Maybe low-income neighbourhoods would function better if cities provided them with the same amenities and maintenance as well-off areas. The best way to create an equal society would be to treat people equally. -Angela Chapin
 |
| At the official opening of South Surrey Recreation and Arts Centre |
 |
| Teen Skate in Newton cancelled in early December 2013 prior to the murder of Julie Paskall |
 |
| Open House at Surrey City Hall Spring 2014 |
 |
| Gorgeous First Nations Art at South Surrey facility |
A city is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. They, more than anyone deserve the best recreation, arts and cultural facilities that the city can offer. An aesthetically beautiful community centre and first class facilities should be available to every person who calls Surrey home. Some parts of this city enjoy state of the art facilities, others do not.
Time after time, we hear how children and lower income families benefit from having access to sports, arts, music classes & facilities that don't look like they are inner-city. It makes a difference in their lives. And it matters to everyone else too. Think of the money it costs you as a taxpayer when even one teen gets off track and ends up in the court system. Add up the costs of policing, lawyers, drug addiction treatment, housing costs, and well, it doesn't take a genius to see that investing in people is the smart way to run a city, and saves taxpayers money in the long run.
Downtown Newton needs a South Surrey type recreation and arts centre. It is stunning, and it shows that the residents for whom it was built are valued. We need to give children and youth an alternative to loitering & being out on the street where they are vulnerable to drug dealers and crime. We want to believe that the diverse group of people who call Newton home, 140,000 strong and growing, will get the same treatment. Nothing less than the best. Because if the future truly does live here, investing in our children and families now is a good way to prove it.
-Jude Hannah
 |
| It's Newton's time to shine. The future lives here. 140,000 strong and growing. |
Recommended Reading by Angela Chapin:
How Mixed-Income Neighbourhoods Can Succeed.
-by Angela Chapin
Before I even walked through the door of a Toronto apartment earlier this month, I decided not to rent it. It wasn’t a crumbling walk-up or a rotting deck that turned me off. It was the building manager. On the steps outside, the young man bragged about how he had kicked out 24 of the building’s 26 original low-income tenants. He spoke with the excitement of someone who’d just set a record for keg stands. His lack of compassion was the verbal cockroach I needed to say “no thanks.”
But his message is one more and more people want to hear: you can live surrounded by people like you.
Neighbourhoods are becoming more segregated by income. A recent Pew study found the number of mixed-income neighbourhoods in America has decreased by almost 10 per cent since 1980. In Canada, rich and poor neighbourhoods have become even more polarized because of diverging family incomes and a tendency for people to “live nearby like,” according to the Canadian Labour Market and Skills Researcher Network.
The main obstacle to social mixing is that humans are tribal. We’re also hypocrites. While I chastised the insensitive building manager, I also want my immediate neighbours to be like me. Before I moved into my last place I had the choice between a bigger apartment in a “sketchier” building or a smaller place in a building with tenants who were also in their late 20s with steady jobs. You can guess where I ended up. The human instinct to favour the familiar exists in all people. Its the job of good policy to help us overcome our tendency to discriminate.
Mixed-income housing developments have been heralded by urban planners as a solution to residential segregation. They offer market-priced and affordable housing options to attract diverse renters to one area. But while this strategy may create physical diversity, it fails to break down class stereotypes.
Mixed-income housing dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, but hasn’t successfully created mixed social circles. For the most part, these communities have reinforced the idea that people from different backgrounds can’t get along. Toronto has a handful of these neighbourhoods – most famously the new iteration of Regent Park, Canada’s oldest and largest social housing project. Ottawa has a few smaller ones as well, such as the Beaver Barracks community housing project and Somerset Gardens in Centretown, but more will be built. The Ottawa Community Housing Corporation is keen to partner with private companies to put some of the 10,000 people on a waiting list for social housing into mixed-income communities.
The idea is that if higher-income residents move into poor neighbourhoods, they will improve the area. In theory, the more affluent will attract better schools and businesses to the community. They won’t stand for burnt-out street lights and will advocate for amenities like playgrounds. In reality, most low- and high-income residents don’t interact enough to create any of these benefits.
A study from Case Western Reserve University found that 60 per cent of residents in a mixed-income development experienced an “us vs. them” dynamic.
The biggest schism existed between renters and owners; 43 per cent of mixed-income residents said these groups did not blend well.
Though they all want community, residents from different backgrounds expect the worst of one another. Mark Joseph, a professor at Case Western, says this self-fulfilling prophecy turns little frictions into big tensions.
Rather than being allies in creating a better neighbourhood, residents from different income backgrounds work against one another. “Often enough the efforts of some of the more politically active higher-income people are directly antagonistic towards lower income neighbours,” says Martine August, a PhD grad from the University of Toronto’s planning department. “Instead of getting together and saying let’s get a ball court for these kids, they say let’s get this homeless shelter out of our neighbourhood.”
The biggest problem is that property managers have not focused on social integration. The buildings look nice, but there are not enough community activities or groups dedicated to breaking down barriers. Residents move in with preconceived notions about the other tenants that fester once they become neighbours.
For August, the success of mixed-income neighbourhoods depends on the urban planning approach. Don’t send affluent people to low-income communities as saviours. Aside from being thinly-veiled gentrification, the idea condescends to the poor residents. “We shouldn’t wait until middle class people value neighbourhoods to invest in them,” she says. Maybe low-income neighbourhoods would function better if cities provided them with the same amenities and maintenance as well-off areas. The best way to create an equal society would be to treat people equally.
Mixed-income communities are welcome alternatives to segregated areas of haves and have-nots. But planners can’t expect that social interactions will grow like rooftop gardens. Residents will unpack old stereotypes into their new apartments. Discrimination towards people from different backgrounds can grow with proximity. The strongest foundation for mixed-income buildings is built on connecting social classes, not just making them neighbours.
Surrey, time to do the right thing and put people first. It's the only way to move this city in the direction it needs to go. It's all about people. That's what a city is. People.
