Community infrastructure is defined as a complex system of facilities, programs, and social networks that aims to improve people’s quality of life (United Way of Greater Toronto. 2004) . These services, networks and physical assets work in tandem to form the foundation of a strong neighbourhood.
The contrast between a community with “strong” infrastructure and one with “weak” infrastructure is clearly outlined in Clutterbuck and Novick’s (2003) “Building Inclusive Communities: Cross-Canada Perspectives and Strategies.” The authors note that, “municipalities developing ‘strong’ infrastructure will integrate physical and social planning and development and will invest adequately in both”. In contrast, ‘weak’ infrastructure “will indicate a continuing separation of the physical and social requirements of the city.” Thus, for a strong infrastructure to exist in a locality it is critical that there is adequate investment in both physical and social types of infrastructure.
Throughout the literature, the term social infrastructure and community infrastructure appear to be used interchangeably. In reviewing social planning activities in the City of Toronto, Zizys et al. (2004) highlight the integrative functions of social infrastructure that help to create a sense of place in neighbourhoods. The authors characterize social infrastructure as “those institutions which are the building blocks of civil society, the places where the community sector functions (community centres, meeting places), where there is support for organizations to form and grow and where social capital gets created.”
The community infrastructure of a neighbourhood can be provided within the neighbourhood (internal infrastructure) or provided to the neighbourhood by a source that is located or operates from outside of the neighbourhood (external infrastructure).
The types of organizations and institutions that make up this infrastructure range from:
Also included are local businesses and other local institutions that have an intimate stake in the well-being of the neighbourhood in which they are located (Roman et al. 2004).
The quality of neighbourhood life is influenced by three significant factors:
This section of the report focuses specifically on the continuum of services that work to improve the quality of life of community members, how these services interact with each other, and the impact they have on both social relations and the physical environment within the communities they serve.
Researchers in various disciplines studying the regeneration of cities and the factors associated with neighbourhood well-being identify a similar range of services, facilities and networks that are part of “comeback cities” and neighbourhoods that have reduced poverty and overcome adversity. However, these services, facilities and networks may be categorized differently (Roman and Moore 2004, Grogan and Proscio 2000, Howarth 2003).
Toronto has a broad range of community services that are similar to that described in the literature. These community services work inter-dependently within communities and across communities and are provided by a mixture of community organizations, faith groups and various levels of government.
This report classifies community infrastructure into a six-pronged typology that emphasizes how they seek to contribute to the quality of life in their community, as follows:
The quality of physical life cluster is comprised of organizations and institutions that secure basic health, emergency, housing and sustainability in each neighbourhood. An essential part of the social fabric that builds strong neighbourhoods is an effective and coordinated system of health services, emergency services and housing services. Examples of these types of services include:
Neighbourhoods provide public common spaces in which human development is nurtured. For the very young, seniors and people with disabilities, the neighbourhood is often the primary public common space in their lives. This cluster includes services that combine a broad mix of public, private and community organizations working with families and individuals with the goal of strengthening the future as well as present assets of the community. Examples of these types of services include:
The cross-community support services cluster includes services that are provided to specific populations within neighbourhoods. Often these services are provided by organizations serving a broad constituency that spans many neighbourhoods. For example, the YWCA, a city-wide agency, provides services for women in many parts of the city. Examples of such services include those designed for:
Social relations among community members are complex and often reflect many dimensions of inequality. As a response to conditions of inequality, some organizations may see the need to expand their direct services beyond their neighbourhoods and beyond their core services to promote systemic change th r ough civic engagement and advocacy efforts. Multi-service agencies work with a wide range of constituents and often provide leadership and support to networks and coalitions. Examples of such organizations/groups include:
The fifth cluster of social infrastructure includes the small businesses and labour organizations that have an intricate link to the neighbourhood economy. Key players are organizations that promote the quality of work environments within their neighbourhoods and public and non-profit organizations that seek to provide a safety net for those members of the community that fall between the cracks in the labour market. Examples of such organizations include:
For neighbourhoods to prosper they must be seen as safe places that are aesthetically pleasing and encourage social interaction among residents and stakeholders within the community. The physical environment cluster includes the services and institutions that promote harmonious social relations in neighbourhoods. Examples of these types of institutions include:
There are other types of community infrastructure that must be available but not necessarily in every neighbourhood nor in every city. Some services may best be delivered in clusters of neighbourhoods throughout the city.
For example, in the Greater Toronto Area which receives almost half (43%) of newcomers to Canada each year (City of Toronto 2002), settlement services for immigrants and refugees are essential community services and must be available in neighbourhoods where there are large populations of recent immigrants.
It is important to stress that foundation community services need to include a monitoring/planning function which meaningfully involves residents in determining the type and nature of services and in ensuring that the necessary services are delivered at the neighbourhood level. This process/function needs to take into account the life-cycle of neighbourhoods that will result in changing needs over time (City of Toronto 1991).