Box 18, Folder 11, Document 16

Dublin Core

Title

Box 18, Folder 11, Document 16

Text Item Type Metadata

Text

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


The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority

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

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Transcribe This Item

  1. http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_018_011_016.pdf

Document Viewer