Article

Urban Studies 1–17 Ó Urban Studies Journal Limited 2017 Community leadership and Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav engagement after the mix: The DOI: 10.1177/0042098016683122 transformation of Toronto’s Regent usj.sagepub.com Park

Shauna Brail University of Toronto, Canada

Nishi Kumar Wellesley Institute, Canada

Abstract The CAD$1 billion transformation of Toronto’s Regent Park neighbourhood from Canada’s larg- est public housing site to a mixed income community is likely to inform the next several decades of public housing redevelopment policy both nationally and internationally. This paper focuses on the process and impacts of large-scale redevelopment, in the context of attempts to build a physi- cally and socially inclusive neighbourhood incorporating non-market and market housing in down- town Toronto. Drawing from in-depth interviews with 32 Regent Park community leaders and other key decision makers, the paper explores how resident engagement and leadership develop- ment opportunities impact redevelopment processes in mixed income initiatives. Results focus on three key emerging areas of both strength and concern: (1) efforts to build community along- side the redevelopment as an integral, evolving and place-specific strategy; (2) the impacts and challenges of both a strong institutional environment in Regent Park and a sense of weak institu- tional memory; and (3) formal and informal leadership and mentorship opportunities and their contribution towards the development of engagement and cohesion in Regent Park. The oppor- tunity for low-income housing initiatives to support knowledge building and learning, preservation of institutional memory and local leadership development is significant in the context of examin- ing physical and social redevelopment.

Keywords engagement, mixed income, public housing, redevelopment, Regent Park

Received July 2015; accepted November 2016

Introduction Corresponding author: Regent Park was developed in the late 1940s Shauna Brail, University of Toronto, Urban Studies Program, Innis College, 2 Sussex Avenue, Toronto M5S 1J5, and early 1950s as Canada’s largest public Canada. housing site, and remains the largest site of Email: [email protected] 2 Urban Studies public housing in Canada to this day. valuation of central and inner city real estate. Located in downtown Toronto on 28 hec- The City of Toronto is undergoing intensifi- tares, Regent Park was home to approxi- cation in its downtown core, which includes mately 7500 low-income residents in 2005. Regent Park. Toronto’s downtown area Since 2006, Regent Park has been undergoing accounts for only 3% of the city’s land area, a CAD$1 billion process of transformation yet currently represents one-third of the from an exclusively low-income public hous- city’s jobs, one-quarter of the tax base, and ing community to a mixed income neighbour- 240,000 residents (City of Toronto, 2015). hood (Toronto Community Housing, 2012). The downtown area contains concentrations Of the original 2083 non-market units man- of financial services firms, healthcare and aged by the local housing authority, Toronto educational institutions, government, retail, Community Housing (TCH), 1800 will be and arts and cultural activities (City of replaced with new non-market units on site. Toronto, 2015). The primacy of downtown On completion of redevelopment, the neigh- Toronto contributes to its increasing desir- bourhood will also contain 5400 newly con- ability as a place to live and work. Given the structed market units and an additional 200 combination of declining government fund- affordable housing units. This transformation ing for social housing, and the increasing is taking place through a complex web of value of downtown Toronto real estate, the partnerships between multiple levels of gov- redevelopment of Regent Park, by means of ernment, private-sector developers, non-profit leveraging its real estate assets, has become a agencies and community partners. It is also plausible opportunity for revitalisation. taking place at a time of changing govern- The redevelopment of Regent Park is pre- ment priorities. Regent Park was originally mised on leveraging the economic value of built with funds from the federal government; downtown Toronto real estate in an attempt it has since transitioned from being managed to provide more socially just outcomes for through federal initiatives, to provincial initia- public housing residents. Regent Park’s tives, and most recently to the municipal gov- future is premised on redevelopment and ernment as a responsibility of the City of social mix. However, at the same time, the Toronto. In recent decades, funding for social Regent Park redevelopment is situated housing has declined across the country, and within the context of networks of residents, the redevelopment of Regent Park in part their interactions and their engagement in represents an attempt to provide quality the redevelopment process. Taken together, housing for low-income residents within a the connection between low-income resi- policy environment in which there are exten- dents, the economic opportunity based on sive restraints on public spending for social increasing land values and redevelopment, housing, limiting potential options. and the ways in which these factors con- The 15- to 20-year timeline of the revitali- verge, affects the landscape of neighbour- sation presents a challenge to understanding hood and city-building in Toronto. the impacts of the neighbourhood’s transfor- This paper is focused on the process and mation, in part because plans and processes impacts of resident engagement and commu- are undergoing constant change, alongside nity leadership in large-scale redevelopment, the changing landscape. based on research conducted with both This paper situates the redevelopment residents and non-residents working and of Regent Park within the context of eco- volunteering in leadership roles in Regent nomic trends that have led to the increasing Park. Given the critical importance of Brail and Kumar 3 understanding both place-based and people- on behalf of a local organisation. We based outcomes associated with redevelop- included both residents and non-residents as ment of low-income neighbourhoods (Fraser potential interviewees if they met the criteria and Kick, 2007), our research helps to elabo- above, in recognition that individuals from rate on mechanisms for achieving improve- various organisations develop professional ments in both realms. Furthermore, our and personal investments in Regent Park’s research suggests that resident engagement transition despite living elsewhere. We also and leadership development opportunities recognise that the priorities and perceptions play an integral role alongside the redevelop- of residents and non-residents may differ. A ment process and towards the building of a process of snowball sampling was used to mixed income community. These findings are identify additional interviewees. The 27 a significant contribution towards acquiring community leaders interviewed included 12 a detailed and multi-faceted understanding residents and one former resident (nine of of Regent Park’s redevelopment, which is whom were current non-market housing res- crucial to the conception of a framework for idents in Regent Park), in addition to 14 informing public housing redevelopment else- non-resident leaders, representing a range of where, nationally and internationally. community agencies, businesses and non- profit organisations operating within Regent Park. Method An additional five interviews were con- The paper draws on