Citizen decision-making in socially sensitive housing processes: a case study of Kitchener Canada.

Abstract

Based on a concept of socially sensitive housing strategies, three models for provision of affordable housing in Kitchener are examined for their potential to act as catalysts for participation by marginalized members of society. Decision-making patterns throughout the building process (planning, construction and management) are analyzed. The study concludes with four principles for socially sensitive housing strategies: multiplicity of approaches to decision-making, promoting desirable natural-physical relationships, valuing citizen participation, and promoting innovative economic relationships.

Keywords: social housing, urban core areas, affordable housing, citizen participation, mid-size cities, participatory research

Resume

Cet article, base sur le concept de strategie d'habitation social, examine trois modeles de logement a prix modique a Kitchener en fonction de leur potentiel vis-a-vis la participation des gens en marge de la societe. L'article examine egalement es modeles de prise de decision concernant le processus de construction, soit la planification, la construction et la gestion. L'etude conclut en suggerant quatre principes pour les stratdgies de logement social. Il s'agit de la multiplicite d'approche pour le processus de prise de decision, promouvoir des relations environnementales (nature-physique) desirable, promouvoir la participation des citoyens et des relations economiques innovatrices.

Mots cles: logement a prix modique, quartier centraux, participation des citoyens, ville de taille moyenne, recherche collaborative

Introduction

Low vacancy rates, aging housing stock, derelict houses, absentee landlords, transient populations and over concentration of low-income tenants are common in downtown and inner-city neighborhoods in Canada. Trends today in almost all Canadian cities indicate that income inequality is growing and that the total percentage of people living in poverty is also increasing. Social polarization is a reality in Canadian cities. (Canadian Council on Social Development 2003, Quader et al. 2003, Burone 2002).

In this context, lack of adequate, affordable and safe housing is also an escalating problem, especially since the Canadian government ceased direct provision of social housing in 1995 (1). In contrast to developing countries and traditional societies where house building continues to be a self-managed and often a self-build activity, in Canada the 'act of building' has been institutionalized and is delivered either by government bodies or by the private sector.

Illich (1972) suggests that the legal protection and the financial support of the (construction) industry reduces and cancels opportunities for the otherwise much more efficient self-builder of affordable housing. Turner, a housing theorist whose work addresses both developing countries and more developed nations, concludes that local control over housing is essential and depends on personal and local access to resources, which must be guaranteed by central governments (Turner 1991). Colin Ward concurs: "Even when governments make no such guarantee, it is clear that the poor in some (though by no means all) of the exploding cities of the Third World often have a freedom to maneuver which has been totally lost by the poor of the decaying cities of the rich world, who are deprived of the last shred of personal autonomy and human dignity, because they have nothing they can depend on apart from the machinery of welfare"(Ward 1976, p.6). These housing theorists agree on the importance and complementarities of three kinds of social and political energy in facilitating housing processes: state powers, market forces and "people power' manifested through local community initiatives.

This article focuses on the potential of 'people power', while taking into account the importance of state and market powers in creating successful housing initiatives. Our study examined processes for affordable housing in inner-city neighborhoods around the downtown core in the urban, mid-sized Canadian city of Kitchener. Our major research interest has been in analyzing if and how housing processes can create enabling environments so that economically disadvantaged and marginalized members of society can be effectively involved in the political mechanisms that underpin housing and urban renewal issues.

Below, we review our research process, discuss models of socially sensitive housing derived from the Kitchener case study, and analyse citizen involvement in the decision-making processes associated with each. We conclude with a discussion of four guiding principles for generation of socially sensitive housing.

For this study, we have defined socially sensitive housing as a group of alternative delivery mechanisms that have been constituted in order to address the housing needs of people not well served by more conventional approaches. We have identified three models of socially sensitive housing currently in use in Kitchener:

a) Assisted housing, including partnerships for capital funding as well as other regional government interventions and various state-assisted cooperative models for affordable housing;

b) Alternate tenures that focus on creative financing mechanisms;

c) Mixed-uses that promote skills and capacities, identified by our research partner, the Working Centre, as 'community tools'--human and material resources necessary for creating viable communities in the downtown core (Illich 1972, Illich 1981).

Despite their diversity and individual unique characteristics, socially sensitive housing models share some key characteristics:

* Maximizing the use-value of buildings and the downtown for future dwellers by creating assets for the community at large as well as catering to individual and household needs,

* Recycling finances in the local economy by building local skills and community capacities, and promoting mixed uses or clusters of livelihood networks that serve multiple functions,

* Most critically, maximizing the decision-making role of the user in different aspects of the housing process so that more of the resource inputs are converted into benefits for the dweller.

The Research Process

Research for this study took place over a 15-month period in 2001-2002, and was carried out in partnership with The Working Centre, a voluntary sector organization working in downtown Kitchener. Initially, discussions with the staff at the Working Centre and with patrons at the associated St John's Kitchen helped the researchers to become acquainted with issues in housing pertinent to downtown Kitchener and, more specifically, with the concerns of the disadvantaged groups that are typically left out in the course of municipal planning process for housing. This core of primary data was enriched through interviews and discussions with regional and municipal planners and with representatives of local organizations that have an interest in affordable housing, including the Kitchener Downtown Community Health Centre, Kitchener Housing Inc., and the Kitchener Social Planning Council.

Notable contributions to the research were made by a group started by people who are or have previously been homeless or at risk with respect to housing. This informal group calls itself Kitchener Downtown Dreams. The group came together initially to discuss the City of Kitchener's revitalization plan and includes people from low and middle-income families, people receiving social assistance and other people living, volunteering or working in Kitchener's downtown or in the inner-city neighborhoods. Concepts that emerged from the Kitchener Downtown Dreams meetings were compiled in a report and presented to representatives from the City of Kitchener, as an alternative proposal for downtown revitalization. The presentation took place during a formal dialogue organized in conjunction with this study. The dialogue was facilitated by the Civics Research Group associated with the University of Waterloo's Community University Research Alliance. In addition to members of Kitchener Downtown Dreams and the Civics Research Group, those invited included representatives from the Region of Waterloo Departments of Planning, Housing and Community Services, the City of Kitchener's Economic Development Division, Kitchener Housing Inc., the University of Waterloo, the Downtown Community Health Centre, The House of Friendship, The Working Centre and some citizens involved in social housing initiatives in Kitchener-Waterloo. One important action research component of this study involved working with group members on development of the Downtown Dreams group, facilitation of meetings and workshops, production of the report and organizing the dialogue.

The primary research has been based mostly on participant observation, informal interviews and facilitated meetings and workshops carried out as a modified form of participatory action research (Stringer 1996; Reason 1994). The fieldwork involved extensive interactions with people directly affected by the City of Kitchener's Downtown Revitalization initiatives and the Region of Waterloo's Affordable Housing programs. Interactive methods and participatory techniques of gathering information included one-on-one structured and semi-structured interviews with key informants, small group discussions and workshops, recording of oral history and mapping and design exercises.

