Reviewing nation building innovation: the Lakewood project, Ringwood, Melbourne Peter Phibbs (University of Sydney) and Robin Goodman (RMIT) Background • Lakewood is a ten storey tower consisting of 84 one and two bedroom apartments • It operates using a co-operative housing model managed by Common Equity, a large Victorian Community Housing Provider • It was a nation building project acquired from a “distressed” developer The tenants • Common Equity approached EACH, a social and community health service, to assist in identifying and providing support to the new residents of this community. • EACH nominated suitable candidates for residency, the majority of who were on the public housing waiting list and had experienced housing instability for many years. • The residents are all low income earners that have been marginalised as a result of mental health issues, physical disability, indigenous or refugee status, low levels of education, unemployment and family breakdown. The Co-op model • A Board comprised of the Lakewood residents is responsible for decision making relating to the ongoing operation and amenity of the building • The landlord, Common Equity Housing Limited, has responsibility for tenancy management issues such as rent collection and tenant vacancies Research methods • We held a number of meetings at Lakewood as a foundation for undertaking a series of long structured interviews with residents • The interviews were aimed at investigating a number of issues examining the link between housing and health • In total 23 interviews were completed in wave 1 of the study • Interviews were also held with the landlord and the director of EACH Findings • A range of views both positive and negative in terms of the non shelter benefits of Lakewood, especially health • The positive views tended to be very positive • Some tenants with negative views have moved out • There is an issue about who can cope with “community life” Positive views • The building and my role has given me confidence • I applied for some training and my work on the Board helped me get a place • I no longer have social isolation – finally a place where I belong. I am happy where I live and I have never had that – I was normally depressed about my housing after a month Positive views • Having secure housing. .. Free to enjoy life and find work without fretting about housing. The longer I live here the more stable my emotional health because I am not stressed about having to move out • I’ve got people who are proud of me now – people in the building. I am going to do something instead of taking a “disability position” Positive views • I was hospitalised 6 times prior to Lakewood but since I moved here only once. This is due to stability • I feel young again by association • The positive support of other people with mental health issues Negative views • My health has deteriorated as a direct result of Lakewood • It’s like living in the community with good and bad neighbours but here you have to be aware that you will always be seeing them • Tenants with drug problems let people into the building. In the first year the residents didn’t lock their doors but now they do Themes • The social mix issue – How many people with complex needs is too many? • Design – This was a generic apartment building with common space on the ground floor • Management – The Community Housing provider took some time “adjusting” to the tenant cohort – Is a co-op the right model? Themes (continued) • Support – The initial promise of funders to provide on-site support was not realised • Sustaining tenancies – Is this a success measure? Conclusion • The provision of new housing to people in housing need was a major benefit of nation building • In the case of Lakewood the question remain about whether this was the right building and housing management model; • It is clear that buildings needs to be matched with appropriate support and this was not realised in the case of Lakewood. Questions? Images courtesy of Tradecreative Media