analysis from a total of ducted with individuals involved in the plan- 32 interviews conducted with adult commu- ning and redevelopment process throughout nity leaders1 and professionals working and/ its history, including decision makers at the or living in Regent Park, as well as other sta- City, housing authority and private develo- keholders involved in the revitalisation pro- per, and a municipal politician. The purpose cess. The interviews were conducted between of these interviews was to provide context to March 2014 and April 2015 either at the TD our understanding of how redevelopment took Centre of Learning in Regent Park, at the place, to understand the guidelines behind the interviewees’ place of work, or at a local cof- initial consultation process, and to understand fee shop or restaurant. Interviews were the ways in which resident engagement priori- between 45 to 90 minutes in length and were ties shifted throughout the process. Much of digitally recorded, transcribed and themati- this information does not appear to be cap- cally analysed. tured in existing documentation, and therefore To identify potential interviewees, we this process was an important component of developed a database of community leaders understanding how leadership and engagement by scanning national, print and online issues were addressed. media, event listings and organisational websites. In identifying potential intervie- Background wees, we searched for community leaders who had done one or more of the following: The story of Regent Park has been well docu- (1) addressed the media or participated in a mented elsewhere (August, 2014a; Gladki, media interview with regard to change in 2013; James, 2010; Purdy, 2004). The neigh- Regent Park, (2) participated as a panelist bourhood’s history and narrative is charac- or discussant in a Regent Park-related event terised by its shift from an inner city slum in or (3) worked either in a paid or unpaid the 1940s, to an innovative new Garden City (volunteer) position within the community community in the 1950s. Subsequent to the 4 Urban Studies deterioration of those buildings, the area Everywhere (HOPE VI) redevelopments in experienced a shift in residential makeup the USA (Smith, 2013). Poverty deconcen- from predominantly working poor to predo- tration in Regent Park is instead being pur- minantly those on social assistance, alongside sued through a strategy of densification by a shift in demographic and ethnic makeup. means of a nearly fourfold increase in the The image and narrative of Regent Park number of residential units in the area. transitioned from one of opportunity and There exists a growing body of case study innovation in the 1950s to one of decline, research on contemporary Regent Park stigma and isolation by the 1990s. In the (August, 2014a; Dunn, 2012; Johnson, 2010; mid-1990s, a group of community residents Kelly, 2013; Kipfer and Petrunia, 2009; began to meet with representatives from gov- Leahy et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2013). ernment and local organisations to develop a To date, research has focused on declining pilot project focused on the redevelopment of government funds and the de-prioritisation 163 units in the northeast corner of the neigh- of social housing alongside increasing bourhood. This group worked together to inequality and socio-economic polarisation, eventually recommend the wholesale redeve- misguided theories on building mixed lopment of the neighbourhood (interview, income communities in traditionally low- former resident, 6 March 2014). In 2005, this income neighbourhoods and the everyday recommendation was accepted by the City of lived experiences of public housing residents. Toronto, and Phase 1 of the project began Kipfer and Petrunia (2009) and James in 2006. (2010) suggest that government intervention As of February 2016, 1271 households in the neighbourhood, spurred on by an moved out of their old homes to make way entrepreneurial state attempting to capitalise for redevelopment – of these, 47% returned on market rents, is part of a larger continu- to new housing in Regent Park, 32% are ing trend of moving government support waiting to return, 11% moved out of TCH away from public housing. Indeed, some and 10% waived their right to return argue that the redevelopment process repre- (Toronto Community Housing, 2016). sents a form of state-led gentrification The process of planning and revitalisation (August, 2014a; Kipfer and Petrunia, 2009). in Regent Park was designed to incorporate Recent studies focus on the tension between leading practices in terms of community support for place destigmatisation (Dunn, engagement and resident participation 2012) and alternately, the ‘benefits of con- (Gladki, 2013; Micallef, 2013). The planning centrated poverty’ (August, 2014a). August process was undertaken on a site- and place- (2014a: 1330) articulates the challenges of specific basis rather than as part of a precon- neighbourhood transformation for low- ceived citywide or nationwide strategy; income residents, asserting that ‘the causes however it now serves as a model for local, of advanced marginalization and enduring national and international study and com- inequality that have daily impacts on the parison. Furthermore, while the redevelop- lives of public housing tenants’ cannot be ment is focused on poverty deconcentration addressed through the process of rebuilding. through the creation of a mixed income Criminologists studying neighbourhood neighbourhood, there is no concurrent youth identified strong levels of collective emphasis on population dispersal or overall efficacy in Regent Park pre-revitalisation, reduction of public housing units as has been and question whether the disruption of the case in Housing Opportunities for People networks as a result of relocation and Brail and Kumar 5 rebuilding might unintentionally lead to alongside the physical redevelopment as an increased crime in the neighbourhood integral, evolving and place-specific strategy; (Thompson et al., 2013). Existing literature (2) the impacts and challenges of both a highlights a lack of agreement amongst resi- strong institutional environment in Regent dents, experts and others as to whether the Park and a sense of weak institutional mem- development of a mixed income neighbour- ory; and (3) formal and informal leadership hood will preserve or reproduce the positive and mentorship opportunities and their con- attributes of Regent Park for low-income tribution towards the development of residents, or alternatively, exacerbate engagement and cohesion in Regent Park. inequalities and lead to increased criminal Finally, we examine the implications of these activity in a fractured neighbourhood. findings in the context of continued redeve- Pasotti (personal communication, 7 June lopment of public housing sites. We attempt 2016) refers to critical scholarship as high- to identify whether privileging community lighting ‘pockets of discontent’ amongst resi- engagement and leadership throughout the dents and scholars alike. redevelopment process may support greater Areas of scholarly consensus appear to success in the development of mixed income centre around the maintenance of three posi- communities. tive attributes for low-income residents of Regent Park: (1) the need to preserve the Large-scale public housing sense of neighbourhood cohesion that existed before the redevelopment; (2) the redevelopment and community- value of non-profit services and organisa- building tions in supporting the quality of life for res- A number of scholars have explored the idents and (3) benefits derived