: Zed Books. for capital and labour (Friedmann, 1986; Friedmann & Wolff, 1982; Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. (2008). Research agenda 2009. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Retrieved King, 1991; Sassen, 2002). The concurrent shift to neoliberal from 12.03.09 http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/research_agenda/AHURI_ policies gave rise to today’s housing contexts that are rooted in research_agenda2009.pdf. a larger process of neoliberal globalization that resulted from and Black, J., & Stanford, Y. (2005). When Martha and Henry are poor: the poverty of ’ fi “ ” Alberta s social assistance programs. In T. Harrison (Ed.), The return of the Trojan intensi ed an attenuation of capitalist and class interests, horse: Alberta and the new world (dis)order (pp. 285e297). Montreal: Black specifically, marking “a growing coincidence of capitalist interests Horse Books. across borders” (Hackworth & Moriah, 2006; Harrison, 2005, chap. Business and Professionals Federation of Hong Kong. (2007). Poor housing conditions in Hong Kong e Extent, distribution and people affected. Hong Kong: The 1: 3; Harvey, 2005, 2007; Lyon-Callo, 2004). The impacts of Federation. neoliberal ideologies in practice have led to the “intensification of Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2009). Making research matter: Calgary’s 3 year research inequities across classes, genders, and ethnicities, both within and agenda to end homelessness. Calgary: Calgary Homeless Foundation. Retrieved fi between developed and underdeveloped worlds” (Harrison, 2005, from 12.03.09 http://www.calgaryhomeless.com/ les/pdf/31239%20CHF% 20Research%20AgendaFeb18.pdf. chap. 1: 5). Both Hong Kong and Calgary’s central roles in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2007). Housing market outlook: Cal- global economy have enabled their rise to prominence on the gary, spring 2007. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. world stage and simultaneously necessitated increased attraction Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2008a). Canadian housing observer fl 2008. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation. Retrieved from of exible workers to fuel this growth. It should not be surprising 12.03.09 https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language¼en&shop¼ to find the proliferation of informal and illegal housing options in Z01EN&areaID¼0000000122&productID¼00000001220000000011. these cities, given the lack of affordable and adequate supply to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2008b). 2008 fall rental market report e Alberta highlights. Ottawa: Canadian Mortgage & Housing Corporation. Retrieved accommodate lower income workers attracted to these centers from 12.03.09 http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esub/64483/64483_2008_B02. intra- and inter-nationally. pdf. 484 A. Tanasescu et al. / Habitat International 34 (2010) 478e484

Canham, S., & Wu, R. (Eds.). (2008). Portraits from above e Hong Kong’s informal Retrieved from 12.03.09 http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/files/pdf/ rooftop communities. Berlin: Peperoni. shelter.pdf. Carter, T., & Polevychok, M. (2004). Housing is good social policy. Ottawa: Canadian Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Policy Research Networks Inc. Review, 19(2), 79e88. Chui, E. (2008a). Lessons unlearned e planning disaster and community anomie. Lyon-Callo, V. (2004). Inequality, poverty, and neoliberal governance: Activist Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, 18(2), 59e71. ethnography in the homeless sheltering industry. Michigan: Broadview Press. Chui, E. (2008b). Rooftop housing in Hong Kong: an introduction. In S. Canham, & Mahler, S. (1995). American dreaming: Immigrant life on the margins. Princeton: R. Wu (Eds.), Portraits from above e Hong Kong’s informal rooftop communities Princeton University Press. (pp. 246e259). Berlin: Peperoni. National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2007). A research agenda for ending home- City of Calgary. (2002). Corporate affordable housing strategy. Calgary. Retrieved from lessness. Washington: National Alliance to End Homelessness. Retrieved from 12.03.09 http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/corporateproperties/affordable_ 12.03.08 http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1671. housing_strategy.pdf. Office of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (1995). Report of the City of Calgary. (2008a). Secondary suites: A guide to developing a secondary suite.Calgary: investigation on unauthorized building works. Hong Kong: Government Printer. Development and Building Approvals. Retrieved from 12.03.09 http://www.calgary. Ornstein, J. (2002). The differential effect of income criteria on access to rental housing ca/DocGallery/BU/dba/brochures/secondary_suites_brochure.pdf. accommodation on the basis of age and race: 1996 census results. Toronto: York City Spaces. (2007). Calgary secondary suites study. Report prepared for the City of University. Calgary. Vancouver: City Spaces Consulting Ltd. Poverty Reduction Coalition. (2007). Secondary suites: A tool to address Calgary’s Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London and New York: Verso Press. affordable housing needs. Calgary: Poverty Reduction Coalition, United Way of Fernandes, E., & Varley, A. (1998). Illegal cities. London: Zed Books. Calgary & Area. Forrest, R. (2003). Some reflections on the housing question. In R. Forrest, & J. Lee Rea, W., Mackey, D., & LeVasseur, S. (2008). Changing patterns in Canadian home- (Eds.), Housing and social change: Eastewest perspectives (pp. 1e19). London and ownership and shelter costs, 2006 census. