Academic work
Common-hood
Aging with Dignity
Farm in CrevicesRegent Park History
Fritting glass pattern
Genetic algorithm in urban design
Coexist with Noise
Personal work
Solo-Living
Hope in the Dark
Peace in War
Regent Park History
December 2024
Research Paper, Toronto, Canada
Introduction
Regent Park is a 69-acre neighborhood located east of downtown Toronto, bounded by Gerrard Street East to the north, River Street to the east, Shuter Street to the south, and Parliament Street to the west, situated on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples, which is also close to the Don River. Its history dates back to around the 1840s and has undergone complex changes and a diverse demographic. Over the years, Regent Park has been associated with poverty and high crime rates. Also, as Canada’s first attempt at imposing large-scale urban renewal on the city, it has witnessed the development history of social housing in Canada.
Early History
Although the Cabbagetown is considered the beginning of Regent Park, there are some stories to tell before that period. Historical evidence has been found that native camps and artifacts such as pottery fragments in the area showed proof of indigenous peoples' hunting, fishing, and harvesting wild rice along the Don River. After 1763, the British colonialists gradually dispossessed significant portions of land lived by the Indigenous people by systematizing it through “legal” treaties. Among these agreements, Treaty 13, also referred to as the Toronto Purchase, was concluded in 1805, and sold the land ownership to the Crown. Despite the colonists' acquisition of the land at that time, it remained predominantly suburban until 1845, when the Irish families poured in and built their houses to flee away from famine.
The historical Cabbagetown, which is now the combination of Regent Park and Cabbagetown neighborhood, was built in the form of row houses for predominantly working-class people, with architectural styles including bay & gable, gothic revival, worker's cottage, and so on. The Irish built residential areas and factories there, reaching the peak of prosperity in the late 1890s. From 1890 to 1940, World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II put it into trouble, which to be more specific from the perspective of urban construction, means poorly maintained structures where utility connections and municipal services were inconsistent. Today's Cabbagetown neighborhood has survived the slum clearance and has become a heritage neighborhood that has undergone gentrification, with heritage farms and several cemeteries well preserved. Citizens can get a glimpse of the urban morphology at that time through this part of the remains. The other part, now called Regent Park, was cleared as a blank slate in 1948 as part of the urban renewal policy.
1948: Regent Park Original Design
The birth and transformation of Regent Park have multiple historical reasons. On the one hand, the country needed subsidized housing for war veterans and their families and for non-veteran low-income families brought by economic challenges after World War 2. Although postwar housing shortages were widespread in North America, Toronto became the city most affected by homelessness in Canada due to postwar immigration and other factors. Initially, the government acquired and converted dormitories and barracks into shelters, yet the poor living conditions and resulting polio, as well as the high cost of private market housing as the only other option, led politicians at the time to believe that public housing was the only way to solve the emergency housing problem. In 1949, Torontonians voted overwhelmingly in favor of building and financing Regent Park out of their own pockets. (Brushett, 2007)
On the other hand, the federal government who played a preeminent role in public housing provision made unified, large-scale planning possible. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, there was very strong advocacy on low-income housing issues. (Suttor& Greg, 2016) The Liberal federal government introduced the National Housing Act in 1944, and 2 years later the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) was created to oversee the federal government’s production and management of housing (CMHC, 2016). As its name implied, its main purpose was to enable an effective market housing production and financing system, and its policy instruments were direct CMHC financing of developers, stimulus in recessions, and home-buyer mortgages. Social housing was a minor add-on to this market-enabling policy regime, yet took 44% of the units in the 1948 Regent Park project. The policy was controversial in the political arena, and decades later, due to economic recession, lower tax revenues, and the government's unwillingness to compete with market housing, the federal government gradually delegated responsibilities to provinces and cities. (Suttor& Greg, 2016)
As for the design, although it addressed the immediate problem, it was widely regarded as a failure 30 years later. After being revisited three times, the walk-up apartments were ultimately designed by architect John Edward Hoare (1902-1988), with his plans approved in 1947, and the high-rise portion by Page and Steele Architects, which won Massey Medals for Architecture in 1961. The original drafts of the three plans, all designed with modernist principles in mind, can be found in the Toronto Archives. The final plan resembles the spirit of Le Corbusier's Ville Radieuse as outlined in the Athens Charter published in 1933, incorporating principles such as single zoning, increased vertical density, transportation separation, ample green space, and equitable public facilities for every household. Specifically, within a superblock, which was three times the size of its surroundings, were loosely enclosed lawns, parking lots, and mid- or high-rise residences. The design was entirely residential, lacking commercial and recreational facilities, except for two churches. This decision appeared reasonable at the time, given the urgency to accommodate a large population, escape from the squalid slums, create a clean and pollution-free living environment, and reduce financial expenditure, as the government was already facing significant deficits.