from the redevelopment of Regent Park situated central, downtown location of Regent Park within a larger economic trend in the in terms of access to transportation, services, Canadian welfare model in the late 1980s employment and educational facilities. and early 1990s, in which provincial and Additionally, there is generally agreement local government assumed the responsibility that the current model of social housing pro- for housing that was previously held by the vision in Toronto, and indeed nationally, federal government (August, 2008; James, inadequately addresses population needs 2010; Kelly, 2013; Kipfer and Petrunia, based on increasing socio-spatial polarisa- 2009). This trend has placed provincial and tion across major Canadian cities local governments under significant eco- (Hulchanski, 2010). nomic strain, driving Canadian cities to turn The remainder of this paper is divided towards ‘entrepreneurial’ approaches to into three sections. First, we discuss the cur- housing including public–private partner- rent state of knowledge related to ships (August, 2008). This is particularly community-building initiatives as outcomes true in the case of Toronto, which has by far of large-scale redevelopment of public hous- the longest waiting list for social housing in ing sites, with a particular emphasis on Canada with nearly 100,000 households North American examples. Second, we focus (Housing Connections, 2016), adding pres- our research results on three key emerging sure to not only maintain existing housing areas of both strength and concern with stock but also build new units to meet grow- respect to redeveloping Regent Park as a ing need. mixed income community: (1) efforts to In addition to the economic pressures develop socially oriented opportunities that it strives to mitigate, the underlying 6 Urban Studies rationale for socially mixed housing, which of the balance of tenure type and income may refer to housing that includes a range levels, relocation and return of original of tenure types and/or income levels, is pre- tenants, and spatial integration of different dicated on the notion that high concentra- unit types (Fraser and Kick, 2007; Fraser tions of poverty contribute to the social and et al., 2013a; Levy et al., 2013; Rose et al., economic isolation of residents. In theory, 2013). social mix is assumed to result in improved In spite of the methodological challenges socio-economic outcomes for low-income of assessing such heterogeneous programmes residents through: sharing of information and policies, reviews of evidence have been and resources between people of different conducted in the USA (Joseph, 2006; Levy socio-economic status; a stronger sense of et al., 2013), UK (Kleinhans and Van Ham, social control through greater accountability 2013; Sautkina et al., 2012), the Netherlands among community members; positive beha- (Kleinhans, 2004) and Australia (Morris viour change through role modelling and et al., 2012). These reviews generally agree mentorship between people of different that socially mixed housing policy can lead socio-economic status; and higher quality to significant place-based improvements local services and infrastructure through such as new neighbourhood amenities and stronger collective efficacy (Joseph et al., improved quality of housing. However, they 2007). In addition to purported social bene- also find little indication that social mix has fits, the development of socially mixed resulted in social benefits for low-income neighbourhoods is viewed as an opportunity residents, such as stronger social networks to achieve place-based goals such as revita- or behaviour change through role modelling. lising the built environment and securing The lack of demonstrable social benefits is new commercial investments (Fraser and perhaps unsurprising given that programmes Kick, 2007). such as HOPE VI have often failed to articu- The idea of social mix has guided housing late clear long-term expectations and priori- policy in the USA, UK, Australia, the ties (Fraser et al., 2013a; Joseph, 2006; Netherlands, France and other European Kearns et al., 2013). Moreover, this ratio- countries over the past two decades through nale implicitly and incorrectly suggests that a variety of mechanisms including voucher low-income residents are the primary benefi- programmes and homeownership pro- ciaries of social mix (DeFilippis and Fraser, grammes (Fraser et al., 2013b). The case of 2010; Levy et al., 2013). Regent Park most closely resembles HOPE A key reason why the theorised relation- VI developments in the USA, where local ship between social mix and social benefits housing authorities work with private devel- has not been realised is that in most cases, opers to rebuild distressed social housing there is very little substantive mixing or sites as mixed income communities. This interaction between community members of model has also gained traction in the UK different socio-economic backgrounds. and Australia in similar contexts of privati- Several studies suggest that new and old resi- sation and downloading of welfare (Darcy, dents participate unevenly in social and civic 2010; Fraser et al., 2013b). Although they activities, and their interactions in these share a similar general model, there are sub- activities are generally not substantive stantial variations both within and between enough to generate significant outcomes countries in terms of the goals and principles (Chaskin and Joseph, 2010; Kleit, 2005; of socially mixed neighbourhoods, as well as Tach, 2009). Others have found that formal the operationalisation of the policy in terms structures, such as building management Brail and Kumar 7 rules or neighbourhood governance struc- residents in order to achieve redevelopment tures, can effectively discourage social inter- goals focused on social mix. The existing evi- action between community members dence suggests that in order to create suc- (Chaskin et al., 2012; Graves, 2011). cessful socially mixed communities and Furthermore, some residents are simply not positive outcomes for all residents, invest- interested in creating strong social ties with ment in housing redevelopment should be one another because of different lifestyles coupled with investment in employment, and priorities (Arthurson, 2010; Chaskin education and social services (Joseph, 2006). and Joseph, 2011; Rose, 2004; Tach, 2009). Moreover, research has pointed to the criti- The existing evidence demonstrates that cal importance of community empowerment mixed income housing does not organically and civic engagement, particularly privile- lead to the emergence of a mixed income ging the role of low-income tenants (Chaskin ‘community’. Chaskin and Joseph (2010: and Joseph, 2010; Chaskin et al., 2012; 327–328) suggest that part of the challenge Fraser and Nelson, 2008; Lucio and relates to the fact that ‘many urban dwellers Wolfersteig, 2012). Levy et al. (2013) suggest are quite comfortable thinking about local that further research on resident participa- community in essentially functional ways, tion can help highlight how socially mixed about their membership in it as partial and neighbourhoods can build a stronger sense contingent, and about their local relation- of ‘community’ among residents and ships as largely casual and flexible’. This improve the likelihood of achieving positive fleeting and relatively non-committal social outcomes. approach to community is further compli- cated in mixed income community settings. Furthermore, several additional short- Community leadership and comings in the rationale behind mixed engagement in Regent Park: income