.NzU0Ng.NzU0Ng

HOUSING, PUBLIC GEORGs~ l.t t\: S T il l u·-I:" IL. OF TEC: iN OLOGY ARCHITECTU RE LIBRARY 17 11 , THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS jll OF ,,.. I' - I I t PUBLIC HOUSING IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO !I 1· I· The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority I· August 1963 ~ 4 I 4 • t If i , [j i i i �CPJ.\. PTER VIII - SUHMf,RY AND CONCLUSIONS , 'I 1. Basic Premise The conclusions of this study which d eal with tha ?.ttitudes towfl.rds · ublic housin? of families who h;:ive moved out fire a ff 8cted by t}-,e move-out ·rate which exists in the pro,iects under the administrA.tion of the l"ietropolit;m Toronto Housinf Authority. If i t 1s considered that these move-out rates are greater than might ordinarily exist in the priv;:\tc rentel TTlA.rket, then the c~ta t akes on more sipnificance. Conversely, if t!rn move-out r?.tes are consid - ,·ed to be less than the normal priv~te experience, then the data tak0s o~ sirnific2.nce. sscr It should be clc<'-rly ur10P.rstood that the fir1dings o f ·,his study are based essentially on interviews held with tliose families t :'.10 he ve left -public housin3 communities in Hetropolitan Toronto. 2. Physi cal AccommodAtion and Environment It would appe?.r, b;,sed on the evidence supplied by former kn;,nt s, t hat th e public housing co mmuniti es are es s entially satisfc=;ctory plcices to L .ve , .cit l east as for a s the majority of tenMt families Are concerned. It ,.,,ould also appe..ir that the housing pro,jects provide a r eason~bly satisfactory environrnent '•I for the majority of the families. The major satisfaction which t ends to k e ep the fAmily in the public housing project centres around the ph~rsic;:,l ac corrn:ioc1r1tion. ! ' I I .- As fPrnilies Are g iven housing to meet their renuirements physical overcrowding s eldom occurs. The .l larger units provide accommodation which literally c an not b e found "'nywhere I. I else in the 1-I etropolitan Toronto area. The housing u.I1it, particulcir l y t he hous e type , provides t!1e families with their greatest singl e satis .:.:.--.:::tion . I I �89 - 3. Faciliti e s for Ch;idr cn at Proi e cts · This s-t udy indicates little dissatisfaction with the faciliti es pro'J: children in the housing pro,iects. 2d for What was indic;,ted, however, WP.S t :a pro- jects which are densely child populcited produce an irritcition with th e children in the project. the children. The tenant app:irently feels th8t he is unP.ble to f<:: t -:r,ray from This probably accounts for the action tPken on th e p,r t of the Temints' Associ;:ition in coth pro,"jects to get community centres with c i'1ild oriented programme::;. This l!.'1CO:'.'.ti c-:_ous r.,,;c+-.ion t0 thA J.E.r ge number of children s eems R cl(;?.r ir.- .i .l ! nu:n1·x~rs

if

larrc w1i ts in one site as in South Regent P.:1rk. A J...-i.rrcr pro- iJOr:.ion of houses to ap2.rtmcnts seems nccess;:,ry. 4~ !1.ttitud e Tow&rds I-ianagemen t Pe rhaps it will te surprising, at least to thos e who administer publ·: · h c,u.;ir.: , that there is a very positive f eeling to 1~rards the public housi !1f: exp,- ri e:--c e of thos e f amilies who h? ve moved out. Only a ve ry sm::i ll percentage of ttis group felt trJ<!lt no housing should be supplied for other fc1.nilies in simi.j_ci."' circumstanc e s. More tha n 9Cf/o of the families int erviewed felt thet s ome ~rr,- - gramme of public housing is nccessciry. The ma.jori ty of f amili es fel t th<Jt, they had b een helped, ;:i.t le;:,st firnrnci2lly, by their public housin~ cxr-,,3ri e1.c;3 The Housing Authority has for a long time felt thRt perhRps it interferec too much in the lives of its ternmts. This study do es not bear out, t hi s f e eling at all, in fact, there was little expressed diss"1tisf,, ,ction with t he control v:=,~---5.-,.,......., • f . r...,,~.,.q,,.-...., �. i_ 90 .- exerted by the Housing Authority.

