UNAFFORDABLE T.O.

Unaffordable T.O. is a collaborative study on the state of affordable housing in Toronto, done in collaboration with Aliya Mohammed, Andreia Afonso, Eunice Cheung and Shamim Khedri at the University of Toronto.

Unaffordable T.O examines the history of design, policy, and socioeconomics surrounding affordable housing in Toronto, with special focus on the redevelopment of Regent Park and Allenbury Gardens. City of Toronto is undertaking large efforts in the redevelopment of Regent Park and Allenbury Gardens to create an integrated neighbourhood with mixed-used programming, mixed-income housing, green spaces, community amenities and affordable housing.

Part 1 of the study involved mapping the various community demographics and amenities to further understand the lived conditions of the neighbourhood.

Both areas employ a similar urban design strategy despite being unique in their own circumstances. Allenbury Gardens is a car-centric postwar suburb facing issues of inequality while Regent Park is a historically impoverished inner city neighbourhood undergoing revitalization. Further, Regent Park is situated within the dense downtown core and is well supplied by a range of amenities and opportunities. However, it is debatable whether the social infrastructure in place is sufficient to supply the large community with what they need. Allenbury Gardens is less densified but also less resourced by community amenities and park spaces. It is also important to note that large arterial roads and unwalkable streets makes accessing community services more difficult if families do not have the means to access a car.

Part 2 of the study involved an on-site survey of both neighbourhoods to better understand the needs and desires of the residents. Our key finds are:

In a sample poll of 20 tenants, 50% fall in the $25-50K income-bracket, 9-in-10 are rent-payers and 19-in-20 share the space with others, with a record of 7 people per household. Although both developments provide rent-geared-to-income social housing units, only a quarter are part of the program.
Both locations are conveniently close to the Toronto transit system. 60% of Allenbury's sample population and 90% of Regent Park's resdients declare public transportation as their primary mode of transportation. However, a majority spend over 30 minutes in commute.
While there is convenient access to groceries, community resources, and transportation, many residents claim that the community centers and amenities are overcrowded and do not sufficiently service the neighbourhood. This is especially prevalent in downtown Regent Park. The growing immigrant population in both communities would benefit from additional resources and integration of community centers, parks and libraries.
Both communities have concerns about safety after sundown, especially in Regent Park. However, more than half of the residents have faifth in community services as a good provider of safety and trust.
Residents of Regent Park appreciate municipal housing efforts, perhaps due to its history of extensive social housing. On the other hand, residents of Allenbury Gardens are open to government housing, but there are reservations regarding integration.

Part 3 of the study conducts a city and region wide analysis on the socioeconomic and policy conditions that determine affordable housing design.

The current issue with housing unaffordability in Toronto is equally attributed to the economic, social, typological conditions of the city, and the lack of government policies and regulations until recently. From a zoning aspect, Toronto is attempting to transition away from single-use, homogenized neighbourhoods to creating dynamic, mixed-used communities. The current revitalization of Regent Park and Allenbury Gardens implements attempts to follow the 'complete street model' of urban design create a more inclusive community. However, a developer friendly economy and city council means that Toronto is unwilling to take sufficient action in solving the housing unaffordability crisis. This includes implementing inclusionary zoning, as is the case in many other North American cities which mandates that 10-30% of units in new large-scale developments must be affordable.

Part 4 of the study included our final conclusions and proposed solutions as to how Toronto can create more inclusive affordable neighbourhoods for all, using Allenbury Gardens as our initial design study.

Our vision is for a neighbourhood that is not only accessible for low-income families, but inclusive of them. We will be taking lessons learned from Regent Park and targeting our solutions to Allenbury Gardens. We want to create architectural solutions that not only improves the accessibility of amenities and urban resources, but reduces the social stigma surrounding affordable housing:

Proposal #1: Integrated Housing

Affordable units should not be distinguished and separated from other market-rate units in a residential development.
Instead, affordable units should try to be of a similar typology to all other units on site. Within a multi-unit building, a random assortment of units should be designated as affordable.
The information regarding who is living in subsidized housing should be kept private, to foster greater relations and integration between neighbours of different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Residents living in low rise housing within Allenbury should have the same access to amenities as high rise residents within the building

As Toronto tries to implement inclusionary zoning, which typically requires that 10-30% of units be affordable in all new, large residential development, it should be said that affordable units should not be singled out and segregated from market-rate units. IZ policies in various other cities allows developers to move affordable units away from the primary construction or offsite. This can create neighbourhood isolation and stigma for those living in affordable units. Currently, Toronto’s IZ draft proposal only mandates a maximum of 5-10% of units be affordable. In the case of Allenbury Gardens, 12% of the units will be affordable. This percentage is far below other major cities and not enough to curb the growing housing unaffordability crisis. While the percentage with Allenbury Gardens is greater than the proposed mandated bylaw, it is not comparatively great for an affordable housing project. In the case that IZ is implemented, it should follow the above guidelines to reduce social isolation and stigma for those living in subsidized units.

Proposal #2: Defined Greenery

Green spaces should have architectural additions (i.e. playgrounds, park benches, basketball courts) that define their usage as a recreational gathering space.
Courtyards should be accessible to all, designed purposefully and inclusively so not to divide the neighbourhood.
The Allenbury Gardens courtyard has the potential to host neighbourhood events (i.e. community BBQs, parties, fairs) but lacks a sense of identity for it to become so.
A community garden can be implemented in the courtyard space to create a shared sense of neighbourhood. Rowhouse residents may see the garden as an extension of their own backyard and maintain their own yards and the garden. High rise residents will have their own piece of green space.
Underutilized green spaces near highways can also be made more accessible with architectural additions (like Underpass Park, near Regent Park)
Forests and trails near the Don River can be opened up for cyclists given the significant number of families who bike in the area. While there are a number of bike racks in the area, cyclists do not have dedicated lanes for them to bike in and compete with fast moving cars and pedestrians)

Green spaces that lack purposeful interventions are forgotten and underused. This lesson was learned from Regent Park and other tower-in-the-park neighbourhoods where large swaths of undefined, purposeless green spaces did not create any recreational benefits to the residents, but rather created an unwalkable neighbourhood that isolated them. In Allenbury Gardens, a central courtyard sits underused between the market-rate high rise units and the affordable row house units. The “park” lacks playground equipment and park benches to make it a defined place of play and gathering for families. Most days, the area becomes a beautified no-man's land that divides the two socioeconomic classes.

Proposal #3: Ground Floor Amenities

Multi-unit residential buildings should open their ground floor up to additional commercial functions or neighbourhood amenities.
Mixed-use development should be encouraged. Grocery stores and small businesses can be placed within the ground floor of the building, conveniently servicing residents inside the building and people nearby.
Tax credits can be given to locals and small businesses to ensure that residents within the building are provided jobs and are more likely to have 24/7 access to the service provided.
For podium-highrise typologies, where possible, the roof of the podium can be transformed into a second storey public terrace that allows for additional gathering and recreational spaces.

Despite being located in a fairly accessible neighbourhood, grocery stores and community centres around Allenbury Gardens are only accessible by public transit or car. At the same time, not all low-income residents have access to cars. Bus stops are also located on major streets, five to ten minute walk from people’s residences, a journey made more difficult when carrying bags of groceries. Hence, the addition of a 24hr convenience store in the ground floor of the high rises at Allenbury Gardens can not only provide added convenience to its residences but also jobs close to home for some.