Throughout our journey in Regent Park, we asked how the youth in the neighborhood see themselves and the neighborhood in the future. We sought to answer this question through a series of interviews and secondary literature reviews. Our interviews consisted of four Regent Park residents at ages 9, 10, 20, and 36 who are spending or have spent their youth residing in Regent Park. The range of ages allowed for a range of perspectives regarding the process of continued residence in Regent Park, the changes from revitalization, and what was most important to them when imagining their future and current residence. We also learned from academic articles written by many authors, which describe the journey of growing up in the changing Regent Park and how certain general and Regent Park specific neighborhood aspects affect youth in their present and future. The articles were mainly used to support the interviews through further emphasizing the stories we heard from residents.
From this class we have learned about the importance of communicating with residents to learn through their lived experiences. We have been able to capture their stories through interviews which we have tied together in a podcast format. Podcasts allow the audience to focus solely on the voices of the residents, rather than being distracted by visuals. The podcast format effectively isolates the voices of residents, bringing their stories into complete focus.
Through this podcast we hope to attract the attention of Regent Park residents, young and old, and the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC). For young residents, we hope the project will allow them to know their voices are being heard and their experiences growing up in Regent Park are being shared. In result, other youths will be encouraged to speak up about their experiences with researchers, city officials, and TCHC. With a focus on the gap between youth and adult expectations of youth futures, our podcast should facilitate a better understanding of youths among adults. Hence leading to understanding conversations within the household and adults speaking up with or for their children throughout the community and city. If the TCHC’s attention is captured, we believe our project has the potential to encourage them to modify their policies to protect youth already within Regent Park, allowing them to have a future in the neighborhood. This project also has the power to make the TCHC realize their important role of community building in a neighborhood being modified through increased levels of market rate housing.
Over half of the residents in Regent Park were under 24 years of age and over one third were under the age of 14 at the start of revitalization (James, 2010). The decisions of youths to stay in Regent Park through adulthood plays a massive role in the future of the neighborhood. We believe that this large presence of youth means the way Regent Park caters and accommodates for its youth in realms like public space, recreational opportunities, and social environments have very drastic effects on who remains or returns to advocate and organize for Regent Park. Despite this fact, their needs and desires in the revitalization have largely been neglected (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011). Planners seldom consider how public space is used by and defined by youth in neighborhoods, including Regent Park. Moreover, feelings of prioritization of new, wealthier residents, are often valued over current residents in gentrifying neighborhoods. (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011). From interviews, we felt a similar sense of neglect from adult residents who do not feel the revitalization improves the lives of their children due to lack of housing and job interviews. Residents we spoke with instead feel that the new market rate residents are being prioritized.
Our interviews allowed us to connect with Sarah, age nine, and Ahmed, age ten, who have spent their entire lives in Regent Park and do not remember a time before revitalization. When they speak about Regent Park they have concerns about shootings and safety, something that is striking for children as young as them. Contrastingly, Radha and Ismail, who grew up throughout the duration of revitalization note improvements in feelings of safety. We speculate that this difference could be due to increased media attention of Regent Park throughout revitalization. As media often portrays Regent Park as blighted, this may influence Sarah and Ahmed to feel this way, as they grew up with media influence surrounding them. Despite this we note that Ismail reports that he is aware of media perceptions of Regent Park, but explains that when someone is in the Regent Park community and neighborhood you feel safe and supported. Therefore, we propose another possible reasoning for this contrast which is the relativity of their experiences. Radha and Ismail report memories of a time when they felt less safe in their own neighborhood. Radha specifically remembers not being allowed to leave her house at certain hours due to parental concerns. They see improvements, while Sarah and Ahmed see only the negative side as it is all they have ever known.
Aside from crime and safety, our interviews revealed that youths have a complicated relationship with the revitalization and the role it plays in their decision to stay in or leave Regent Park. The neighborhood you grow up in plays a role in your identity, health, education, and future employment (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011). Through interviews we could see that youth within Regent Park had an identity built around where they grew up, which in turn affected their education and what they hope to do in their futures. Our conversation with Radha was especially helpful in our investigation as she spoke on her history of volunteering with FOCUS and participating in the festivals and events within Regent Park. Although Radha did not see herself living in Regent Park permanently, she has every intention of staying connected to her neighborhood through volunteering. Similarly, Sarah told us she would love to remain in Regent Park but is unsure if she will do so since she is young. Additionally, Ismail, the oldest of our interviewees has already made the decision to stay in Regent Park past his youth and has since served as an advocate for the community he feels has defined his youth. This means that youth in Regent Park have tremendous potential in shaping and advocating for their neighborhood.
One bias in our research is that all of the residents we interviewed were involved in the Regent Park Focus Media Arts Center Community. Consistently, all those we interviewed loved the youth programs and services offered at Daniels Spectrum. It contributes to many of their desires to either remain in the neighborhood or return to the neighborhood to help in their futures. This center is largely credited for decreasing crime and school dropout rates in the neighborhood by diverting the attention of youths away from crime and providing educational tutoring services (James, 2010). The educational improvements through revitalization and the help of Daniels Spectrum in this achievement are clear through lower dropout rates, increased focus in school, and future replications in other neighborhoods of the Regent Park increased education initiatives studied in academic research, but were not clear from interviews (Acker & Rowen, 2013). Although the benefits are clear from ongoing research, we admit that our podcast only shows the perspective of people who are more likely to have benefitted from the revitalization and the impact of Daniels Spectrum than those who may not have. Furthermore, our interviewees are too young to understand the impact of revitalization services at Daniels Spectrum as many of our interviewees were young enough to reap the benefits of revitalization at the start of their schooling.