The research also drew significantly on secondary sources including Statistics Canada's census data on local demographics, City of Kitchener reports, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) research studies, and research carried out by the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo under the Community-University-Research-Alliance (CURA) initiative.

Conceptual Framework 

This study was inspired at the outset by the philosophy and empirical experience of Kitchener's Working Centre (www.theworkingcentre.org), and is conceptually grounded in theory developed by Turner, Habraken and Hamdi (Turner 1972, 1976, 1991, Habraken 1972, Hamdi 1991, Hamdi and Goehert 1997) on housing; by Jacobs and Vanderberg (Jacobs 1961, 1970, 2002, Vanderberg 2000) on the mechanisms of cities; and by the work of the Institute for Development Studies on sustainable livelihoods (Chambers and Conway 1992, Leach et al. 1997, Scoones 1998). We take a systems perspective, viewing housing as one aspect of the built environment, which in turn is nested within a much larger socio-ecological context. Housing processes are in continuous interaction with other aspects of the social and natural environment and are constantly being transformed by those interactions (Turner 1976). Housing outcomes are a result of a reciprocating complex relationship between natural, social and economic processes in urban environment (Habraken 1972).

Analysis of how 'entitlements' shape the dynamics of distribution of resources has been discussed in the context of food-scarcity by Sen (Gore 1993, Sen 1988), and with regards to livelihoods by the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex (Leach et al. 1997). Entitlements refer to the ways in which institutional arrangements mediate and regulate people's relationships with resources. Our research has been informed by an understanding of housing problems in terms of access to and control over needed resources. In the Kitchener case, our analysis of entitlement provisions and issues has proved to be particularly useful in extending our understanding of the capacity of people in need to gain access to adequate housing, and of the problems that arise when people lose access to adequate housing.

A systems perspective on housing, and our related analysis of entitlements suggests that people facing problems associated with lack of affordable housing in the City of Kitchener today are experiencing a reality that is no different than it has been at least since the early 1990s--although there are houses available for rent, they are not within the financial reach of people who need them the most. Both our conceptual framework and the currently lived experiences of the people who have been our research partners suggest that the underlying issue related to lack of adequate housing is first and foremost one of a mismatch between people's needs and the structural conditions and opportunities inherent in their living situations. A second related issue is the inability of disadvantaged people to gain access to, and command over decisions about their housing situation. Housing problems, then, are best understood in terms of lack of access to adequate housing, not just as a simple shortage in housing supply. Thus, Hamdi and Turner (Hamdi 1991, Hamdi and Goethert 1997, Turner 1991) point out that the critical issue is not one of the absolute non-availability of resources but of their distribution.

Housing in the Urban Core Area of Kitchener

The City of Kitchener is located within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, which also includes the Cities of Waterloo and Cambridge, and the Townships of Wellesley and North Dumfries. Kitchener, with a population contribution of 48%, is undoubtedly a key player in the Region. The population of Kitchener in 2001 was 190,399, spread over a geographical area of 135 sq.km. (33,350 acres) (City of Kitchener 2005). Downtown Kitchener and the inner city neighborhoods constitute less than 10% of the total geographical area of the city of Kitchener, but house nearly 17% of its total population. This makes for an inner city density of about 11 people per hectare (or about 2500 persons per sq.km.) in contrast to the overall city density which is 5.3 persons per hectare (2).

For most people in Kitchener who live on limited incomes, ownership is not an option. Because of a serious shortfall in rental housing, families are known to spend 55-60% of their income on rent alone (Menno Homes Inc 2002). The rental apartment vacancy rate for the Kitchener Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) is reported to be 0.9% (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation 2001).

There are a total of 7,967 designated social housing units administered by the Region of Waterloo of which 70% are located in the City of Kitchener. These are managed by non-profits (2,064 units), cooperatives (722) and the Ontario Housing Corporation (2,748). The Regional Municipality of Waterloo directly administers 32% of all the social housing in the region. Private, federal and municipal non-profits administer about 51% (18+13+20). The remainder is cooperatives (11%) and Rent Supplement Units (6%). No new social housing units have been built in the Region since 1995 (Welch 2001). About 3,900 households are listed on the waiting list for the government social housing (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1996; Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002). Many of these are presently housed under various private rental arrangements with small landlords. Boarding and lodging houses and basement apartments cater to many tenants within the City of Kitchener who would qualify for social housing, but cannot be accommodated due to non-availability of rent-geared-to-income housing.

Kitchener Housing Inc. (KHI), the City of Kitchener's Non-profit Housing Corporation, is by far the single largest non-profit housing provider within Kitchener (after the Ontario Housing Corporation) and manages 25% of the total social housing stock (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1996), with a portfolio of 17 sites including 518 units for singles, seniors and families. Twentytwo per cent of tenants are subsidized through rent-geared-to-income programs (Kitchener Housing Inc. 2002). KHI serves as the vehicle for the implementation of municipal housing policy and is governed by the municipal plan, the downtown revitalization strategy and other policies approved by the Kitchener City Council.

There are also some cooperative housing units (co-ops) in Kitchener. Two sub categories exist, rental and equity (Sherlowski 2000). In Kitchener co-ops are rental and are divided into Federal and Municipal co-ops based on the original source of funding. There are presently 8 Federal co-ops and 4 municipal co-ops in Kitchener (COCHF 2001). The Asgard Green Co-op homes and Bread and Roses are located in the downtown neighborhoods of Kitchener. Bread and Roses in particular, is a good example of affordable housing created through renovation and addition to an old building.

With the downloading of the housing portfolio to the regions in the province of Ontario, the ability of the Region of Waterloo to access federal government financial assistance is critical for the supply of affordable housing. The Region of Waterloo established a Social Housing Reserve Fund in 2000 in order to maintain existing housing stock and to add to the supply of housing units in the Region. It is expected that the money invested by the Region of Waterloo for affordable housing ($2,920,000 in 2002, $2,650,000 in 2003) will be augmented by the federal and potential provincial funding of $489 million over the next five years in Ontario as set out in the Affordable Housing Agreement of May 30, 2002. (Region of Waterloo 2002, CMHC 2001, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario 2002). A range of affordable housing projects is currently in various stages of completion in Kitchener, catalyzed by local fund raising and the Regions capital-funding program. These projects include:

a) Renovation projects (Heartwood Place and other Habitat for Humanities projects),

b) Municipal non-profit projects (Kitchener Housing Inc),

c) New constructions including:

* Region's affordable housing grant (Menno Homes, Victoria Community Homes, The Working Centre)

* Habitat for Humanities project

* Socially oriented projects by private developers (Options for Home for low and middle income families, Sandhills for seniors and mature adults).

Socially Sensitive Housing in Kitchener

Within both rental and ownership categories are a cluster of housing strategies that we have identified as socially sensitive housing. Three socially sensitive housing models were identified through our Kitchener case study and have been analyzed in order to understand the intricacies of the strategies, critical factors for success and the differentiated roles and decision-making patterns of state powers, market forces and people power. These three models are: Assisted Housing, Alternate Tenure and Mixed-use Community Tools. Each of the models has its own design, construction and management considerations and is shaped by a different set of economic considerations. Our main focus was on patterns of inclusion in decision-making characteristic of each of the models.