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Income New York: Routledge. Statistics Division. Retrieved from 22.03.09 http://www12.statcan.ca/census- Friedmann, J. (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17,69e83. recensement/2006/as-sa/97-554/pdf/97-554-XIE2006001.pdf. Friedmann, J., & Wolff, G. (1982). World city formation: an agenda for research and Roy, A. (2005). Urban informality: toward an epistemology of planning. Journal of action. International Housing of Urban and Regional Research, 6, 309e344. the American Planning Association, 71(2), 147e158. Glasser, I., & Bridgman, R. (1999). Braving the street: The anthropology of homeless- Sassen, S. (2002). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton: ness. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Princeton University Press. Government of British Columbia. (2005). Secondary suites: A guide for local Skaburksis, A. (1996). Race and tenure in Toronto. Urban Studies, 33(2), 223e252. governments. Victoria: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Skaburksis, A. (2004). Decomposing Canada’s growing housing affordability Services, Housing Policy Branch. problem: do city differences matter? Urban Studies, 41(1), 117e149. Greater Vancouver Regional District. (2002). Review of municipal secondary suite Smart, A. (2001). Unruly places: urban governance and the persistence of policies in the greater Vancouver regional district. Vancouver: Policy and Planning illegality in Hong Kong’s urban squatter areas. American Anthropologist, 103 Department, Greater Vancouver Regional District. (1), 30e44. Hackworth, J., & Moriah, A. (2006). Neoliberalism, contingency and urban policy: Smart, A. (2006a). Expansion and exclusion in Hong Kong’s squatter resettlement the case of social housing in Ontario. International Journal of Urban and Regional program: theratchet of exclusion into temporary and interim housing. In Research, 30(3), 510e527. M. M. thomas-houston, & M. Schuller (Eds.), Homing devices: The poor as targets Harrison, T. (2005). Introduction. In T. Harrison (Ed.), The return of the Trojan horse: of public housing policy and practice (pp. 181e198). Lanham: Lexington. Alberta and the new world (dis)order (pp. 1e22). Montreal: Black Horse Books. Smart, A. (2006b). The Shek Kip Mei Myth: Squatters, fires and colonial rule in Hong Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Kong, 1950e63. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Harvey, D. (2005). The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, H., & Ley, D. (2008). Even in Canada? The multiscalar construction and Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American experience of concentrated immigrant poverty in gateway cities. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 61(1), 21e44. Association of American Geographers, 98(3), 686e713. Hong Kong Council of Social Service. (1997). The general characteristics of rooftop Susser, I. (1996). The construction of poverty and homelessness in US cities. Annual dwellers and their awareness on related government policy. Hong Kong: The Review of Anthropology, 25,411e435. Council. Tanasescu, A., Classens, M., Turner, D., Richter-Salmons, S., Pruegger, V., & Smart, A. Hong Kong SAR Government, Census and Statistics Department. (2007). Hong Kong (2009) Hidden in plain sight: The housing challenges of newcomers in Calgary. population by census e Main report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong SAR Government, United Way of Calgary and Area Report. The City of Calgary. Census and Statistics Department. thomas-houston, M., & Schuller, M. (2006). Homing devices: The poor as targets of Hong Kong SAR Government, Census and Statistics Department. (2008). Statistics public housing policy and practice. Lanham: Lexington Books. table specially generated for the author. Hong Kong SAR Government, Census and Toronto Dominion Economics. (2003). Affordable housing in Canada: In search of Statistics Department. a new paradigm, discussion paper, June 17, 2003. TD Bank Financial Group. Hulchanski, D. (1994). Discrimination in Ontario’s rental housing market: the role of Varley, A. (1998). The political uses of illegality: evidence from urban Mexico. the minimum housing wage. In Paper prepared for Ontario Human Rights In E. Fernandes, & A. Varley (Eds.), Illegal cities (pp. 172e190). London: Commission. Zed Books. King, A. (1991). Urbanism, colonialism, and the world-economy. New York: Routledge. Walks, A., & Bourne, L. (2006). Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic Kumar, S. (1996). Landlordism in third world urban low-income settlements: a case enclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. Canadian Geog- for further research. Urban Studies, 33(4e5), 753e782. rapher, 50(3), 273e297. Laird, G. (2007). Shelter e Homelessness in a growth economy: Canada’s 21st century Waterson, A. (1998). Doing our home work: anthropologists on homelessness and paradox. Calgary: Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. housing in the United States. American Anthropologist, 100(1), 188e191.