Youth reveals conflicting emotions related to Regent Park and the revitalization. While they express their appreciation for youth programming and increased safety, they also have lost a sense of place in Regent Park. Academic research highlights the fact that adults were the main source of consideration in the redevelopment, rather than youths. The most significant impact to youth public space was the replacement of walkways with through streets to connect the neighborhood with the rest of the city of Toronto. Walkways previously provided a public area for youths to interact and the introduction of through streets was opposed by many youths as a result. This change was made to decrease crime rates and connect Regent Park to the rest of the city of Toronto but was not appreciated by all youth (Laughlin & Johnson, 2011). Despite this complaint in academic work, we found interviewed youths felt an improved sense of safety with the modification and felt that lost spaces have come with adequate substitutes. Many enjoyed the new recreational spaces or mainstream cafes or restaurants to spend time with friends. However, they simultaneously feel the place they grew up in is being lost, as is consistent with academic research which confirms that residents feel effectively displaced in their own neighborhood (Bucerius et al., 2017).
When speaking with adult residents, we found their main concerns for their children and other Regent Park youth were related to employment and housing insecurity. Adult resident and mother Rabia spoke about the increased number of jobs due to revitalization but complained about the short-term nature of these jobs. Of the jobs, few are long term which decreases youth future employment opportunities within Regent Park and puts a strain on housing security. Adult resident Miguel goes on to explain that when your income changes it takes up to seven months for your rent, in a rent geared to income unit, to reflect that change. The concern of parents is that the limited number of secure jobs, alongside with the risk of changing jobs within Regent Park limits the opportunities to have a future in the neighborhood.
Further concern reflected by adult residents is the temporary nature of a rent-geared-to-income (RGI) set up. The mixed income setting is supposed to allow for residents to live in RGI units while they improve their financial status by learning from and gaining connections with market rate individuals (Rowe & Dunn, 2015). Interviewee Ismail reveals that having grown up in Regent Park he would have been considered a success story if he was ultimately able to afford to live in a market rate unit in his adult years after living in an RGI unit throughout his youth. This “success story” was not the case for Ismail and is often not the case. Instead, the residents we spoke with feel they are stuck in Regent Park due to RGI rents. Furthermore, residents interviewed in academic works, as well as the adults interviewed, feel they are being pushed out of their neighborhood by wealthier residents (Rowe & Dunn, 2015). This feeling of neglect and prioritization of market residents occurs under the cover of a mixed income initiative. This initiative has proven successful in United States neighborhoods and outside of Regent Park, but has remained largely unsuccessful in Regent Park (Rowe & Dunn, 2015). This set up concerns adults we interviewed as the temporary nature of the housing potentially does not allow for youths to remain in RGI units as they grow up. Our interviewees worry that their children and other youths of Regent Park will lack future opportunities as the mixed income system in Regent Park struggles to help them maintain secure housing and employment.
After reviewing the academic works and interview responses, the future of Regent Park youth seems fluid to say the least. However, adults express concerns about the future of youth, regardless of their decision to remain in the neighborhood. Their concerns are specifically related to stigmas about residents and neighborhood environment, as well as concerns about unequal opportunities for housing and employment within the neighborhood. Research does show that revitalization has potentially improved future outcomes for youths through programming, education improvements, and increased levels of safety but their social foundation remains influenced by their surrounding community. Advocacy and other efforts by community members to positively influence youths through leading by example and by helping to improve housing and employment precarity must persist. Despite the need for ongoing work and adult concerns, the youths we spoke with feel their community and surroundings in Regent Park have prepared them for and provided them with the opportunity to succeed in the future. The future of youths remains unknown but it is clear that youth see a promising future for themselves, thanks to Regent Park.
Here is the link to our final project: https://soundcloud.com/daniel-endale-536133614/final-radio-shack-podacst?si=d2e6d3c90d25461c9370969d043b8bb2&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
Regent Park Radio Shack: Daniel, Fatiha, Kaylee, Miguel, Murshida, Rabia
References:
Acker, C. and Rowen, N. (2013). Creating Hope, Opportunity, and Results for Disadvantaged Youth. Canadian Journal of Career Development, 12(1), 63-79.
Bucerius, S.M., Thompson, S.K. and Berardi, L. (2017). “They’re Colonizing My Neighbourhood”: (Perceptions of) Social Mix in Canada. City & Community, 16(4), 486-505.
James, R. K. (2010). From ‘Slum Clearance’ to ‘Revitalization’: Planning, Expertise and Moral Regulation in Toronto’s Regent Park. Planning Perspectives, 25(1), 69-86.
Laughlin D. L. and Johnson, L. C. (2011). Defining and Exploring Public Space: Perspectives of Young people from Regent Park. Children’s Geographies, 9(3-4), 439-456.
Rowe, D. J. and Dunn, J. R. (2015). Tenure-Mix in Toronto: Resident Attitudes and Experience in the Regent Park Community. Housing Studies,30:8, 1257-1280.