Assisted Housing

Assisted Housing includes Region of Waterloo's programs of assistance to housing providers for affordable housing. The Region of Waterloo's capital funding program includes new construction as well as renovation projects. These partnerships are an outcome of the Regions "Affordable Housing Partnerships Initiatives"--an allocation of $5 million in funding for a total of 400 units, which receive a capital grant and a grant in lieu of development charges (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002). The first allocation of funds for the Affordable Housing Partnerships was committed to 185 units spread between six agencies: Kitchener Housing Inc. (KHI), Heartwood Place, Menno Homes, Victoria Community Homes, Beechwood Cooperative, and The Working Centre, in Kitchener and the Kiwanis Club in the neighbouring City of Cambridge. The subsidy provides seed grants of up to $15,000 per unit (with an additional $25,000 likely, from the federal allocations). This money functions as an equity contribution for non-profits, enabling them to qualify for additional financing through traditional lending routes. The remaining financial requirements, amounting to 60-80% of the total capital costs, has to be arranged by the housing delivery agency through creative partnerships and bank loans. If the equity contribution is less than 15%, the agency has to incur additional costs in procuring mortgage insurance.

Each of the agencies involved in construction of Assisted Housing has developed its own mix of individual creative partnerships for raising capital. This is critical since the Regional government offers no operating finances and units must be self-sustaining. The only way to be self-financing and keep within the affordable rent regime is to reduce the amount borrowed (there are no preferential interest rates for affordable housing), so that rents can pay for the mortgage and other operating costs (3).

Rents for the new units are still unaffordable for many potential inhabitants, especially those on social assistance (4). Affordable rents fixed by the Region are above the shelter allowance that is part of social assistance payments. The only way that these homes can be rented to people on assistance is through rent subsidies, which directly pay the landlord the difference between the rent and the shelter allowance, provided the tenant is on the Region's Coordinated Access Waiting List. Rent subsidies under the provincial rent supplement program have a horizon of five years only. The Region is recommending an extension to a minimum of 10 years in order to facilitate supply of rental accommodations for those who cannot afford market rents.

Analysis of Decision-making Processes in the Assisted Housing Strategies

Assisted Housing being funded through the Region of Waterloo's program presently includes three sub-categories (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002):

* Partnerships for capital funding, currently the dominant strategy,

* Co-op, used in the past by the government as an alternative supply strategy,

* Regional intervention strategies including rent-supplements.

Our focus was on Partnerships, because of their current prominence. Examples of creative partnerships were selected for more detailed study, with particular emphasis on the Kitchener Housing Inc.'s approach to the Cedar Hill Project. The financing agency holding the mortgage controls most of the decisions, as it carries maximum risk. Potential tenants appear as wait-listed numbers on the Coordinated Access List and have no mechanisms for input into decisions concerning the design or management of the project.

The 'Partnership' approach to Assisted Housing is an adapted private sector model of delivery of housing. It is the currently preferred route for the municipality since it is seen to be a tested model with least risks in terms of timely delivery and costs. Unfortunately, it excludes any possibility of significant user involvement, except through tenant associations, which can only be created after projects are built and occupied.

Assisted Housing's Partnership strategies are geared towards raising necessary finances. Although money from Regional capital funding assists non-profits in raising equity, this is a very small portion of the total funding requirement. Figure 1 is a matrix (based on Turner 1972) that indicates how decision-making takes place in most of these projects. The housing process has been broken into three main stages: plan, construct and manage. The actors involved include: the public sector, governments in a regulatory role; the private sector, contractors and financiers in the suppliers role; Non-profits, the developers of social/affordable housing in the mediator or facilitator's role between the users and the private and public sectors; and residents as the actual users of housing. The relative role of each actor in different stages of the housing process is determined by the size of the circle in Figure 1, bigger circles indicating bigger roles.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The KHI project was compared with two other partnerships: Heartwood Place, with 30 apartments at the renovated Duthler factory; and the Menno Homes Project, a 24 town home project, yet to begin, that also emerged out of the Regional Affordable Housing Program. The interaction matrix in Figure 1 demonstrates that, although the non-profit housing provider acts as a developer, the capital funds that flow down to non-profits return to the private sector. This is currently the only construction route adopted by most projects. Most of the money spent on building materials, labor and professional costs may find its way into the local economy. In addition, renovation projects like Heartwood Place may not only recycle building materials, but also can use sweat-hours, or voluntary contribution of labor (and other local skills) during the demolition phase. Heartwood Place resulted in money being invested to rejuvenate a derelict building in the downtown core, provided much needed housing, and has made direct contributions to the local economy.

It follows from our analysis that the Region's role should be as regulator and facilitator of a larger presence by future users in decisions governing projects. Our review of recent literature in this area supports this view (McAllister 2004). Using housing as a means of developing community, i.e., encouraging investment in shared spaces, is one way to ensure that maximum benefits accrue to users. Some positive steps already being taken by the Region in its role as a regulator, include: waiving regional development charges in core areas of cities through an amendment to reduce property taxes for multi-residential development to below existing rates for 35 years; lobbying for the Capital Facilities by-law which "allows the municipalities to define public interest in ways not considered bonusing" and which, if enacted, could encourage a variety of affordable housing; providing tools to catalyze housing locally, including provision of seed money to establish a rent bank and an eviction prevention program, maintaining a database on programs and assistance for affordable housing, and securing a rebate on Provincial Sales Tax for the construction of rental housing; addressing issues of student housing, and homelessness through a separate program (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002). These steps could be further strengthened by encouraging more projects like Heartwood Place, enabling resources to flow to users and allowing money to re-circulate within the local economy. The role of the government as a facilitator for seed capital is also essential, but the role of government as a regulator needs to be seen as at least as important, and reinforced and strengthened.

Alternate Tenure

Alternate tenures focus on creative financing mechanisms. In order to supplement experience and in response to interest in this model among our research partners in Kitchener, we reviewed alternative tenure arrangements in communities across Canada. We found that the primary motivation has been to access finances for housing but that this economic need has also become a catalyst for strengthening social relationships (Kraus et al. 1999).

Two local examples of alternate tenure are the life lease/right-to-occupy arrangement of the Sandhills Christian Community, and the sweat equity model of Habitat for Humanity. Because of strong local interest in alternative financing models, we also examined rent-to-own models practiced by Quint Saskatoon and the second mortgage model of Options for Homes, Toronto.

The Sandhills model is geared towards seniors wanting to move to smaller apartments from homes. In most cases, they have adequate equity based on ownership of current housing. Some of the other arrangements practiced in Canada include equity co-ops, leaseholds, shared-equity, and co-housing, which can include features from different tenure arrangements (Kraus, Deborah, et.al. 1999). While some of these models have a philosophical basis and are in some form, intentional communities, many of them also make it possible for people to have affordable homes. Some models have a proven track record of success in Kitchener--for example, Habitat for Humanity's 'Sweat Equity model'. Others, like the 'Options for Homes' model have been proven in Toronto and are being discussed as part of future planning for Kitchener (5). These alternative tenure strategies are suited to a broad segment of society, including the working poor (Habitat for Humanity), low-middle income families and people on welfare (Options for Homes) (Etherington 2002a).

