In the last few weeks, over a third of the mature neighbourhood community leagues had representatives meet with the Community Sustainability Task Force to explain the challenges facing their neighbourhoods and to suggest solutions.     Community leaders met with the Task Force at the May 10^th Workshop organized by EFCL, and at special meetings of the Central Area Council (District I) and District F. A follow-up meeting is being organized by EFCL for July 13^th.   MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

 

The Task Force, comprised of representatives from the School Boards, the City, the Province and citizens at large, will use the input from community leagues to help develop recommendations aimed at increasing the vitality of mature neighbourhoods – those built before 1972. 

 

Community leaders at the May 10^th Workshop identified five major areas of concern for mature neighbourhoods: demographic changes and imbalances, housing, public safety, schools and lack of long term collaborative planning.    These concerns and many of the same solutions were echoed in the District meetings. 

 

Through time, mature neighbourhoods have experienced a shift in demographics, and for many neighbourhoods there is an imbalance in age and income distributions. All mature neighbourhoods have experienced a loss in the number of children in their neighbourhoods. This is partly due to the natural aging of the community and the original homeowners, but the loss of children is also due to the inability of neighbourhoods to attract more young families.     In some cases the neighbourhoods have a reputation of being unsafe. In other instances the housing is too expensive for young families, or not as attractive as a new home in the suburbs, or perhaps not family friendly.   

 

Affordable, attractive family housing was seen by community leaders as key to attracting more families with school age children.    Apartment blocks, with their current design and adult only rules, tend not to attract families.   People recommended allowing the subdivision of large single family lots, more row housing, reducing the space for autos, and providing grants for renovations, particularly grants aimed at reducing utility costs.   People recommended better marketing of, and tax incentives for, ‘central living’.  

 

Many neighbourhoods have a significant population of seniors. People want seniors to remain in their neighbourhoods , and to stay involved in the local community.      They recommended community programs and housing which provided opportunity for intergenerational interactions. New housing models for seniors need to be explored – for instance, intergenerational co-housing.  

 

Some neighbourhoods, particularly central neighbourhoods, have an over-concentration of poverty, along with a predominance of rental accommodations, one person households, non-market housing, short-term residency and high crime rates.      One step in the right direction is to disperse social services and non-market housing throughout the city rather than creating ghettos.   Non-market and affordable market housing should be small in scale, spread-out, and indistinguishable from other housing.    Alternatively, fund people not developers when providing housing supports.    In addition, develop a poverty reduction model which will also sustain communities. Look at policy developments which will provide working people with a living wage, and people on fixed incomes with enough financial support to afford housing and food. 

 

The distressed neighbourhoods are looking for a comprehensive redevelopment plan which will make their neighbourhood a community of choice, a place for residents to stay, rather than leave as soon as they have the economic means.    The transformation of neighbourhoods will require a commitment from all levels of government to develop a comprehensive long term plan with community people, stick to the plan, and re-invest in the neighbourhoods.

 

Some community leaders recommended that neighbourhood demographics and other quality of life indicators be monitored for all neighbourhoods so that the ‘tipping point’ for neighbourhoods can be identified and addressed before neighbourhoods become distressed. 

 

Public safety is a primary concern of distressed neighbourhoods, and it is of some concern to all neighbourhoods.   Solutions suggested were to increase public use of public spaces, keep the alleys and properties well-maintained, and implement crime prevention through environmental design measures.     Traffic safety could be increased by reducing speed limits and creating bike lanes. 

 

The need to revitalize neighbourhood commercial areas was mentioned, especially the need to get more grocery stores back into the neighbourhoods.   Restrictive covenants and restrictive zoning were seen as issues to be addressed. 

 

Strategies to encourage the development of vacant lots for commercial or residential uses were also mentioned. These included grants for cleaning up and developing contaminated brownfield sites, increasing property taxes on vacant lots, and placing a time limit for development on lots with special Direct Control zones. 

 

The closing of schools was considered by some as “a death knell for the community. Families leave, new families stay away, and the neighbourhood is branded as being an undesirable place to live.”     To prevent school closures, people were recommending the Province and School Boards start reinvesting in older schools. The extra space not used for instructional purposes could be used to develop the schools as community hubs, with programs such as early education programs, child care, health services, social services, senior centres and community programs.     Another suggestion to make small central neighbourhood schools more viable was to have central neighbourhood schools develop specialty programs for the local children and attract students outside the area.  Others suggested was to have the local residents and businesses get involved in marketing their local school. 

 

It was highly recommended that the Province, City and School Boards and local communities do collaborative long term planning, so that redevelopments and reinvestments in the community support existing schools, and vice versa.    Many believed that closed schools should remain in the public domain, with the long term plan to re-open a school on the site when the need arises as the population grows.   In the meantime, community leagues, the city and school boards need to work together to make the best use of the space to revitalize neighbourhoods. 

 

 Models for collaborative cross-jurisdictional planning need to be examined, not only between various levels of government, but also with local communities.   Most importantly it was felt that local communities should be ‘front and centre’.   “The success of communities depends on the engagement of communities in the revitalization process. Planning for communities creates resistance; planning with communities creates energy and strength.”  

 

The first round of discussions with community leagues provided a focus for further research and development of recommendations. A second EFCL organized gathering will be held July 13^th to zero in on specific recommendations. Location to be announced. 

 

In the meantime, if you would like to share your research and ideas, or would like to work on the development of recommendations with others, contact Bev.Zubot@efcl.org.    You could also contact the Task Force directly. Visit http://www.CommunitySustainability.ca for more information.