A Brief History of Infill Housing in Regina and Implications for Future Projects
In the fall term of 2023, The REM partnered with the University of Regina’s Urban Geography class 246. The REM came into the classroom to teach the students the benefits of using source documents in the form of archives and interviews for research. Here is the sixth student report, “A Brief History of Infill Housing in Regina and Implications for Future Projects” by Jonathon Grant.
Infill housing is a current project outlined in the city of Regina’s Official Community Plan. The goal of the project is to develop future Regina’s population and housing goals. While the city’s current plan was made official in 2017, infill housing has long been an optimistic — though controversial —endeavour the city has tried to undertake. The infill housing debate began to intensify in the late 1970’s, but truly came to a head during the 1980’s. For almost 50 years, Regina has attempted to revitalize and redevelop specific areas of the city that have aged, fallen into disrepair or needed a higher population density. While these past projects brought renewal to the areas they were focussed on, there was much debate and discourse from community associations and residents wondering what exactly the result of this new development would be. As Regina plans to expand its horizontal presence these concerns are being raised again: how will the city fulfill the goals of the Official Community Plan? By understanding the history of infill housing in Regina, city residents can predict the potential future of this type of project.
The infill housing program originally proposed in June of 1980 was centered around revitalizing the Cathedral and North Central areas of Regina. This goal was implemented after the City of Regina committed to replace worn out housing in the city during 1977 (Towell, 1980, p. 3). To note, the North Central area had a multitude of matters aside from population decline that was not reported on widely in comparison to the Cathedral area. While infill housing did occur in this neighbourhood, it will not be a focus of this paper. To cover North Central adequately would require a separate dedicated publication. In the Cathedral Village area, the infill housing project began with the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation (SHC) purchasing approximately 160 run-down lots that were promising for new-build housing units (Towell, 1980, p. 3). These lots would be used to build multi-family units, large complexes, or single-family units. One such unit is pictured on the next page. These units were originally designed to “reverse trends in the downtown area towards lower population and decline in the quality of housing units and municipal services” (Towell, 1980, p. 3). It was determined that if these trends continued, the Cathedral Village area of Regina would experience a 40% population decline and deterioration between 1971 and 2001 (Towell, 1980, p. 3). This alarming statistic had residents of the area, the SHC, and city councillors concerned. Cathedral Village is an iconic Regina neighbourhood, and its proximity to the downtown core made it clear the area needed assistance for the historic culture of Regina to continue into the next decades. The initial enthusiasm for the project was positive, but community concerns and questions for the SHC were also prevalent.
An early piece published in the March 4th, 1980, edition of the Leader Post titled, “Council concerned over inner city housing”, discusses the need for the Regina City Council to become more involved in the revitalization project. This idea was proposed to City Council by Alderman Harry Van Mulligen from Division 6, and it was unanimously passed (Graham, 1980, p. 3). In Van Mulligen’s proposition, he noted that the Provincial Urban Affairs Minister had told him the provincial government was considering expanding its support for the infill housing projects. This meant potential Provincial funding to supplement the City of Regina’s and the SHC’s expenditures (Graham, 1980, p. 3). The motion was originally brought to attention as the total housing projects forecasted at the time of the motion 1980 was 1,500, a stark decline in projects from the years prior. City planner Ron Clark stated that the city had at this time purchased ~2,000 front feet of property that “should be turned into housing in the next 18 months” and further adding “We expect to accelerate and see some construction this year” (Graham, 1980, p. 3). The reason for delays in construction on these properties was due to the high cost of land in the downtown area, and that Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (the entity that funds the SHC) had a maximum price for each unit of housing (Graham, 1980, p. 3). Maximum allotted pricing and inflated costs of land caused delays and difficulties with construction of the highly requested infill housing units. With the City Council stepping in to assist, these woes may have been alleviated, but, as Alderman Tim Embury of Division 3, the Cathedral Village area stated, deterioration was already apparent in the area: "Since 1977, housing has deteriorated in my area even with the infill housing programs we do have" (Graham, 1980, p. 3).