The Sandhills development has now been completed in Kitchener and caters to a particular niche market of mature adults (Greene 1999). The importance of the project for our purposes is in its Life-Lease, Right-to-Occupy concept, and a tenure arrangement in which the land is owned by the sponsoring agency, while the residents own the units. Sandhills Christian Community was formed by the Benton Street Baptist Church and the St Paul Lutheran Church in Kitchener, facilitated by Community Management Services. Residents sign a lease allowing them the right to occupy the residence as long as they live. The lease also gives them the right to equity at the end of their occupancy.

Functioning somewhat like a rent-to-own model, homeowners in the Quint model are members of a co-op for an initial five years, after which they can choose to become owners or to continue as tenants. The Quint Saskatoon Project renovates old buildings, with homeowners undertaking some of their own renovations. This model qualifies as a useful example of how housing processes can be used to revitalize neighborhoods and involve the user throughout the building process.

Options For Homes Non-Profit Corporation has successfully built over 1000 condominium suites and about 90 townhouses in downtown Toronto (http:/ /www.icomm.ca/options/previous_projects.htm) and is exploring possibilities in Kitchener (Etherington 2001, Pender 2002). In the Options for Homes model, potential homeowners form a co-op, facilitated by Options for Homes Nonprofit Corporation. The co-op appoints Options for Homes as developer. Procurement of land is facilitated through a negotiated take-back mortgage. This kind of arrangement eases the capital-funding requirement needed for the project without necessitating direct subsidies.

The Quint Development Corporation's model in Saskatoon is unique among the alternate tenure arrangements we surveyed. The model includes people on social assistance, ensuring that their shelter allowances are staying in the community and building equity for recipients. Quint Saskatoon receives assistance from the Saskatchewan government in the form of a 25% forgivable loan. Another 5% is facilitated through a homeownership program, and the remaining 70% is paid back by homeowners at an average rate of $413 per month (if the user of the house decides to go into homeownership, otherwise they can continue to pay rent, as co-op members) (Mawby 2001). Habitat for Humanity projects work much like a rent-to-own concept and incorporate self-building. Homeowners pay for their mortgages, held by Habitat on an interest free basis, on a monthly basis at a rate fixed at 25% of their household income. The Habitat for Humanity model uses volunteer hours and sweat equity, with the homeowner assisting with building (Habitat for Humanity 2000, 2001). Both the Canada-wide Habitat for Humanity and Saskatoon's Quint offer homeowners from low-income families opportunities for affordable home ownership.

Analysis Of Decision Making-processes In The Alternate Tenure Strategies

In the case of Sandhills project, the church sponsors are 'quasi users', since they are developing homes for their congregation members. In this case, the project has been integrated with the existing parsonage of St Paul's Lutheran Church. As part of the Life-lease/Right to Occupy agreement, the sponsors and current residents have a say in the selection of new residents, and help plan and maintain a lifestyle shared by like-minded neighbors. (Sandhills Christian Community 2000) The sponsors are, in effect, part of the user group. The churches initiated this project for congregation members but it has attracted people from beyond the congregations also. Although there was involvement of the users in the project in the beginning stages, it was mainly as individual investors. The community began to take shape only after people started to move in. The construction stage had many actors, including the private sector, government, community agencies and some residents, but most of them were not involved beyond the completion of the building.

Figure 2 is a representation of the decision-making patterns in the Sandhills project. Decision-making in the Sandhills project is non-hierarchical but a lot of control over decisions is vested in the financing authority, the credit union. The role of the St. Willibrord Credit Union in the community was summarized by an employee in these words: "We like to offer full financial services, we also have a community investment fund and we regularly donate for causes within the community. We deal with individuals unlike corporations that are faceless. We need to make connections with individuals."

Figure 3 compares the decision-making patterns from Quint Saskatoon and Options for Homes. It is obvious that the emphasis in both cases is on enabling the users.

Both Quint Saskatoon and Options for Homes are nonprofits. The nonprofit sector complements private sector delivery of housing, enabling local level action and decision-making. This alternative prevents monopoly by the private sector and ensures that resources are converted into outcomes that are not merely commodities but that also build community assets (6).

Mixed-use /Community Tools

The Working Centre is a volunteer-inspired venture in downtown Kitchener with the mandate to give individuals and groups access to 'tools' and to provide opportunities to become actively involved in the building of community. These community tools are projects that assist people to live full and productive lives on limited incomes (Mancini 2001).

Mixed-Use/Community Tools, as promoted by The Working Centre is a concept that redefines commercial-residential use characteristics in ways relevant to the changing nature of today's work environment. While affordable housing is the focus, it is effectively combined with community development initiatives such as access to work and urban agriculture. The assets created by the housing project are not restricted to individual home-owners or tenants living in the affordable housing in the top floor of the building but are shared with the larger community which uses the workshop space on the second floor and the community trading spaces and meeting rooms on the ground floor.

The Working Centre has renovated two buildings in Kitchener's downtown core and is in the process of renovating a third building. These buildings embrace a diversity of housing types including transitional housing for men and family housing while also including activities such as recycling of bicycles, a food-box program, community garden projects, recycling of computers, paper-making, barter brokerage, and a front window for sale and display of local products. One building is also used for community events such as poetry readings, weddings, community gatherings and group meetings. A community kitchen, a roof-top greenhouse and a bake-oven envisaged for the new building. With the completion of the third renovation project, The Working Centre will have created a total of 16 affordable homes, housing a community of about 30 people in the downtown core in buildings that were once derelict.

Analysis Of Decision Making Process In Mixed Use/Community Tools

Current challenges in the housing project include the support and facilitation of the apartments. Residents play an active role in management. While the living situation is new to some of the residents, core members who act as the main contact for each space have helped in the mediation of conflict and general household management. They have been supported by staff of The Working Center as they gain new skills. Figure 4 describes decision-making patterns of the Community Tools model and the roles of different actors. The Working Centre projects have attempted to maximize the capacity of each major player in the building projects in the following manner:

* Governments have facilitated funding and assisted through their regulatory role in negotiating zoning and by-laws

* Private sector has provided creative financing and supplied building materials and services

* Non Profit sector, through local community groups, has mobilized large groups of local volunteers to facilitate construction reducing procedural delays

* Users have provided input into designing the mixed-use spaces, have participated in integrating the building into the neighborhood and have assisted with managing it.

The Working Centre projects on Queen Street in Kitchener address physical shelter needs and other vital human needs such as long-term security and livelihood supports, making for an integrated approach to housing. Although 7 projects were sanctioned by the Region of Waterloo under its affordable housing program (2000-2002), the 6 units at 43 Queen Street are the only ones that had not only been completed, but had also been in use for over nine months by 2003. (Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002).

Decision-making and Socially Sensitive Housing

Table 1 provides a summary of the socially sensitive models described above. The mix of actors includes representation from the government (public sector), the private sector and community agencies. Each of the three models described above differs compared to the dominant social housing mechanism existing in Canada in the manner in which each has accessed resources, involved actors and made decisions in planning/design, construction and management of housing.