redevelopment have been identified. Strengths, concerns and Contrary to the dominant assumptions about opportunities poverty concentration, support networks and social control have been found to be very The case of Regent Park stands apart from strong in low-income communities prior to many large-scale public housing redevelop- redevelopment (August, 2014a; Manzo et al., ment initiatives undertaken in the recent 2008). One study on the Regent Park com- past, in large part because of the integration munity found that the disruption of social of socially oriented opportunities in redeve- networks during the relocation process left lopment plans and an emphasis on building residents feeling more vulnerable to violence an inclusive mixed income community, in (Thompson et al., 2013), a trend that has also which the replacement of social housing on been observed in mixed income communities site is a key focus. in the USA (Clampet-Lundquist, 2010). A key component of the redevelopment Others have observed that residents of mixed process was the creation of the Regent Park income communities may experience antag- Social Development Plan (Toronto onism or distrust from other community Community Housing (TCH), 2007). members of different socio-economic back- Developed through consultation with resi- grounds (August, 2014b; Chaskin and dents, agency staff and board members, Joseph, 2010; McCormick et al., 2012). local businesses, and local institutions such Others have proposed strategies for as schools, the Social Development Plan encouraging social interaction among (SDP) focused on providing a ‘guide to 8 Urban Studies building a successful, cohesive and inclusive be both time- and place-specific, and part of community in Regent Park throughout the an evolving process incorporating learning process of redevelopment and in the years and change. Second, the sheer number, that follow’ (TCH, 2007: 2). embeddedness and responsiveness of institu- Acknowledging that without interven- tions in Regent Park represents a commu- tions, mixed income communities tend to nity strength, while at the same time, the divide based on differences in income, ethni- planning and redevelopment process suffers city and length of tenure, the SDP examines from a lack of attention to institutional the context of redevelopment, assesses memory. Third, community initiatives research on social inclusion referencing the focused on the formal and informal develop- neighbourhood effects thesis, and in turn, ment of leadership skills appear to be an identifies strategies for facilitating social important precursor to participation in rede- inclusion. The SDP prioritises community velopment initiatives, as well as an impor- consultation, engagement and interaction. tant component of perceived community This recognition shapes 75 recommenda- engagement successes and failures. tions, emphasising the importance of formal and informal social and civic activities; structures for local governance; the role of Community-building as a learning process local facilities and schools; employment and Redevelopment in Regent Park was initiated economic development; and strategies for by public housing residents, together with managing change over time. The existence the support of representatives of provincial and emphasis of the SDP set the stage for and municipal governments, and the hous- community engagement and efforts to build ing agency. The earliest versions of redeve- an inclusive environment in Regent Park. lopment plans pre-date the 1995 start date Emphasis on achieving both place-based that is frequently referred to in documenta- and people-based improvements associated tion (TCH, 2015). According to one intervie- with the redevelopment process are under- wee, by 1995 after many discussions about stood and underscored through the lens of redeveloping a small portion of the housing both physical and social change in Regent units, a group comprised of residents, gov- Park. ernment representatives and the housing Our research has identified three themes authority began to work towards a plan that around which interviewees tended to coa- would see all of Regent Park redeveloped lesce with respect to their understanding of (Former resident, 6 March 2014). how community engagement was and con- Throughout interviews with senior lead- tinues to be entrenched in the redevelopment ers from organisations involved in the rede- process. First, interviewees acknowledged velopment, a consistent emphasis was placed the importance of their own connectedness on the need for community engagement and in Regent Park before, during and after community building as an integral part of redevelopment. In particular, pre-existing the redevelopment. Modelling the redevelop- relationships with other residents, non-profit ment based on cases from elsewhere was organisations and TCH shaped the ways in challenging as the most proximate examples which individuals and groups interacted of public housing redevelopment focused on with the redevelopment process, and also appropriating space for market housing and challenged the ways in which residents dispersing public housing residents, such as understood this process. Efforts to build in the case of Cabrini-Green in Chicago community in the neighbourhood appear to (Miller, 2008). Brail and Kumar 9

Both senior leadership and day-to-day 2008). Regent Park is a culturally and lin- management recognised that efforts to guistically diverse community, with 56 coun- engage, inform and involve residents in the tries and 47 languages represented, and with redevelopment process were critical to the 50% of households speaking a language neighbourhood. As one interviewee suggests: other than English at home (City of ‘If you don’t understand that community Toronto, 2013). To mitigate the communica- development is a central piece of redevelop- tion challenges posed by such a high degree ment, you’re doomed to fail, you’re doomed of diversity, community animators were to fail’ (non-resident, 8 April 2015). tasked with liaising between TCH and resi- During the early stages of planning in dents, as well as representing the perspectives Regent Park, over 2000 people attended of their respective cultural, ethnic and community meetings, charrettes and kitchen nationality-based groups living in Regent table conversations. Through these interac- Park. tions, residents contributed to the develop- Interviewees suggested that animators ment of 12 principles that guided the played a crucial role in connecting residents redevelopment process, including ‘involv[ing] to information and discussions regarding the the community in the process’ (Gladki, 2013: redevelopment. TCH has continued to hire 8). While Regent Park residents were served and work with community animators, by a variety of social service agencies, TCH including adults and youth. In interviews was not particularly consultative prior to the with current and former community anima- redevelopment process. tors, interviewees emphasised that working According to a senior TCH decision- as animators helped them learn about the maker, the emphasis on engaging residents redevelopment process. Animators devel- was driven by three underlying goals: oped first-hand experience related to the challenges of effectively communicating There was an interest in finding a way – an between the seemingly powerful housing organizational structure – that would engage authority and often vulnerable public hous- tenants in those decision processes. Secondly, ing residents for whom the redevelopment there was an interest in building community contributed further to an already margina- . capacities