--

. On the contr;:iry, these frimi.lies indicat ed ~that t .here was too little control exercised over other fprrd.lies in th ) com-

i-.1

' Ml · .,i.. ';~ f ~•. ,;r , . _. ·1 .' i munity •. This group felt thPt the beh8viour of the neighbours should 8e ~ore strictly supervised. In this lPtter reaction, however; the expression w::,s by a minority of former residents. - 5•. Mobility of Public Hou sine: F-".milic s The annual move-out rc1te for proxii'E.tely J.L%.

i.

f amily in pro,i c cts under administr ,itj_c 1 is a u- ~,ud', .rc.te~ a;.·c fom 1d to bi::: l ess thrin th[lt which obi tins tn:i:Lz~ . S!-.hL~:.- ,~J-.id: w,-mt o.s high :ts J.8% in 195i~. 'vih:i.J. e ::oa::.j sf.q ction with public housing livirlg is possibly -;:,he nt"-~or r e1., s o1, w'::y

[amili6s stay, it is n.lso likely that the mobility is some,-1h::it ~-esti'ict.eJ b:r

th e la1,;k of a n Rltern.stive choice. · The private housing rrarket ha s hE-:~:-, ·,1:·1P-.J•. -:: to provide this alternative. - In order to assess the importance of ,~r: i ~ ~; ,,;re of an Al t erna tive , th e satisfactions and dissA.tisf e. ctions of f;:i;nili ~s 1·t:m:-.:,n:.r. ::,. in public housing might b e studied to determine why th 8:' .:.' 8n,a.i.n ir. pu'..:.i_i (: housing. Thj_s might possibly be the next study carried out b:,r t: ie :'1et rop.~li:.[l.-:-l Toronto Housing Authority. 6. SociPtl We lf::i re Considercitions One rather disconc a rtj_ng fflct ,qppen.rs in this stud y whi ch s eems to St1 ,'f8 s ·l f urther a ct ion b y the Housing Aut!1ori ty. This is the f,qct t h?.. t the z · i c t ,.~d fa milies are substs1ntially the kind of fe.milies ·who should b e he '...p,::d !_ y t i10 public housinc program.r;e. · They are l Rrgc f;,.r.ri.lies with low inco:nes c ont a l u i -,g --=~..,,,,,......,,.,.,.........,="""""=-,:-.,-=,..,...."""""""'"'""""==..,.,.=...,......,.,""""m""'"'"'l'll',_.""""'_,,='r!!"I'""""'."'·1!'.,11" ". .. ~"l'"":"1'f.11~ ' " ' ' ' [ "... '1"'~; ;~· 't ! ~ •; 1 . .' .. .: • i' �' 't 91 both par ents. For some re;,son they h;:. ve no t b een Pble to .cid,iust to J_iving in their n ew environment. 11 Becc1.use these fc=irnili es Are prob c1 bly probl em11 fPmilics, Although they r epr esent A- 11 tro uhl e " or v ery sm;i ll perc ent-"EC /' the public housing populPtion, it is possible thAt th ey r eauire more ti m and a ttention thc1 n has b een given to them up to the pr es ent. It would als o suggest th?.t greater efforts to reh~bilitat e these families are necess~ry. Co-opera tion with a ll essential Wclf;:,re Ag(mcies should b e established so thc>t gr r0?.t er sup- -Ii ' '·I • t'I i' . fL I ti I ' I port A.nd assist;:,.nce c ."':1 be provided. 7 .. R.s,ta.\ 3·>-, __ -... -·· - ··-··- ... - ·- 8 s 01-1rc,2; 01' sat~_s.fc1.cti..m. come ·"' S The fact thf't the monthly r ent fits the fr:mi.-!..y I s in- thJ. t ii,co:ne fluctu?tes h2.s bE:: en thought by rnany ex:ps:rts to r:- ovid8 thG .fnrnilies with an excellent for m of soci2l ;:,..nd economic s e curity •,1:1ich :)·vho :· far;ri.lies do not have. satisf;iction. In the o~J, therefore, this should b e r1. In pr;i.ctic e this expe ct-".tion is not realiz ed . r.tP..,ior sct:r ~c r,.i. Ger.er.;.11~.- ::: ;,,2 , }d:.-. f I ' there wn.s dissat isfac ti on expressed on the pc>rt of t he move-out f;:i :nili c s _. ·ii;;, the rental scale. This might hAve been expect ed in th e upper incon --: r An--: -=-.:=: where t he nenalty r ent char ved in public housing ;:ippli eso nc¼"ever, li es with very low i nco mes felt that the r ents wer e too hiFh~ ., ... . 1;i.;r,_ y f3 .1li- This fePll!cS ::.s brought a bout largely from the est r1bl.ishment of mi nimum rm1ts, whic ·. c f.a ~,~ thAt many famili es are paying too high a proportion of the ir inco me: in r 8n"t. , The rec1.l dissr1tisf.<>cti on with th e r e nt.:i l s cr1le shows up in thos e f;i mili e s refus ed public housinr. not low rentn.l. 1,vt10 They felt th;:it .the rents P.sked by the Authorit y 1,.er e In fact, when th e other :nove-in c!l.;"trges were A.ddec:: to t he first month's :rent rn£.ny families could not afford to move into r;t.i Le housine,~ ' l �! '-l ,i 1, !: { 111•