Currently in cities like Kitchener, market forces largely shape the delivery of housing. The danger is that the market place tends to transform outcomes into commodities. In contrast, our conceptual framework suggests that housing cannot be treated as a consumption item, nor can the dweller be treated as a consumer. The house-building process has the potential to be an integrating force, a social mechanism that promotes human contact within communities and that generates mutual support among members. "The provision of shelter and other habitat related infrastructure can lead to a chain of local processes that promote self-reliance through local livelihoods" (Minoldo 2001, p. 3). We view housing as a reciprocal relationship between people and their environment, in which the dwelling both emerges out of people's subjective needs and also influences those living in it (Habraken 1972). Housing outcomes are a result of the strategies but also affect the nature of the strategies through feedback. Typically, the private sector ('market forces') plays a dominant role, controlling most of the resources (land and capital). In socially sensitive strategies, the community of current and future users plays a mandated (and, in most cases, critical) role in decision-making.

Access to land and capital are key determinants of success in all affordable housing projects. Alternative housing providers of affordable rental accommodations formerly relied on government assistance for finances. Now, with the onus on housing providers themselves to raise capital for their projects, these agencies are finding it difficult to raise the equity necessary to reduce mortgages and to keep rents within affordable limits. With governments (State power) no longer playing a proactive role in regulating access to scarce resources, informal mediating structures (People power) have become increasingly critical. The organizations and people attached to these informal structures have emerged as the key actors in socially sensitive housing strategies, according to our research.

Table 2 illustrates the role of the informal sector as mediating between formal structures (such as the government and private sector, responsible for design, construction, financing, legislation) and the people sector (users of housing) in assisting people to access housing. Table 2 also lists the different actors that can be classified under the three main sectors categorized by this research: formal sector; informal sector; people sector.

The informal sector also plays a role in defining housing in terms of the social and economic situation of people who need it. In this category of 'informal structures', we have placed a variety of housing mechanisms that are actively enabling people to gain access to and command over their housing situations including shared-living, self-build, informal arrangements with small landlords, rent-to-own, second mortgages, life-leases, self build-sweat equity, owner-built, take-back mortgages and community tools. This category includes as actors and agents, individuals, small landlords, community groups, non--profits including churches, community agencies and other local advocacy groups as well as quasi-formal mechanisms like rent banks (7).

Lessons from literature combined with understanding gained from our case study have identified for us four guiding principles for socially sensitive housing processes in urban habitats. Table 3 lists the guiding principles and some key characteristics for each.

A Socially Sensitive Housing Strategy For Kitchener's Urban Core

The four principles for development of socially sensitive housing strategies are: multiplicity of approaches to decision making; promoting desirable physical natural relationships; valuing citizen participation; promoting innovative economic relationships. Below we briefly discuss these principles with respect to our Kitchener case study.

Multiplicity Of Approaches To Decision Making

The pattern of decision-making with respect to actions taken by the City of Kitchener has been represented (rather simplistically) in Figure 5, which indicates the current roles of different players. Decision-making can also be divided into three functions: planning (or design), construction and management. Key players are identified as government, the private sector and the people of Kitchener.

The City of Kitchener has retained a key role in planning, but has delegated responsibility for construction and management to the private sector (See, Figure 5). The people of Kitchener have only a small consultative role, even though they are the ones likely to be most directly impacted by the design. The private sector, with the basic aim of maximizing financial returns, is likely to have an agenda that is markedly different from that of residents who live in the city and whose livelihoods are dependent on the health of the city. With resources concentrated in the private sector domain, what funnels down to users as benefits is likely to be reduced. The outcomes of a process predominated by the private sector are highly unlikely to match with needed "use-value" for residents, in areas such as affordability and price.

If we use the approach of the right person for the right job, the City's role ought to be as regulator, laying out the rules of the game in consultation with residents and setting boundaries that define a revitalized and livable urban habitat. The private sector with its ability to make financial investments can then play the game within these boundaries. At the same time, encouraging several small investors by regulating access to land and capital would encourage a diversity of approaches for socially sensitive housing strategies and reduce financial risk for the City. While acknowledging that money is a powerful instrument for city decline or regeneration, Jacobs warns that it is not just the absolute availability of money that matters, but also its available form and allowable purposes (Jacobs 1961).

In defining the use-value of housing, physical standards cannot be de-linked from other aspects of housing such as access to work, community support and secure housing. Material and human needs are interlinked. Housing is intricately linked to street, neighborhood and city processes. Housing is one way of integrating needs of residents into urban revitalization processes. Socially sensitive housing in urban cores offers strategies which are flexible and adaptive and accommodate needs of users. In order that the best results can be achieved, the user must be active in decisions at every stage, including design/planning, construction/implementation and management. Such involvement has the potential to enhance the use-value of the city as a whole and of the house.

Desirable Physical-Natural Relationships

While the importance of integrating ecological principles into housing processes has not been a focus of this article, it is implicit in our conceptual framework (Kay et al., 1999). Among the resources necessary for socially sensitive housing, ecological resources are fundamental. Their integrity must be a high priority in order for discussion of social entitlement to those resources to have real meaning. This theoretical position has empirical implications for site selection and for the design of houses and their surroundings. Priorities, for example, should include making buildings easier to heat and cool and reducing pollution and urban heat-island effects (Fiorito 2002) (8). With respect to surroundings, literature suggests that urban gardens and landscaped areas not only reduce negative environmental effects but also nurture connections between people and promote a sense of community (Ligeti 2002).

Features like roof gardens and solar technologies are becoming more commonly available and have the potential to introduce an element of self-sufficiency into affordable housing initiatives. In Kitchener, Arise Technologies Corporation has recently received $1,025,000 from a Federal climate change fund, and will be building eight to ten solar-powered demonstration homes, in partnership with Cooke Homes, a local developer (Goodwin 2002). Community based green energy partnerships are already underway in Ontario (http:// www.ontario-sea.org/, http://srecwind.ca/).

Our analysis indicates diverse housing forms are needed to provide physical infrastructure and address existential needs such as security and health (Sewell 1993). Critical municipal support structures for the development of appropriate housing include physical standards in terms of more green spaces and green buildings, provisions for conserving heritage buildings, support for activities related to subsistence, employment and community work, and provision of security through ensuring stable and predictable growth of neighborhoods.

Valuing Citizen Participation

The criticism that the public is not involved enough has been leveled time and again against the City of Kitchener (Etherington and Ash 2002). In some political circles, there is a sentiment that downtown already has more than its share of affordable housing. A downtown advisory group has asked City Council to ensure that affordable housing development is spread around the Region instead of being concentrated in the core (Etherington 2002b). However, with most services and the transit terminal being downtown, it is the logical place for low-income people to congregate. The debate is ongoing: "Sadly, for those who consider the absence of poor folk to be a form of downtown renewal, the loss of affordable housing has deep, urban roots. So do the solutions" (Agaard 2002, p. B 1).