so those communities could lised environment. Additionally, one chal- intervene in the civic realm. So that the hous- lenge for animators was that their dual roles ing company no longer had this intermediate as both employee and resident led to a feel- role between the communities and the civic realm, but that the communities could actually ing of discomfort in sharing their opinions engage much more directly in the activities of at public meetings, particularly if their opi- the neighbourhood, of the city itself . And I nions were contrary to what was being pro- guess in the third part, there was an interest in posed by the housing authority. engaging tenants into . action. (Non-resi- Ensuring robust community engagement dent, 18 March 2015) in Regent Park is not a static endeavour; a key feature of the redevelopment has been TCH, together with a local consulting firm, the ongoing improvement of the community devised a resident engagement strategy that engagement process. Changes have been included the hiring of community animators. implemented over the first ten years of the Community animators lived in TCH housing active redevelopment process based on input in Regent Park and were trained and from community members and TCH’s per- employed to support communication efforts ception of missteps and potential to improve. (Public Interest Strategy & Communications, According to one interviewee: 10 Urban Studies

I think what we did learn at Regent . was processes and learn from experience is signif- that there is no single model that works in each icant, both for Regent Park and more community . you have to be able to . work broadly for redevelopment initiatives in . in linguistic groupings That there are some Toronto and elsewhere. ethno-racial differences that are not barriers that come down overnight and you want to work with those communities quite distinctly. Strong institutions and weak institutional (Non-resident, 18 March 2015) memory The engagement and consultation process in Regent Park is characterised by the presence Regent Park has been adapted over time in of a large number of government and non- response to learning on the part of TCH and profit organisations. Given the area’s also in response to community demands. decades-long history and concentration of The relocation process of public housing res- households living in poverty, and also higher idents awaiting new housing is one of the than average proportion of residents who most contentious parts of the redevelop- are youth, elderly, disabled, recent immi- ment. Based on predominantly negative grants and single parents, it is unsurprising feedback gathered during consultations with that a multitude of agencies are located in community members and interactions the neighbourhood to help serve the popula- between residents and staff of TCH, amend- tion. The depth and breadth of local institu- ments were made in an attempt to reduce tions – which include a City of Toronto some of the stress of the relocation process. employment centre, faith-based food pro- Significantly, all relocation moves now take grammes, youth-focused media and music place outside of the school year to ease the training, and adult education programmes – transition for families with children. is extensive. However, as the redevelopment As redevelopment continues, adaptations proceeds there appears to be a concomitant to the ways in which residents communicate loss of institutional memory complicated by with one another, as well as with the housing disruptions in organisation leadership and authority, are indicative of attempts to focus. ensure that resident engagement goals are Institutional memory, a concept bor- honoured and met. In interviews, residents rowed from the literature on organisational addressed the ways in which they have behaviour (Ashkenas, 2013), refers to knowl- improved upon their approach to communi- edge held at an institution such as an organi- cating with organisations and city officials sation, agency or firm. It is built over time by using newly acquired knowledge and and tends to be held in the form of knowl- experience to advocate for their needs more edge by individual experts and actors, rather effectively. Still, others described a sense than being tracked in formal documentation of continued frustration because of their or in policy processes. When people move perceived lack of voice in the process, partic- on to new roles or opportunities, or when ularly as subsequent planned phases of reorganisation of an entire institution takes the redevelopment underwent changes to place, institutional memory can be lost. building form, density and changes to the Interviewees suggested that frequent proportion of non-market to market changes in administrative leadership at the residences. City of Toronto and TCH materially impact Given the lengthy timeline of the redeve- institutional memory in the neighbourhood. lopment process, now in its second decade, For instance, between 2009 and 2014, the the opportunity to review and adapt leadership of TCH was held by four different Brail and Kumar 11 individuals. Several interviewees described knowledge of the revitalisation have moved the different attitudes and orientations to in. Inevitably, some valuable community community participation held by a rotating expertise and lay-knowledge of the revitali- group of administrators throughout the revi- sation is lost during these transitions. While talisation’s history. When new staff are these first-hand accounts are the most acces- hired, the relationship between administra- sible and robust source of information for tion and residents can shift rapidly. many residents, some interviewees held con- Community leaders suggested that during cerns around the subjectivity and accuracy periods of transition, it can be difficult for of information shared between community them to know where they stand in relation to members. TCH or the City of Toronto. Staff turnover In the context of Regent Park’s rapidly at the administrative level can pose a major changing revitalisation plans, institutional challenge for accountability. Incoming staff memory is a critical component of account- members may not be aware of agreements ability. Several community leaders agreed made by their predecessors, or may not hon- that without access to records and docu- our them. ments about the history of revitalisation, The frequent turnover in leadership is fur- community members are less able to ensure ther complicated by challenges in record- that current plans reflect the community’s keeping. TCH and the City of Toronto collective input from previous years. For maintain records of official decisions around example, one community leader expressed the revitalisation, including budgets, con- frustration and anger that records of prelim- tracts and minutes from public meetings. inary community consultation were not con- However, these documents provide details sidered later in the process: about only a small component of the redevelopment-related activities and meet- We had a meeting about the park, 2006, or 07, ings, and may not provide enough informa- when they talked about it. They said residents, please come out and put your input about tion for community members’ needs. They what would you like to see in the park . A may also not be easily accessible for a vari- couple of years later, they come back, they ety of reasons: they may be challenging to invited Cabbagetown and Rivertowne [adja- locate, inconsistently maintained, out-of- cent communities]. And I asked them, where’s date, or difficult to interpret without suitable the ideas from