Today, a large majority of the affordable housing we see in Ottawa is owned and operated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCH), an organization that operates at arm’s length of the city government, but whose sole shareholder is the City of Ottawa. The housing stock in their portfolio was largely constructed in the 1970s, and they constantly struggle to keep up with basic repairs and maintenance.
The construction of public housing in Canada began following WWII, as a temporary fix to the general housing shortages not uncommon to many cities around the world in this post-war time. For many, the erecting of towers symbolized an urban reform and the triumph of the new modern city, following in the path of the modern planning pioneers who revered ‘the tower in the park’. The building of public housing in Canada all but halted in the late 1970s, however, as it was generally accepted at this point across North America that public housing had failed. This was most notable in the United States, where the world watched the demolition of the Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis, less than 20 years after it was constructed, and due to incredibly rapid social decay. Why this form of housing failed is another story, but it is safe to say that most criticism at the time fell into three categories: form/design, demographic and management.
The question to be asked is, therefore, where does this leave us in Ottawa with the housing stock we have at our disposal? Demolition is not an option, as the number of affordable housing units is dwindling, and the housing that exists is in major need of life-cycle reinvestment. Ultimately, the OCH has a limited mandate when it comes to building or acquiring more stock, not to mention limited funds.
Many Canadian cities with these same concerns are now seeking redevelopment opportunities in cooperation with the private sector. Inexpensive land and other financial incentives can be offered by the government in exchange for private developers to provide new affordable units in housing developments with mixed income tenancy, more appropriate unit types (town houses for families rather than apartments for example), and higher urban density in general in city centers.
Of course, it is only a small percentage of the total newly constructed units that are affordable, as this is necessary for the private builders to remain profitable. The private management of the units eases the cost and responsibility of the municipality, and maintenance falls under existing city infrastructure. This system comes with a price though, as most of the land the government can offer is already occupied by public housing. New construction means demolition; and thus residents become displaced and communities become scattered. Well executed phasing is vital for the dignity and convenience of existing tenants.
Redevelopment in conjunction with the private sector is only one possible solution to the woes of public/affordable housing providers in Canada, however. And while it is not a perfect solution, it may still be one for the City of Ottawa to consider. In order for this to happen, the mandate of OCH needs to be readdressed, in order for us to move forward with both a higher quantity and quality of affordable housing, and the experience and knowledge of both parties will ensure responsible economic, social, and environmental building practice and design.
This would be an opportunity for mutually beneficial redevelopment, and this would, in turn, benefit tenants and citizens alike, as we strive to build a better city.
Story and image: Claire Cowling
**Editor’s Note: the Pruitt Igoe is located in St. Louis, not Chicago as previously published.
3 comments
Hi Claire,
Your article doesn’t address what replaced public housing in the 1970s: community-based non-profits and coops. Most of these are private non-profit corporations set up by community associations, faith groups and service clubs to create mixed-income affordable housing that rejected many of the problems with “form/design, demographic and management” that you mention.
This has actually proven to be a very viable model to address housing affordability, and a very effective way to provide good quality housing that has a positive impact on the neighbourhood.
The City of Ottawa itself built under these same programs when it operated City Living, a predecessor to Ottawa Community Housing. The provincial government downloaded public housing stock to the City 15 years ago; the mixed-income, well-scaled City Living housing was thrown together with the old public housing stock (complete with all the inherent problems of form/design). The new amalgamated corporation has done a good job with the hand they were dealt, but it was not a winning hand.
But before making the conclusion that it’s a choice between public housing vs private housing, or that the private sector offers the only hope for solving the problems, consider that there is a “third way”: private non-profit housing. I’m biased, because I work there, but I’ll offer CCOC (ccochousing.org) as a great example.
Hi Ray,
Thank you so much for your comment. You are absolutely right of course. This form of housing generally falls under the “social”, rather than “public” sector of housing providers and is indeed quite successful, as it dodges most of the worrisome factors associated with public housing (form/design, demographic and management). I do state that the public/private intervention is only one possible solution, so I am by no means counting out non-profits such as CCOC, but in Ottawa their housing portfolio is only about 1/10th that of OCH and is still by far the largest non-profit in operation. There is a big difference in scale between the two and while non-profit housing is a valuable asset, it does not seem capable at this time to take the whole brunt of the affordable housing shortage on its own. In fact, non-profit organizations seem to run in a similar way to what I am proposing above. In any given “complex” (beaver barracks for example), a percentage of units are rented at market rates to ensure financial success. If I am not mistaken, not all of CCOC’s housing is affordable. It does, of course, remain an integral part of Ottawa’s affordable housing.
The above article is a small portion of a much larger piece. I do address these issues in greater detail in the larger article if you would like to read it (in fact, I believe we may have had a meeting together in October 2012 as part of my research).
Claire: I work with Ray at CCOC. We would be interested in reading your longer paper that you mention in your comment if you are able to share it.