Addressing the Urban Problem
The general topic of our project began as ‘Regent Park representations’. As a broad starting point, we wanted to address the problems of the stigmatization of the neighbourhood. For decades, Regent Park’s image has been characterized by a stigma from outsiders who view the neighbourhood as a place of danger, social and economic distress, criminal activity, and social isolation (Brail & Kumar, 2017). This stigmatization and constructed image from outsiders – one that differs greatly from the lived experiences of residents – vilified the neighbourhood over time and thereby justified the socially mixed redevelopment (August, 2014).
The social mix model for public housing redevelopment assumes that there will be improved socioeconomic outcomes for low-income residents through the interaction between people of different economic statuses, and therefore information and resource sharing will come as a result and increase the social capital of low-income residents (Joseph et al, 2007). Also, Dunn (2012) states that the efforts of socially mixed public housing redevelopment attempt to work as a de-stigmatization strategy to eradicate the negative connotations associated with the housing and neighbourhood (p. 89).
Despite the model in theory, in practice it has shown not to provide these benefits. Condo units and subsidized-housing units occupy separate buildings, but there are supposedly no obvious physical traits defining the difference between buildings of different tenures (Rowe & Dunn, 2015, p. 1262). TCH claims that they have “broken down the wall between people who live in [subsidized housing] and people who live in market areas” (Starr, 2016). However, this is not completely true. In August’s work (2014), one interviewee references the differences in brick color between market rate units versus subsidized housing units. Additionally, several stories from Sumeya and Fazra, two Diva Girls, show otherwise. They highlight how you can see expensive new cars in certain areas and there is an influx of new white residents whom they do not usually interact with. Sumeya and Fazra’s stories, alongside academics such as Dunn (2012), show that social interaction or “mixing” does not necessary occur at the frequency that the planning model assumes. Ultimately, although social mixing may work to encourage capital accumulation and investment into the neighbourhood by condo owners and retailers, the premise of this planning model is problematic, as well as the model in practice has proven to not match up with its perceived benefits on paper.
Today, mid-redevelopment, we have found that there is this new stigma that is ever-growing and being placed on the neighbourhood. This is the belief that the revitalization has brought about a new feeling of connection between the neighbourhood and the city, that the revitalization has “restored community connections” (Starr, 2016; Hume, 2014; Ali, 2016; Artuso, 2017).
The park and aquatic centre by Sumeya
Exterior of Daniels Spectrum by Sumeya
Photograph from our neighbourhood tour by Sumeya
The new field by Michelle
Interior of Daniels Spectrum by Michelle
Format
For this project we have chosen the formats of photography and videography. First, we chose photography because it was something we were both comfortable with and had the needed technical skills. Also, Sumeya and Fazra both showed interest in this format. We aimed to use our photographs to contrast several stigmatizing quotes from news articles. We will also be putting quotes stated by Sumeya and Fazra to explain our photographs and contrast the media articles. Later, we added the video to the project to compliment our work and provide more in-depth answers to some questions we had.
With our media project, we recognized that in our creation and display, it is imperative to avoid misconceptions, something that has happened before when collaborating with youth. Danielle Laughlin and Laura Johnson’s work (2011) focuses on the interpretation of public spaces in the eyes of Regent Park youth. Laughlin and Johnson gave each youth a 27-exposure disposable camera to take pictures (2011, p. 443-4). Their aim was to make youth voices and perceptions of public space heard because they are usually not heard in the planning process. Adults usually look at a young person’s thoughts as “lack[ing] responsibility, experience, and interest” (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011, p. 441). However, instead of giving the youth involved in the study a louder voice, Laughlin and Johnson did the opposite and attempted to connect the photographs by Regent Park youth to their own arguments. For example, the authors explained how the revitalization led to temporary and permanent relocation. Further, the relocations caused degradation of the community, which, in turn, can make some individuals feel like they do not belong to Regent Park anymore (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011, p. 450). Although this is a real and relevant issue, their argument is undermined by the photograph that they use as evidence, specifically, Figure 10 in their paper. This photograph was taken by a 14-year-old girl and shows her skipping rope with friends (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011, p. 451). There was no further explanation telling the reason as to why the girl took the photograph. In this sense, Laughlin and Johnson used the photographs to fit into their argument without actually knowing if the young girl had the same reasoning as them when she took took that photograph. This could create distorted truths that do not reflect reality.