residents in Regent Park? [They context. said], what are you talking about, we don’t Instead of relying on official sources from have nothing from residents of Regent Park. I TCH and the City of Toronto, in practice go, excuse me? There was two meetings or many residents draw from the experiences three meetings at Lord Dufferin School, and you’re telling me you don’t have no documents and knowledge of other community mem- of what happened with residents, what they bers, particularly individuals who played wanted? They lied! They lied to us. (Resident, leadership roles in the revitalisation, includ- 12 May 2014) ing community animators. However, a fun- damental challenge for sustaining As illustrated above, several community institutional memory in Regent Park is the leaders felt that their initial participation rapid turnover of residents during the revita- was not taken into consideration later in the lisation. Former community leaders have process. We heard of agreements, decisions been relocated temporarily or have chosen and promises that were made during the to move away from the neighbourhood per- planning process, only to be completely for- manently, while new residents without gotten, neglected or changed without 12 Urban Studies consultation. The perceived lack of account- community leaders acquire skillsets that sup- ability for the revitalisation process has left port them in their redevelopment-related some residents feeling disempowered. These work. Resident engagement is prioritised types of experiences can have the effect of through the Social Development Plan making residents feel distrustful of the revi- (TCH, 2007), and highlighted as a key talisation process, or in some cases, of dis- mechanism for promoting social inclusion couraging their continued participation and building community capacity. altogether. Based on the thickness of institutions and Frustration and struggles with under- organisations operating in Regent Park, standing decision making, or disenfranchise- opportunities for residents to develop skills ment from decision-making processes, through leadership and mentorship are ful- appears to be an outcome of the lack of some. Particular programmes that were institutional memory in Regent Park. The singled out as helping residents develop lead- lengthy process of redevelopment, the relo- ership skills included a training programme cation of residents in and outside of the for newcomer women, youth education pro- community, the entry of new residents, and grammes, and other initiatives focused on staff turnover at institutions all contribute building community capacity. For instance, to the challenge of attempting to create a a programme evaluation course taught at a consistent set of facts related to the redeve- community-based adult learning centre is lopment process. Despite the breadth of credited with helping residents build research non-profit organisations and services that and advocacy skills to effect change in their benefit the neighbourhood, the absence of a neighbourhood (Chiose, 2016). central neighbourhood organising body Organisations also provide training on leaves a gap in the residents’ ability to track administrative functions by holding orienta- institutional decision-making processes. tion and training sessions for new commu- Often the significance of institutional nity representatives and board members. memory is understood only after radical However, some interviewees suggested that change takes place in the city’s built form. without some prior knowledge of adminis- Without a dedicated effort to preserve insti- trative processes, prospective leaders face tutional memory, and given the massive barriers. One resident suggested that: change taking place in Regent Park, it remains likely that individual and collective I think people are intimidated by what they knowledge about decision-making, priori- think being a board member means . there’s ties, goals and promised results will be lost. a sense of, well I don’t know if I can do that, I don’t know what that involves and it sounds really complicated or it sounds like work that Formal and informal leadership and I’m not qualified to do . [it is] a potential barrier for them to get involved. (Resident, 16 mentorship July 2014) A third theme that emerged through this work was the presence of opportunities for As a direct result of mentorship, training residents to develop leadership skills and and engagement, community leaders gained new knowledge through engagement in com- transferable skills including the ability to munity initiatives. These opportunities understand complex budgets, manage volun- include participation in the redevelopment teers and interact more effectively with pro- process and in other community-based fessionals from a variety of fields. However, initiatives, through which aspiring interviewees also highlighted the need for Brail and Kumar 13 differentiated and supportive systems to about creating an environment in which resi- encourage sustained involvement of low- dents of all backgrounds and circumstances income residents in the community. are able to engage. In reference to the signif- In addition to formal opportunities for icant economically marginalised conditions engagement in committees, as animators, and in which many residents live, one interviewee as participants in meetings, residents pointed out: described informal opportunities through which they acquired skills, with a focus on People talk about resident engagement and . informal mentorship from community role getting the residents involved in all this plan- models. Several interviewees, particularly ning around the redevelopment. I said, so why young people, noted that participating in pro- is it that they don’t? Why is it so hard? And [a colleague] just turned to me and said, look, grammes led by empathetic and supportive when you’re trying to figure out how to feed staff, such as arts-based workshops or out- your kids, and where your next job is, and all door education, helped them to build greater of this, you don’t have time to look at any- confidence in their skills and abilities. In these thing else, but just what’s going on immedi- situations, mentorship from programme staff ately. (Non-resident, 11 June 2014) (often community members themselves) was identified as a valuable source of support. Despite formal and informal training and Implications mentorship opportunities, there are persis- It is clear that in Regent Park, as in other tent challenges to equitable participation. redeveloped and redeveloping neighbour- Community leaders identified specific hoods, rebuilding alone is insufficient to groups within the neighbourhood who are address broader structural inequalities particularly difficult to engage, such as (Chaskin and Joseph, 2010; Dunn, 2012; youth and elderly residents. Additionally, Kipfer and Petrunia, 2009). However, the Regent Park’s high degree of linguistic diver- physical rebuilding of the neighbourhood sity poses a challenge for resident engage- alongside the implementation of the Social ment, which was mitigated but not resolved Development Plan has brought along with it entirely through the hiring of community numerous opportunities for building part- animators. Several interviewees suggested nerships, community facilities, social capital, that greater outreach and mobilisation skills education, cultural and arts-based opportu- would allow community leaders to better nities, and resident empowerment. At the engage with these hard-to-reach groups. One same time, rebuilding is still underway and it interviewee suggested that: will be years before the current physical transformation is complete. We have to learn how to mobilize people so The impacts and outcomes of social that we don’t lose their voices. So I think that’s changes taking place in the community are an important skill to have, because some of the greatest leaders are those that we least less obvious than the physical changes. Prior expect, and it’s when we can’t share those to redevelopment, Regent Park was charac- voices that we lose the community. (Resident, terised by distinct strengths that included a 9 July 2014) rich array of community programming and cohesion amongst groups of residents. The concept of resident engagement within However, its image was dominated by its the context of redevelopment is not just characterisation as a place of stigma, social about the process of engagement, but also and economic distress, and criminal activity. 14 Urban Studies