The initial developmental problems with the infill housing program in Cathedral were not the only issues with the program. Renters in these areas, whose landlords had sold the properties to the SHC for the infill housing program, began to receive letters that stated they would still be able to reside in the complexes and homes they were in, with a caveat: as of July 1st, 1980, they would be subject to a month-to-month living scenario, and if construction were to be approved for their unit, they would have one month to relocate (Braham, 1980, p. 3). Rici Liknaitzky, Cher Mitchell, and Mr. and Mrs. Wolbaum all confirmed this to the Leader Post for their May 17th edition. They all lived on the 2300 block of Retallack Street, where three houses had been purchased by the SHC. The SHC claimed to try its best to respect the neighbourhood and its residents, but there were situations where property rehabilitation meant residents could not reside in these places. Resident Cathy Wolbaum believed “The project might be fine,” but explained that “…when it hits you personally, you think of it in a different way” (Braham, 1980, p. 3). Mrs. Wolbaum elaborated in more detail about the insensitivities of the SHC to the living situations of the current residents, pointing out that the planned developments are aimed at people like her and her neighbours (Braham, 1980, p. 3). It was especially frustrating to her and her husband when they asked the SHC questions and received nothing back. Rici Liknaitzky echoed these sentiments, and while they were in support of the program, the concerns about the displacement of current residents weighed heavily on them (Braham, 1980, p. 3).
Another major complaint about the infill housing program’s implementation was about neutrality. More specifically, the neutrality of Harry Van Mulligen. Van Mulligen originally proposed that City Council become involved in the planning and execution of the infill housing program, which brought an influx of monetary and government support for the project. Brian Gibbon of the Leader Post pointed out that Van Mulligen was an employee of the SHC (Gibbon, 1980, p. 42). For Van Mulligen to propose this raises questions about the neutrality of the project and its goal to create affordable housing for all. This claim is backed up by statements from Van Mulligen stating the “SHC will ultimately be the landlord to some of these properties” and it should be “considered like any other developer” (Gibbon, 1980, p. 42). The units being developed at the time were considered affordable but had the rent price increased from $223 to $350. Adjusting for inflation, the previous rent would be $779.03 today, with $1,222.69 being the new price (Bank of Canada). This would price out the people that the infill program was initially intended to help and bring substantial amounts of money to the SHC and Van Mulligen. This concern was a valid one, and when added to the complaints of insensitivities to current and potentially displaced residents (Braham, 1980, p. 3), this question of neutrality and ability to serve the publicly stated function of the infill housing program was impossible to ignore.
There is an anti-climactic end to the saga of complaints and concerns about the infill housing program. The program, which began planning in 1977, with some controversy during initial consultation and development, began to reach its intended goals in Cathedral Village neighbourhood (Braham, 1980, p. 53). The creation of new housing to mix seamlessly with the old housing, together with rent control, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP), and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistant Program (RRAP) all contributed to bringing populations back to declining neighbourhoods (Cathedral Village Online). The decline of the neighbourhoods was slowed, and it helped to prevent these neighbourhoods from becoming dangerous places to live. In the present day, evidence of this is seen on Regina’s 13th Avenue, the heart of Cathedral Village. Businesses flourish, and every resident can walk to get their amenities or partake in social activities. Cathedral Village Online lists the infill housing project as a success that helped “define the socially and economically diverse neighbourhood today” (Cathedral Village Online). For many of the complaints and concerns raised through local reporting, the benefits to the community outweighed them. Combing the Leader Post database from Archer Library at the University Regina yielded no consequences to the issues of Van Mulligen’s neutrality, and the neighbourhoods today are still functioning well.