Given Laughlin and Johnson’s work, we tried as much as possible to follow along with what Sumeya and Fazra were showing and telling us before actually shaping our final format and argument. Sumeya expressed that she wanted to show the good parts about Regent Park, and not focus on the negative. We took this advice to, first, aid in our project to make it cohesive and, second, create something both Sumeya and Fazra wanted to contribute to.
The park by Fazra
Old versus new buildings by Fazra
St David Street by Fazra
260 Sumach by Shayla
At the park at sunset by Shayla
Our Goal
As stated earlier, the goal of our project is to combat this 'new’ stigma of Regent Park, which believes that the mixed income revitalization of the neighbourhood has created a newfound sense of community. In the mainstream media, there are claims of Regent Park previously lacking a sense of community, being dangerous, and socially isolated (Hume, 2014; Ali, 2016). Articles tend to highlight that Regent Park needs the revitalization in order to be more vibrant and a connected neighbourhood (Starr, 2016). These sources make generalizations and state that the revitalization has given the neighbourhood an opportunity to finally have a sense of community. In reality, we know from the Divas Girls and our own time spent in the neighbourhood that this is false. Long-time residents, like Sumeya and Fazra, who have seen the changing neighbourhood first hand, treasured their diverse community before the revitalization. Our goal is to combat this revitalization stigma and show how Regent Park has long had a flourishing community.
Learning About the Middle Ground
Although the stigma of ‘social mix’ being a ‘community fix’ permeates much media (Ali, 2016; Hume, 2014; Starr, 2016; Artuso, 2017), we do not deny there are also benefits to the revitalization, such as the new amenities provided to the neighbourhood. It is imperative to state that the revitalization did not create a sense of community, Regent Park’s community has long existed. The various new amenities constructed here merely bring the togetherness of Regent Park into the mainstream media. We are not here to say that redevelopment is bad, but obviously the premise of social mixing is. From the weeks spent at Regent Park Focus and working with Sumeya and Fazra, we have found that many amenities and new facilities are valued and praised by the girls. Community and togetherness existed prior to the revitalization, the new amenities simply help to reinforce this sense of community by bringing people out to the park, Daniel’s Spectrum, the aquatic centre, and more.
Our video, featuring audio interviews of Fazra and Sumeya.
Brail and Kumar (2017) state, “rebuilding alone is insufficient to address broader structural inequalities” however, the rebuilding has brought with it “numerous opportunities for building partnerships, community facilities, social capital, education, cultural and arts-based opportunities, and resident empowerment” (p. 3785). Capital and redevelopment did not foster this sense of community, it long existed, the redevelopment just gave the community a new space to play and be seen.
References
Ali, A. (2016, March 18). Residents patiently await rebranding of Toronto’s Regent Park. The Globe and Mail.
Artuso, A. (2017, September 18). Deadly shooting in Regent Park ‘extremely discouraging’. The Toronto Sun.
August, M. (2014). Challenging the Rhetoric of Stigmatization: The Benefits of Concentrated Poverty in Toronto’s Regent Park. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1317–1333.
Brail, S., & Kumar, N. (2017). Community leadership and engagement after the mix: The transformation of Toronto’s regent park. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3772-3788.
Dunn, J. R. (2012). “Socially Mixed” Public Housing Redevelopment As A Destigmatization Strategy In Toronto’s Regent Park. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 9(01), 87-105.
Hume, C. (2014, June 23). Regent Park’s new park destined for success. The Toronto Star.
Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J., & Webber, H. S. (2007). The Theoretical Basis for Addressing Poverty Through Mixed-Income Development. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 369-409.
Laughlin, Danielle Leahy and Laura C. Johnson. (2011). Defining and exploring public space: perspective of young people from Regent Park, Toronto. Children’s Geographies, 9(3-4), 439-456.
Rowe, D. J., & Dunn, J. R. (2015). Tenure-mix in toronto: Resident attitudes and experience in the regent park community. Housing Studies, 30(8), 1257-1280.
Starr, R. (2016, May 9). 5 ways Regent Park’s revitalization is a game-changer. The Toronto Star.
Shayla, Michelle, Sumeya and Fazra are the Legacy Leavers.