Wholesale redevelopment and resident challenge of maintaining accountability engagement processes and plans, while wel- throughout the redevelopment process. It is come by many social housing residents, are worth exploring how this might be not unanimously lauded. Opportunities for addressed, and by whom: can the many engagement and satisfaction with outcomes resident-serving and resident-led agencies are uneven. Other limitations include persis- develop their capacity to preserve and disse- tent funding challenges; divisions associated minate records of important decisions, or with distinctions in culture, language and can existing municipal documentation sys- socio-economic status; and the challenge of tems be made more accessible and transpar- communicating complex and rapidly chang- ent for community members? Furthermore, ing information to a large group of people more thought needs to be given to the man- who are living in precarious circumstances. ner in which leaders and leadership develop- Further exacerbating matters is the uncer- ment is supported through targeted tainty and distress associated with the reloca- initiatives, both formal and informal. tion process: residents may move away from In the context of examining physical and the community for years at a time, eventu- social redevelopment, there is significant ally returning to a community that they may opportunity for public housing redevelop- no longer recognise or feel a part of. A lack ment initiatives to support knowledge build- of influence can deter community leaders ing and learning for all stakeholders, from participating in the redevelopment pro- enhance the preservation of institutional cess. Even as this process has improved over memory, and develop local leadership. For time, it is difficult for community members residents, organisations and government, it to overcome initial feelings of tokenism and is obvious that the redevelopment process lack of ownership where neighbourhood out- requires a constant process of learning, an comes are concerned. openness to revising and adapting processes Based on this research, it is clear that the and plans, and a willingness to work with transformation of Regent Park will not only and across difference. reshape 28 hectares of downtown Toronto As the redevelopment proceeds, and as and the lives of the thousands of low-income the neighbourhood continues to frequently residents who live there, but also has the be referenced as an internationally relevant potential to influence social housing redeve- model for mixed income redevelopment, key lopment initiatives more broadly. Regent questions remain: Is it possible to develop Park holds lessons about the potential chal- an economically feasible plan to build much lenges of lengthy redevelopment timelines, needed social housing within the confines of which may take decades from planning to a public system that inadequately funds buildout. While these long-term projects social housing? What is the best way to offer an opportunity to build lasting partner- design and implement community-focused ships and create opportunities for learning initiatives that continue to privilege non- and trust-building among stakeholders, the market residents? Can the new Regent Park need for preserving, documenting and shar- model, combining purposeful rebuilding of ing information about decision-making pro- both physical and social neighbourhood cesses is abundantly clear, particularly given infrastructure, address the shortcomings of the involvement of a large and changing cast previous social housing redevelopment and of characters. The weakness of institutional substantively realise the purported benefits memory in Regent Park points to the critical of mixed income communities? Brail and Kumar 15

Acknowledgements August M (2014b) Negotiating social mix in Tor- The authors acknowledge and thank all intervie- onto’s first public housing redevelopment: wees for sharing their ideas, knowledge, and time. Power, space and social control in Don Mount We thank Ekaterina Mizrokhi and Sonia Ralston Court. International Journal of Urban and for contributing to this research through their Regional Research 38(4): 1160–1180. participation in the University of Toronto’s Chaskin R and Joseph M (2010) Building ‘com- Research Opportunity Program. The views munity’ in mixed income developments: expressed in this publication are the sole responsi- Assumptions, approaches and early experi- bility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect ences. Urban Affairs Review 45(3): 299–335. the views of the research partnership or the Chaskin R and Joseph M (2011) Social interac- funder(s). tion in mixed income developments: Relational expectations and emerging reality. Journal of Urban Affairs 33(2): 209–237. Funding Chaskin R, Khare A and Joseph M (2012) Partici- We wish to acknowledge the following sources of pation, deliberation, and decision making: The financial support: the University of Toronto dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in mixed work-study programme, the University of income developments. Urban Affairs Review Toronto Excellence Award, and the Social 48(6): 863–906. Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Chiose S (2016) Regent park residents learn to Canada through the Neighbourhood Change change programs to meet local needs. The Research Partnership (Government of Canada, Globe and Mail Newspaper, 18 March. Available Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/ of Canada 895-2011-1004). toronto/regent-park-residents-learn-to-change- programs-to-meet-local-needs/article29296912/ (accessed 29 July 2016). Note City of Toronto (2015) TOcore planning Toron- 1. We attempted to include older youth leaders to’s downtown. Available at: http://www1.tor (between the ages of 16 and 18 years) in our onto.ca/City%20Of%20Toronto/City%20 study, however, we were unable to secure Planning/Core/File/pdf/Website_powerpoint_ interviews with those who we contacted. april212015.pdf (accessed 29 July 2016). City of Toronto Social Policy & Analysis Unit (2013) Regent Park (72) Social Profile #2: Lan- References guages. City of Toronto Neighbourhood Plan- Arthurson K (2010) Operationalising social mix: ning Area Profiles. Toronto: City of Toronto. Spatial scale, lifestyle and stigma as mediating Clampet-Lundquist S (2010) ‘Everyone had your points in resident interaction. Urban Policy back’: Social ties, perceived safety, and public and Research 28(1): 49–63. housing relocation. City & Community 9(1): Ashkenas R (2013) How to preserve institutional 87–108. knowledge. Harvard Business Review. Digital Darcy M (2010) De-concentration of disadvan- content only. Available at: url: https://hbr.org/ tage and mixed income housing: A critical dis- 2013/03/how-to-preserve-institutional. course approach. Housing, Theory and Society August M (2008) Social mix and Canadian public 27(1): 1–22. housing redevelopment: Experiences in Tor- DeFilippis J and Fraser J (2010) Why do we want onto. Canadian Journal of Urban Research mixed income housing and neighbourhoods? 17(1): 82–100. In: Davies J and Imbroscio D (eds) Critical August M (2014a) Challenging the rhetoric of Urban Studies: New Directions. Albany, NY: stigmatization: The benefits of concentrated SUNY Press, pp. 135–147. poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park. Environ- Dunn J (2012) ‘Socially mixed’ public housing ment and Planning A 46(6): 1317–1333. redevelopment as a destigmatization strategy 16 Urban Studies