The current infill housing project outlined by the City of Regina is designed to increase horizontal and core populations. The goal for core housing is to direct 30% of new population to these areas (McIlroy, 2017). As of October 23, 2023, this has not been occurring. Councilmember Bob Hawkins of Ward 2 is concerned with the variety, stock, and quality of the housing being developed (Kurz, 2023). So far, his concerns have been valid — only 14% of new growth is occurring in the core areas of Regina (Kurz, 2023). This is less than half of the goal outlined in the Infill Housing Guidelines document in 2017. This is not the only issue with infill housing developments in Regina’s established neighbourhoods. Repeating from the Cathedral Village resident concerns in the 1980s, residents of the Douglas Park area are concerned about the implications of new developments in the area (Maess, 2023). Major concerns about increased traffic, available parking for residents with the added buildings, and preserving the neighbourhood’s culture are the most contentious points of the residents’ concerns (Maess, 2023). These are many of the same concerns that existed when infill housing was first introduced. The current plan is still being discussed with residents and buildings are undergoing construction, meaning only time will tell if Regina commits to revitalizing the core or if more urban sprawl occurs for the city.
Infill housing has a controversial, yet successful legacy in Regina. The revitalization of neighbourhoods brings new life to the city and keep Regina’s culture alive and well for the next generations. Without it, Regina would be a vastly different city. There are lessons to be learned from the first instance of infill housing’s implications. If we learn from the mistakes of the past, the infill housing program currently underway can better the city as a whole and lead to continual prosperity with full community support, rather than face lofty criticism from residents and columnists alike. Respect and transparency are valued, especially when considering people’s living conditions. If this is kept at the forefront of the development plan, then Regina’s density, livability, and population can look towards a prosperous future for their neighbourhoods.
Bibliography
Bank of Canada (n.d.). Inflation Calculator. Inflation Calculator. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/
Braham, D. (1980, May 17). Residents protest SHC eviction orders. The Leader Post, NA (May 17, 1980), 3.
Braham, D. (1980, August 23). Hopes and realities of infill housing hard to distinguish. The Leader Post, NA (August 8, 1980), 53.
Cathedral Area Community Association (n.d.). About. Cathedral Village Online. https://cathedralvillage.org/about/
Gibbon, B. (1980, September 23). Neutrality said in doubt. The Leader Post, NA (September 23, 1980), 42.
Graham, C. (1980, March 4). Council Concerned over Inner City Housing. The Leader Post, NA (March 4, 1980), 3.
Kurz, L. (2023, October 23). Regina not 'balancing' infill, outskirt housing development: Motion. Regina Leader Post. Retrieved November 27, 2023, from https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/city-hall/regina-not-balancing-infill-outskirt-housing-development-motion
Maess, D. (2023, November 3). 'In droves': Regina neighbourhood pushing back against proposed high rise building. CTV News Regina. Retrieved November 27, 2023, from https://regina.ctvnews.ca/in-droves-regina-neighbourhood-pushing-back-against-proposed-high-rise-building-1.6630647
McIlroy, B. (2017). Infill Housing Guidelines. City of Regina. https://www.regina.ca/export/sites/Regina.ca/business-development/land-property-development/.galleries/pdfs/Planning/Infill-Housing-Guidelines.pdf
NA (1980, June 11). Tenants criticize SHC infill operation. The Leader Post, NA (June 11, 1980), 24.
Towell, J. (1980, July 21). Tenants criticize SHC infill operation. The Leader Post, NA (July 21, 1980), 3.
Figure 1: Braham, D. (1980, August 23). Hopes and realities of infill housing hard to distinguish. The Leader Post, NA (August 8, 1980), 53.
Figure 2: Simpson, E. (1983, June 1). Prejudice makes it harder to find houses. The Leader Post, NA (June 1, 1980), B1.
Figure 3: Maess, D. (2023, November 3). 'In droves': Regina neighbourhood pushing back against proposed high rise building. CTV News Regina. Retrieved November 27, 2023, from https://regina.ctvnews.ca/in-droves-regina-neighbourhood-pushing-back-against-proposed-high-rise-building-1.6630647