In Kitchener, many people on social assistance are contributing to the social fabric of the City through active participation. One example is the Proposal for an Inclusive Downtown presented to the City of Kitchener by Kitchener Downtown Dreams. These efforts, which are an investment in the social capital of the city, tend to be disregarded by those who would like to see low-income people move away from the downtown area. The more serious issue here is the rift created by planning processes into "haves" and "have-nots" and stereotyping of the poor. In a variety of locations in Canada, there is increasing recognition that issues of social equity are important for cities and changes are being made through projects that not only meet the material needs of marginal people but also integrate them into the social and political life of the City (Burone 2002). Innovative solutions in Quebec have created thriving areas for businesses while accommodating residents from all income levels (Tasker-Brown 2000). Vancouver has developed high-density residential land around its waterfront that includes community centers, social housing and childcare (Janigan 2002). New private sector residential developments in Vancouver are required to have 20% of their units affordable (Wexler 2001). In contrast, the affordable housing programs in Kitchener must include 20-25% market rent units just to be able to carry their mortgages. This decreases the amount of affordable housing available to people in need.

Promoting Innovative Economic Relationships

Housing is a key component of urban habitats. It helps to define the identity of the neighborhood, creating a critical mass of people, providing for their needs and assisting with the development of the city's core. Innovative local economies with clusters of activities that include affordable housing need to be encouraged by local governments (McAllister 2004). Promoting mixed-uses that combine affordable housing with community tools for the neighborhood, such as in The Working Centre model, creates activity within downtown areas that is not restricted to the day-use of buildings but continues round the clock.

Government through regulating access to scarce resources such as land and capital can enhance the efficacy of informal structures and can assist in generating viable alternatives to private sector delivery modes. Even though some capital is being leveraged by non-profits through the Region's Affordable Housing Strategy, this seed-capital is not enough. The revenue generated by projects has to pay for all operating costs, a large part of which is the cost of carrying the mortgage. Even though rents are lower than prevailing market rents, these housing units are still not affordable to many of the disadvantaged people for whom they were originally designed. The projects have to rely on additional grants and endowments or on further rent subsidy mechanisms in order to gear their rents to lower incomes.

Concluding Thoughts: Critical Factors in Planning Affordable Housing

The most important factor in examining housing processes in urban habitats is to recognize that suitable housing is not an outcome of a direct relationship between actors and resources. Such relationships exist in a context that is constantly modified based on feedback from experiences and expectations of city residents. By including people--especially the disadvantaged--in decision-making processes, it is possible to incorporate this feedback, including experiences of existing mismatches between people's housing needs and the actual supply, and including expectations that emerge as a result of enhanced capabilities of residents who have legitimate command over their housing.

Municipal levels of government play a critical role in ensuring that there is equitable distribution of scarce resources (Fichter et al. 1972, Ward 1976, Turner 1976, Sewell 1993, Hamdi et al. 1997, McAllister 2004). Some of the roles identified for the City in order to enable socially sensitive housing as a positive means for development of urban habitats in Kitchener include: regulating land use, improving access to finances, and strengthening the informal community.

Planning processes that take a grassroots approach need to allow for spontaneous improvisation and incremental growth. (Hamdi et al. 1997) They operate best at the level of the street-neighborhood, and through informal community processes. With provincial and federal governments relinquishing responsibility for providing social housing (as has been the case in Ontario since 1995 and until very recently) there is a shortage in affordable housing. In the absence of formal social housing programs, housing needs have been addressed through informal processes and alternate arrangements. While the gap between the need for affordable housing and sufficient opportunities for socially sensitive response remains large, the non-profit sector and others committed to affordable housing have made some important positive headway in matching people's priorities with needs in their projects to date.

Our research suggests that socially sensitive housing strategies are an important set of processes for shelter provision and have both conceptual and applied implications for the development of urban core area planning strategies in cities like Kitchener. Socially sensitive housing strategies in Kitchener are diverse but have in common their basis in four principles, namely: multiplicity of approaches to decision making, promoting desirable physical-natural relationships, valuing citizen participation and promoting innovative economic relationships. We believe that these principles may provide one useful framework for the development of equitable, ecologically and economically strong communities in urban cores.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The study was initiated with the support of a Research Development Initiatives project and was completed under the auspices of the University of Waterloo's Community University Research Alliance (CURA) project, focusing on downtown revitalization in the three urban municipalities of Waterloo Region. We also wish to express our appreciation to the staff and volunteers at The Working Centre in Kitchener and to the many groups and individuals from downtown Kitchener who have taken the time over the past two years to share their insights and experiences with us.

References

Agaard, Christian. 2002. Trailer parks not the cure for affordable housing problem. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Jan 24, 2002, B1.

Burone, Fedrico. 2002. The urban challenge, to have and to have not. The Globe and Mail, July 2, 2002, p. A13.

Canadian Council on Social Development. 2003. Census Analysis: Census Shows Growing Polarization of Income in Canada. May 16, 2003. http: www.ccsd.ca/ pr/2003/censusincome.html (Accessed July 1, 2004).

Chambers, Robert and Gordon R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods-Practical concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper 296, 1992.

City of Kitchener. 2005. Population. http://www.city.kitchener.on.ca. (Accessed April 27, 2005).

Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation. 2001. Forecast Summary-Kitchener. Issue: Fall 2001.

COCHF Central Ontario Coop Housing Federation. 2001. Co-operative housing. List of Coops. http://www.cochf.on.ca. (Accessed Dec 2001).

Economic Development Division. 2001. City of Kitchener. Downtown Monitoring Report.

Ellul, Jacques. 2000. The meaning of the city, trans, by Dennis Pardee (Gran Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970). Quoted in W. H. Vanderberg, The Labyrinth of Technology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press): 375.

Ellul, Jacques. 2000. Propoganda: The formation of man's attitudes, trans by Konrad Kellen (New York: Knopf, 1965), esp. ch 2,3 and 4. Quoted in W.H. Vanderberg, The Labyrinth of Technology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press): 382-384.

Etherington, Frank. 2001. No Frills Plan could put homeownership within reach of the poor. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, May 17, 2001, p. B2.

Etherington, Frank and Stacey Ash. 2002. City to seize two core properties. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, January 15, 2002, p. A1.

Etherington, Frank. 2002a. Heart still beating. The Kitchener- Waterloo Record. April 3, 2002. http://www.therecord.com/news/special/neighbourhoods/ Sp_neighbourhoods432000_124715.htm. (Accessed Jan. 2002)

Etherington, Frank. 2002b. Vision for core should include low income residents. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record March 18, 2002, p. B1

Fichter, R., John F.C Turner and Peter Grenell. 1972. Chapter 10: The meaning of autonomy. In Freedom to Build, Dweller Control of Housing Process, ed. by John F.C.Turner and Robert Fichter, 241-254. New York, New York: The Macmillan Company.

Fiorito, Joe. 2002. Growing an Eden up near heaven. The Globe and Mail, May 6, 2002. p. A18.

Goodwin, Carol. 2002. Kitchener firm gets $1 M to build solar houses. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, April 23, 2002, p. B3.