in Toronto’s Regent Park: A theoretical November 2010. Delft, Netherlands: Delft approach and a research agenda. DuBois University of Technology, OTB Institute for Review 9(1): 87–105. the Built Environment, unpublished. Fraser J and Kick E (2007) The role of public, Joseph M (2006) Is mixed-income development private, non-profit and commnity sectors in an antidote to urban poverty? Housing Policy shaping mixed-income housing outcomes in Debate 17(2): 209–234. the US. Urban Studies 44(12): 2357–2377. Joseph M, Chaskin R and Webber H (2007) The Fraser J and Nelson M (2008) Can mixed income theoretical basis for addressing poverty housing ameliorate concentrated poverty? The through mixed income development. Urban significance of a geographically informed sense Affairs Review 3(42): 369–409. of community. Geography Compass 2(6): Kearns A, Mckee M, Sautkina E, et al. (2013) 2127–2144. Mixed-tenure orthodoxy: Practitioner reflec- Fraser J, Chaskin R and Bazuin J (2013b) Mak- tions on policy effects. Cityscape: A Journal of ing mixed-income neighborhoods work for Policy Development and Research 15(2): 47–68. low-income households. Cityscape: A Journal Kelly S (2013) The new normal: The figure of the of Policy Development and Research 15(2): condo owner in Toronto’s Regent Park. City 83–100. & Society 25(2): 173–194. Fraser J, Oakley D and Levy D (2013a) Guest Kipfer S and Petrunia J (2009) ‘Recolonization’ editors’ introduction: Policy assumptions and and public housing: A Toronto case study. lived realities of mixed-income housing on Studies in Political Economy 83: 111–139. both sides of the Atlantic. Cityscape: A Jour- Kleinhans R (2004) Social implications of hous- nal of Policy Development and Research 15(2): ing diversification in urban renewal: A review 1–14. of recent literature. Journal of Housing and the Gladki J (2013) Inclusive planning: A case study Built Environment 19(4): 367–390. of Regent Park revitalization, Toronto. In: Kleinhans R and Van Ham M (2013) Lessons Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Allevia- learned from the largest tenure-mix operation tion, Government of India (ed.) Inclusive Plan- in the world: Right to Buy in the United King- ning: State of the Urban Poor Report 2013. dom. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Develop- India: Oxford University Press, pp. 320–340. ment and Research 15(2): 101–118. Graves E (2011) Mixed outcome developments: Kleit R (2005) HOPE VI new communities: Comparing policy goals to resident outcomes Neighborhood relationships in mixed income in mixed income housing. Journal of the Amer- housing. Environment and Planning A 37(8): ican Planning Association 77(2): 143–153. 1413–1441. Housing Connections (2016) Quarterly Activity Leahy Laughlin D and Johnson L (2011) Defin- Report: 1st Quarter 2016. Toronto: Housing ing and exploring public space: Perspectives of Connections. young people from Regent Park, Toronto. Hulchanski D (2010) The Three Cities Within Tor- Children’s Geographies 9(3–4): 439–456. onto: Income Polarization Among Toronto’s Levy D, McDade Z and Bertumen K (2013) Neighbourhoods 1970–2005. Toronto: Cities Mixed-income living: Anticipated and realized Centre, University of Toronto. benefits for low-income households. Citys- James R (2010) From ‘slum clearance’ to ‘revitali- cape: A Journal of Policy Development and sation’: Planning, expertise and moral regula- Research 15(2): 15–28. tion in Toronto’s Regent Park. Planning Lucio J and Wolfersteig W (2012) Political and Perspectives 25(1): 69–86. social incorporation of public housing resi- Johnson L (2010) Exercising a legal right of dents: Challenges in HOPE VI community return: A Canadian experience in redeveloping development. Community Development 43(4): public housing. In: International Conference on 476–491. Neighbourhood Restructuring & Resident Loca- McCormick NJ, Joseph ML and Chaskin RJ tion: Context, Choice & Consequence, 4–5 (2012) The new stigma of relocated public Brail and Kumar 17

housing residents: Challenges to social identity Sautkina E, Bond L and Kearns A (2012) Mixed in mixed income developments. City & Com- evidence on mixed tenure effects: Findings munity 11(3): 285–308. from a systematic review of UK studies, 1995– Manzo LC, Kleit RG and Couch D (2008) ‘Mov- 2009. Housing Studies 27(6): 748–782. ing three times is like having your house on fire Smith JL (2013) The end of US public housing as once’: The experience of place and impending we knew it. Urban Research & Practice 6(3): displacement among public housing residents. 276–296. Urban Studies 45(9): 1855–1878. Tach LM (2009) More than bricks and mortar: Micallef S (2013) Regent Park: A Story of Collec- Neighbourhood frames, social processes, and tive Impact. Toronto: Metcalf Foundation. the mixed income redevelopment of a public Miller BJ (2008) The struggle over redevelopment housing project. City & Community 8(3): at Cabrini-Green, 1989–2004. Journal of Urban 269–299. History 34(6): 944–960. Thompson SK, Bucerius SM and Luguya M Morris A, Jamieson M and Patulny R (2012) Is (2013) Unintended consequences of neigh- social mixing of tenures a solution for public bourhood restructuring: Uncertainty, dis- housing estates? Evidence Base 1: 1–21. rupted social networks and increased fear of Public Interest Strategy & Communications violent victimization among young adults. (2008) Portfolio: Regent Park. Available at: British Journal of Criminology 53(5): 924–941. http://www.publicinterest.ca/portfolio/20 (accessed Toronto Community Housing (2007) Regent Park 20 April 2015). Social Development Plan. Toronto: Toronto Purdy S (2004) By the people, for the people: Community Housing Corporation. Tenant organizing in Toronto’s Regent Park Toronto Community Housing (2012) Regent housing project in the 1960s and 1970s. Jour- Park Revitalization News. Available at: http:// nal of Urban History 30(4): 519–548. www.torontohousing.ca/news/20120327/regent_ Rose D (2004) Discourses and experiences of park_revitalization (accessed 20 April 2014). social mix in gentrifying neighbourhoods: A Toronto Community Housing (2015) Revitaliza- Montreal case study. Canadian Journal of tion: Regent Park. Available at: http:// Urban Research 13(2): 278–316. www.torontohousing.ca/regentpark (accessed Rose D, Germain A, Bacque MH, et al. (2013) 20 April 2015). ‘Social mix’ and neighbourhood revitalization Toronto Community Housing (2016) Regent in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local Park Tenant Update Meeting, February 25. policy discourses and expectations in Available at: https://www.torontohousing.ca/ Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montreal capital-initiatives/revitalization/Regent-Park/ (Canada). International Journal of Urban and Documents/2016–02–25%20Tenant%20Upda Regional Research 37(2): 430–450. te%20Meeting%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 28 July 2016).