1·1

Ii

This stated dissr1tisfnction on the rnrt of move-out f-?.milics and rofus ?.l f : :>. rd lie s indic;:i tcs thc'..t tho rental scf'lc do e s not wholly pcrfor:n its function certni.r.ly "S it ,,ffocts the fc:mili es on WT? low incomes. lndicP..tions are t h:i.t the cst;iblishmcnt of a new sc;-i.le, upd~tcd to f.<1.mily cxpendi turcs of th e pre s ent time, is an absolute necessity. Such a scale if devised should be h~s ed uJX)n a dynamic situ?. tion c1nd chanred on review periodic;:illy r ather than h?.p:--,"vrdly. 8_ High-Ris e Build~_p.g s This study does net :i::~ (,dL,·~-& rl.n,n:=tgi ng 1;vld e nce a ra inst high--risc :9.p.c> r t r::e:1t s 1 .s., ~()1 .nt cc; f or by t ho f ::i ct thr1 t 1 and 2- b edroom f ;:i_mili e s :i.n La·.,rre!1c: e Hc-::. .= :r-t s -!:ind it ea si er tu mov'3 out thc1 n the 3-bedroom fr mlie s in So"Jth Re,e-:er.t ..\J.thot1g11 h i g!1-ris c buildings s e em to provide g r e~ t e r ri12..I1rtger!1ent and 0 .?.:::·!: .

L ·~-· . . .,~.e1.~2 "1~._

costs ,:,o t:·: e r, dministr.,., tion, t h e exc ell ent phy s ic;'l.l l ;iym1t of t h e 2.ctu, -.:·.r, :._ . J. r:. ........ .. l ing ur1it appea rs to outweigh .s.ll proble:ns in th e '.'lines of t he t em.n t s , should b e not ed th.-i t t h is e vide nce is b " s cd on f a ~lic s ,·rho h-"'vo ::iovoc 0·:,.t a.nd not .families who c~nt inu 8 to l i ve in tht'.: pr'ojccts o 9- SociP.l 3ti gm.:. In gen eral, whil e t h e r e w is some dis s<iti s fac t ion expr e ss ed with ,:1, ·,,, ~· 1• .J ,. l . •'• s ocial fac t or s t h e se d i d not s eem i'l.s grea t as might be expr e ss ed by f;, : .ll?; S who vol unt a rily moved out of public housing . tc affect t h e move-out rat e to t he same d erree shoppi ng ;ind transport a t ion fa c ili ti e s. The sociRl f a c tors do no:. BS t he r ent ~nd l <i ck o f S -3Vii,

, d 201.~Fl."~.s

Althoug h the r e w?. s a slight f, ~li~g I r 1•!1 ~!

,

f; ., '-· I" �of stigma c<1ttAched to pu'r.lic housing it did not seem to m1nifest i tself in m~ny fc>:milies . IH fAct, it is prob"'ble thrit the sociel re~ctions expres sf':d by these fnmilie.s ;,re no grePter than those thc9t mipht aoply in nn:v n ~ighbourhood. 10. Rect~ons for Reftisal In descending of importance famlies in eppPrent need of housing r ef\ . ed for the following reasons:- ~ -i! 'f.1 (4) '!:tong type of dw0lling i.e. n.p..~rtm-3nt instec>.d oi house (5) ~ulcs nnd regulntions (6) Personal and far.ri.ly rea sons (?) Condition of unit offEre d It is interesting to note that the first two reasons were f?.r and most important a ccounting for nearly 60% of all reasons givenu 2i~-;f-,.;/ tnc �