Gore, Charles. 1993. Entitlement relations and unruly social practices: a comment on the work of Amartya Sen. Journal of Development Studies 29 (3): 429-460.

Graubner, C.A and K.Reiche. 2000. Sustainable development in the building industry- an analysis and assessment tool for design of disassembly. Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing. Surendra M.Gupta, Ed. Proceedings of SPIE 4193 2000: 372-381.

Greco, Thomas J .Jr. 1994. New Money for Healthy Communities. Arizona: Thomas H Greco Jr, Publisher.

Greene, Michele. 1999. Seniors can age in place with grace. The Toronto Star, March 20, 1999. P. P1.

Habitat for Humanity. 2000. Measuring up Annual Report. 2000.

Habitat for Humanity. 2001. http://www.habitatwaterlooregion.ca, (Accessed March 2001).

Habraken, N. J. 1972. Supports: an alternative to mass housing. London: The Architectural Press.

Hamdi, Nabeel. 1991. Housing without houses, participation, Flexibility, Enablement. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hamdi, Nabeel and Reinhard Goethert. 1997. Action Planning for Cities. A Guide to Community in Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Illich, Ivan. 1972. Retooling Society III. CIDOC CUADERNO No. 80, Cuernavaca, Mexico.

Illich, Ivan. 1981. Shadow Work. London: Marion Boyars.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage books, a division of Random House.

Jacobs, Jane. 1970. The Economy of Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.

Jacobs, Jane and Alan Broadbent. 2002. Urban autonomy. Cities want a new political contract. Toronto. A 2020 vision. The Globe and Mail, June 24, 2002, p. T3.

Janigan, Mary. 2002. Saving our cities. Maclean's Magazine June 3, 2002, pp. 22-27

Kay, James .J, Henry Regier, Michelle Boyle and George Francis. 1999. An ecosystem approach for sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31 (7): 721-742.

Kraus, Deborah, Margaret Eberle and Joffre Pomerleau. 1999. Affordable Housing Solutions. Fifteen Successful Projects, Research Report. Housing Affordability and Finance Series, CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation).

Leach, Melissa, Robin Mearns and Ian Scoones. 1997. Challenges to community based sustainable development, Dynamics, Entitlements, Institutions. IDS Bulletin 28 (4): 4-14.

Ligeti, Eva. 2002. Garden for your lives! The Globe and Mail, April 22, 2002. p.A11

Mancini, Joe. 2001. Poverty of the mind, Poverty of the spirit. Recognizing the multi-soul-destroying discriminations that create poverty-creating alternatives. Paper presented in workshop sponsored by the Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, May 24, 2001, at Kitchener, City Hall.

Mawby, Russell. 2001. Community Building In Saskatoon: Housing That Fits. Canadian Housing 18 (Spring): 24-25.

McAllister, Mary Louise. 2004. Governing Ourselves?: The Politics Of Canadian Communities. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Menno Homes Inc. 2002. Minutes of Affordable Housing Consultation #5, April 23, 2002.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario. 2002. Backgrounder Affordable Housing Initiative. http:/www.mah.gov.on.ca (Accessed June 2002)

Minoldo, Monica. 2001. Can Housing And Work Enable Local Development. Editorial in Basin News, Building Advisory Service and Information Network, Switzerland: SKAT. No. 21 (June): 2-4.

Oldenburg, Ray. 1989. The great good places: cafes, coffee shops, community centres, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House, 1989. Quoted in Christopher Lasch, Revolt of the Elites and Betrayal of Democracy. (New York, London: WW Norton and Company 1995): 119.

Pender, Terry. 2002. Affordable-housing builder eyes school property for project. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, February 8, 2002. p. B2.

Quader, Sanchari, Mary Louise McAllister, Susan Wismer. 2003. Summary Report: Social and Economic Inclusion Initiative, prepared for University of Waterloo Community University Research Initiative.

Reason, Peter. 1994. Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research ed. Norman Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 324-339. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.

Redclift, Michael. 1992. The Meaning Of Sustainable Development. Geo forum 23 (3): 395-403.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 1996. WRCAS. Waterloo Region Coordinated Access System- Affordable Rental Housing in Waterloo Region. City of Kitchener, Coop, Non-Profit and Ontario Housing Sites. January 1996.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2002. Planning, Housing and Community Services. Waterloo Region Affordable Housing Strategy- Program enhancement and 2002/2003 implementation plan. Report No. P-02-44, April 16, 2002.

Sandhills Christian Community. 2000. Is Right To Occupy (Life Lease) For You? Summarized from paper by Ron Crane of COUTTS CRANE INGRAM, Toronto.

Scherlowski, David. 2000. In association with Kathleen Mancer Consulting, Vancouver, OSI Tandem COOP Resources, Winnipeg, Langlais et Associes, Montreal. Alternate Tenure Arrangements, Final Report. For CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation).

Scoones, Ian. 1998. SUstainable Rural Livelihoods. A Framework For Analysis. IDS working paper 72, Sussex, U.K: Institute of Development Studies.

Sen, Amartya. 1981. Food and Freedom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Institute of Economic Research

Sewell, John. 1993. The Shape of the City, Toronto struggles with modern planning. Toronto: Ontario.

Stringer, Ernest. 1996. Action Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.

Tasker-Brown, Julie. 2000. Affordability and Choice Today (A.C.T) Demonstration Project- An Action Plan For Revitalizing A Commercial Artery.

Prepared for Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Canadian Home Builders Association, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, April 2000.

Turner, John.F.C. 1972. Housing as a verb. In Freedom To Build, Dweller Control Of Housing Processes, ed. John F. C.Turner and Robert Fichter. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Turner John F.C. 1976. Housing By The People, Towards Autonomy In Building Environment. London: Marion Boyars. pp. 6-7.

Turner, John.F.C. 1991. Foreword to Housing Without Houses by Nabeel Hamdi. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Vanderberg Willem H. 2000. Labyrinth of Technology. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Ward, Colin. 1976. Preface to Housing by People. Towards autonomy in building environment, by John F.C.Turner. London: Marion Boyars. p.7.

Welch, Tim. 2001. New role in housing, Region of Waterloo. Presentation at the CMHC Housing Outlook conference, Kitchener, Ontario, Nov 27, 2001.

Wexler, Martin. 2001. Urban Renewal Workshop Highlights Diverse Experiences. Canadian Housing 18 (2): 23-24.

Notes

(1) Until 2002, when the Federal government renewed its commitment to finance affordable housing

(2) Contrast with Faludi's recommendation for Toronto gross density of 7400 persons per sq km (in Sewell 1993)

(3) Affordable monthly rents have been fixed by the Region and are $482 for a bachelor, $615 for a one bedroom, $ 723 for a two bedroom and $ 844 for a three bedroom

(4) The target rents fixed by the Region for different units as compared with the eligible shelter allowance for the same type of unit:</p>

<pre> Type of Unit Average Market rent, Affordable Low end, based 1999-2000 current rents on shelter

allowance Bachelor $434-$485, going up to $482

$325 $600 One Bedroom $565-$598, going up to 750

$615 $511 Two Bedroom $660-$697, going up to 900 $723

$554 ThreeBedroom $782-820, going up to 1200 $844

$602 Larger Units Will be considered (Source: Regional Municipality of Waterloo 2002) </pre> <p>(5) Options for Homes has completed $150 million in affordable housing projects ($15 million under construction). In the Options for Homes project with just 5-10% down payment and another 10% as a discount held as a second mortgage by Options, the homeowners could avail themselves of a commercial loan with the cumulative equity of 20% (Pender, Terry 2002).