Nevertheless, from a contemporary perspective, the failures and decline in its design are also traceable. Firstly, its utopian design caused inconvenience and confusion for residents in practical use. (problematic paragraph)
Secondly, in terms of security, neither paternalistic supervision nor natural surveillance goals were achieved. Compared to the introverted communities still popular in East Asia, it neither implemented access control nor used fences or gates to control the flow of people, nor did it have effective monitoring facilities and security systems. Compared to the well-functioning traditional blocks in the West, it lacked fine-grained block scale, effective functions, and 'eyes on the street.' Consequently, although the lawns on the site are not much different from the green spaces on Toronto's streets today, they became the hotbeds of crime and bleak vacuums described by Jane Jacobs.
Finally, from a community perspective, its design was equitable yet depersonalized, driving away most of the original residents, with almost all spaces being semi-public, thus failing to create a sense of community. Only 23% of the 623 families that previously lived in the shantytown on the site were accepted into the new buildings, and those who were able to do so gradually moved out. The apartment buildings lacked balconies or fenced backyards for private use, and there was no public recreational space for other city residents. Without residents' voluntary maintenance of public facilities and effective top-down maintenance, Regent Park eventually faced issues such as substance abuse, gang violence, and disrepair after several decades.
2002: Regent Park Revitalization
The immediate catalyst for the Regent Park Revitalization Plan was the 1996 police-civilian conflict known as the “Riot in Regent Park.” In addition to the aforementioned social issues, there were significant challenges such as dramatic demographic changes, multi-ethnic gatherings, and discrimination. On the policy front, the federal government completely withdrew, leading to the establishment of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) by the Toronto City Government in 2002 to oversee public housing responsibilities. Compared to the original plan, the revitalization plan reduced the proportion of social housing from 44% to 25%. Unlike the US HOPE VI program, it introduced and implemented a zero relocation policy, although this policy was criticized for its limited coverage and unsmooth procedures, resulting in approximately half of the families not exercising their right to return. In terms of design principles, the plan incorporated mixed uses, social mixing, greater density, and infill development, and is cited as a prominent example of condo-ism in Toronto. The implementation process was divided into five phases over more than 20 years to gradually integrate changes into the surrounding urban fabric. During Phases 1-3, TCHC collaborated with Daniels Corporation. The new buildings were either entirely public housing managed by TCHC or wholly market-rate condominiums and townhouses, with no mixing within individual structures. Among the townhouses, subsidized units were identified by blue exterior doors, while brown doors signified market-rate units. Phases 4-5, in collaboration with Tridel, addressed the previous shortfall in social housing and increased vertical density. Additionally, these phases actively engaged the Regent Park Neighbourhood Association at the community level, enhancing community participation and voice.
From a design perspective, the revitalization plan addresses the shortcomings of the previous generation in several ways. Regarding traffic flow, the plan reintroduces street networks that integrate with the surrounding area and introduces public transportation on Gerrard Street, Dundas Street, and Shuter Street. The streetcars provide quick access to the Yonge subway line, while the 65 Parliament bus connects to the Bloor-Danforth line. Additionally, public spaces now include more open parks and semi-public courtyards, which no longer rely on concrete roads to connect entrances and exits but offer multiple uses, such as basketball courts. The plan also implements multi-use zoning and designs active commercial frontages on the ground floor, including banks, supermarkets, and community centers, providing jobs for local residents. Finally, in terms of safety, the plan enhances natural surveillance and strengthens CCTV and mental health treatment to reduce juvenile crime.
In architectural terms, the collaboration with various local and international construction companies has led to greater diversity, transforming the stereotypical forms of the previous generation. By contemporary standards, the residential components are largely similar to other modern housing, with the notable exception of their shared effort to preserve the traditional red brick facade. Phases 1 to 3 comprise a mix of low, medium, and high-rise housing, with tower separation to ensure adequate sunlight and ventilation, while Phases 4 and 5 primarily consist of medium and high-rise buildings. It is noteworthy that Daniels Spectrum and the Aquatic Centre have received the Civic Trust Award and the Governor General’s Medal, respectively. Both structures employ modern architectural language, are situated in the heart of Regent Park, strive to achieve urban equality in all aspects, and encompass a range of social and recreational functions, making them popular community centers today.
Conclusion
Looking back at the 200-year history of Regent Park, as a social housing project, its urban design reflects the combined influence of the social environment, housing policies and design trends at the time. Just as modernism and post-war housing shortages shaped Regent Park in 1948, condoism, or postmodernism, and fierce social contradictions in 2002 also shaped today's spatial form. As the most studied social housing project in Toronto, the revitalization of Regent Park involves a multifaceted process, ideology, finance, macro and micro social forces, politics... and people, constantly changing people. Perhaps we should reflect on how urban design adapts to the ever-changing society and what is worth preserving in contemporary architecture more progressively.