Hi :) I am Elisa Lucente
I am a postdoctoral researcher working at the intersection of migration history and memory studies. I came to Canada partly through family: my grandfather's sister emigrated there, and when I met her in 2017 I was struck, like many before me, by the idea of Canada as a place that welcomes everyone and that "works". I was drawn in by that narrative before I learned to question it.

A PhD followed, tracing the Ukrainian diaspora between 1945 and 1991, and the questions multiplied. But one kept pulling at me more than the others. So much of diaspora history is about the home you left and the nation you carry in your head. Instead, I became more interested in the other kind: the one you stop leaving, the one you build, and that make you stay. Who got to build permanently, and who remained in the provisional arrangement that never quite became a home? What did it cost to belong somewhere new?

Canada has remained the fixed point around which all of this turns, and CoMe-Home is where these threads meet.

What does it mean to be European? and Canadian?

What does it mean to be home?

"Europe" has never been just a place on a map, and strictly speaking, it is not even a continent. Geologically and physically, Europe is the westernmost peninsula of the unbroken Eurasian landmass, sharing continuous land with Asia across the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea. The "continent" label is a historical and cultural inheritance, not a tectonic fact. What we call Europe is, at its core, a concept, one that has always been made and remade through politics and borders.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, that concept was tested to its limits. The peninsula was fractured by devastation and divided by the Iron Curtain, and its people were sorted by the administrative categories of catastrophe: displaced persons, refugees, expellees, stateless persons, labour migrants. Some had survived camps. Some had lost everything to borders that moved without them. Some were simply looking for work in a world that had run out of it. Each label carried different rights, different waiting times, and a different relationship to the possibility of ever being somewhere again.

Between 1945 and 1967, more than one million people carrying these labels crossed the Atlantic to Canada. They arrived into a country that was itself unsettled, a settler-colonial state, officially English and French, built on Indigenous land, still negotiating what it was and who it was for.

The story most often told about the immediate postwar arrival in Canada moves in one direction: a room in someone else's basement gives way, in time, to a mortgage and a lawn. It is a real trajectory, and enough newcomers followed something like it that it has become the story people expect to hear. But it is not the only trajectory, and its success as a narrative has crowded out the others. It also takes housing itself for granted. Before any basement, boarding house, or apartment, there was often no shelter at all: months in immigration hostels and reception centres, or periods of being unhoused in a country that had promised arrival but not yet a room.

Single male labour migrants sending remittances home often lived for years in shared rooms they never intended as a first rung on a ladder; for them the basement was not a waystation but a rational fit with a household economy centred elsewhere, not in Canada. Apartment living, too, sits awkwardly inside a story built around the single-family home. Many newcomers, lacking Canadian credit histories or the kin networks that made a down payment possible, simply could not access mortgage markets on the settlement narrative's timeline. Others, particularly women arriving alone or heading households, chose the apartment for its proximity to work, transit, and mutual aid over the promise of suburban space. Renting for fifteen years was not a failure to arrive. It was often the more available, and sometimes the more desired, way of being in the city. Finally, some residential lives resist the record altogether. Sponsorship arrangements and doubled-up households left little trace in census categories or municipal files built to count single families, not cousins and boarders sheltering under one roof. This is worth naming as an evidentiary problem, not smoothing over: the sources behind the basement-to-suburb story disproportionately survive because those people stayed, prospered, and were later interviewed as success stories. Those who returned, who kept renting, who never settled into one administrative category long enough to be traced, left thinner archives and that asymmetry shapes the picture we inherit.

CoMe-Home traces that history, focusing on these two urban landscapes: Halifax, a port of entry, and Toronto, a growing global city. It follows the people, the policies, and the places. Halifax and Toronto sharpen the point rather than resolve it. Halifax's smaller rental market produced patterns of transience that Toronto's larger, more differentiated housing market did not repeat in the same way.

Canada has long told a story about itself as a country that welcomes newcomers.

This project asks when that story was true, for whom it held, and what it cost to belong.

Methodology and phases

Outgoing phase Secondment
Return
York University UCL
University of Pavia
Outgoing phase York University M 1 – M 24
Secondment UCL M 13 – M 14
Return University of Pavia M 25 – M 36
M 1 M 12 M 24 M 36

This project reconstructs the urban archive drawing on different bodies of sources: national and provincial government records, municipal planning documents, institutional files, private papers, union archives, and community-led collections. No single repository holds the city. By reading across official, associational, and informal layers, the research recovers voices and decisions that institutional archives alone tend to flatten or erase. The archive is treated not as a neutral repository of the past but as itself a historical object, shaped by what was kept, what was discarded, and by whom.

Interviews are central to this project, approached through a relational methodology that understands knowledge as produced between people rather than extracted from them. Drawing on feminist ethics of care, the research attends to what narrators carry in memory, in silence, and in the body, the textures of urban life that rarely survive in documents. Oral testimony is treated here not as a supplement to the written archive but as a counter-archive in its own right: a form of historical evidence that holds what institutions chose not to record.

The project uses digital spatial methods to make visible the patterns that neither documents nor oral testimony can show on their own. Historical maps, georeferenced across multiple time periods, are combined with social and demographic data to trace how urban space was organised, contested, and transformed. Rather than using maps as illustrations, spatial analysis functions here as a mode of historical argument, revealing where inequality settled geographically, how infrastructure shaped everyday life, and what the city looked like to those who built and inhabited it.

Beneficiary

University of Pavia

Pavia, Italy

Department of Political and Social Sciences

PI and Supervisor: Prof. Bruno Ziglioli
Host Institution

York University

Toronto, Canada

Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies

Supervisor: Prof. Carolyn Podruchny
Training partner

University College London

London, UK

Department of Information Studies

Supervisor: Dr. Adam Crymble
Cultural partner

Pier 21 Museum

Halifax, Canada
Funded under

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Grant agreement

101270159

Duration

July 2026 – June 2029

EU contribution

€317,923.08

Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the EU nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.