(6) This is not to discount the role of the private sector in facilitating construction. It is the position of the authors that the private sector route is complementary to the strategies discussed above, and is another mechanism for housing-delivery that can benefit by working within limits set by the users of the housing.

(7) Rent Banks in the Region of Waterloo are operating through non-profit organizations and are financed through some seed funding from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. These rent banks not only offer emergency loans for rents to low-income families, but also play a preventive role through timely eviction prevention and tenant and landlord education.

(8) Asphalt and concrete in cities have replaced trees found in rural landscapes causing urban temperatures to be 1-6[degrees]C hotter than nearby rural areas (http://www.epa.gov/ heatisland/). Heat entrapped in these surfaces is accentuated by automobile fumes, and results in cities becoming increasingly warmer due to the 'heat island effect'.

Geeta Vaidyanathan

Susan Wismer

Department of Environment and Resource Studies

University of Waterloo

Figure 2: Matrix Showing Decision-making Combinations In The Sandhills
Project

                          PLAN                    CONSTRUCT

Regulators-               Building permits,       Inspection
Govt.                     Site planning
Public sector
Suppliers/                Design, site planning   Construction of
contractors/Financier     Stipulation of loan     building
Private sector            conditions              Construction loan
Sponsors of life lease:   Land contribution       Hold the mortgage,
Developers/               Hire professionals      liable party,
Quasi-User                Design inputs           Hire contractor
Users:                    Intent to occupy:       Inputs for individual
Residents                 invest                  apartments
Popular Sector

                          MANAGE

Regulators-
Govt.
Public sector
Suppliers/                Inputs for future phase,
contractors/Financier     Public relations
Private sector
Sponsors of life lease:   Board of Directors
Developers/
Quasi-User
Users:                    Management committees
Residents
Popular Sector

Key: Darker shades within each box indicates greater control

Figure 3: Comparison Of The Decision-making Matrix Of Options For Homes
And Quint Saskatoon

Quint Saskatoon

                   PLAN   CONSTRUCT   MANAGE

Regulators-Govt.
Public sector
Suppliers/
Private Sector
Developers
Nonprofit sector
Users:
Popular

Options for Homes

                   PLAN   CONSTRUCT   MANAGE

Regulators Govt.
Public sector
Suppliers/
Private Sector
Developers
Nonprofit Sector
Users:
Popular

Table 1. Features Of Socially Sensitive Strategies In the City Of
Kitchener

Classification                   Matching action to resources

Strategy          Case study     Ways             Critical factor

Assisted          Heartwood      Partnerships     Availability of
Housing:          Place,         for financing    land and/or
Partnerships      Kitchener      and              building
                  Housing Inc    management.      Dealing with
                  (Municiapl                      NIMBY
                  Non-Profit
Alternate         Sandhills,     Creative         Availability of
Tenure            Kitchener,     Financing.       land and
                  Quint                           construction loan.
                  Development
                  Corp.,
                  Saskatoon
                  Options for
                  Home,
                  Toronto
Community         The Working    Mixed-uses       Availability of
Tools             Centre,                         building and
                  Kitchener                       appropriately
                                                  zoned land.
                                                  Skilled
                                                  supervisor,
                                                  capability to self-
                                                  build.

Classification    Matching action to resources

                                    Decision-
Strategy          Actors            making process

Assisted          Region, City      Disturbed
Housing:          Private           between the
Partnerships      Sector, and       private sector
                  Services          and the non-
                  Providers.        profit sector.
Alternate         City,             Disturbed
Tenure            Private           between the
                  Sector, Credit    non-profit sector
                  Unions, and       and the users.
                  Community
                  Agency.
Community         Private Sector    Disturbed
Tools             Region, City      between the
                  Community         non-profit sector
                  agency, and       and users.
                  Citizens.

Table 2. Actors And Their Roles In Socially Sensitive Housing
Strategies

Role                   Actors

FORMAL
SECTOR:                Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal levels
Legislation
Design-Construction    Professionals, builders and renovators and self-
                       builders, Realtors, Insurers
Financiers             Banks, credit unions, Grants and Charitable
                       Endowment Funds
Management             Support service providers (including Ontario
                       Works, Special supports)

INFORMAL
SECTOR:                Individuals in shared-living arrangements, small
Mediating Structures   landlords, groups functioning out of "Third
enabling access to     places" like the St John's Community Kitchen,
housing                Downtown Community Health Centre, The
                       Working Centre, Kitchener Downtown Dreams
                       Non Profits, churches, community agencies
                       Housing tribunals, Rent Banks and other
                       advocacy groups

POPULAR
SECTOR                 Students, singles, families, seniors, low-income,
  Users, (residents)   middle income families, homeless

Table 3. Principles For Socially Sensitive Housing Strategies

Principle of multiplicity of approaches to decision-making
(Based on the thinking of Turner 1972, 1976, 1991, Von Bertalanffy
1968, Hamdi 1991, 1997, Jacobs 1961, 1970, Vanderberg 2000, Redclift
1992)

* Network decentralized approach versus the centralizedhierarchical
approach
* The right person for the right job" or equitable access to resources

Principle of Promoting Desirable Physical-Natural relationships
(Based on the thinking of Turner 1972, 1976, 1991, Habraken 1972,
Vanderberg 2000), Rennings, Klaus, et al. 1997, Kilbert, C.J, et al.
1999), Allenby 1999, Graubner et al. 2000, Hartkopf et al.
1999, CMHC 1999)
* Flexible and versatile housing linked to the city, and with adequate
support structures
* Efficient by minimizing energy and material throughput, promoting
conservation and naturalization
* Production-oriented not consumption-driven, closed loops, self-reliant
and decentralized systems

Principle of Valuing Citizen Participation
(Based on the thinking of Jacobs 1961, 1970, 2002, Turner 1972, 1976,
1991, Ellul, as quoted in Vanderberg, 2000, Hamdi 1991, 1997,
Rosenbaum, et al. 2002, Bruce 1999, Oldenburg 1995).
* Diversity with respect to income, age, households, and uses
* Enabling, participatory and promoting "Third Places" or informal
hangouts
* Human scale: using the right tool for the right job, pedestrian/
transit-oriented, achieving optimum density without overcrowding

Principle of Promoting Innovative Economic Relationships
(Based on the thinking of Jacobs 1972, 1976, 1991, Vanderberg 2000,
Greco 1994, Schwarz 1997, Illich, 1972, 1981, Working Centre, The,
2001, Mancini 1995, 2001).
* Access to community tools
* Local control of financial resources