A Case Study of the Governance of a U of T Capital Project: 90 Queen’S Park

Working Paper # 5 January 19, 2021

Miriam Hird-Younger and Mariana Valverde

A Case Study of the Governance of a U of T Capital Project: 90 Queen’s Park

What is a university? In Canada, as elsewhere, it is a centre for research and teaching, supported in part by public funds. It is also an employer, a producer of images, a subject of rankings, a real estate owner, a generator of revenues, and a hub in global networks of value and aspiration. But how does a university work? What exactly does it do? What are the powers and pressures, the practices and networks that constitute contemporary university worlds?

An interdisciplinary team of faculty at the University of Toronto, we seek to discover the many worlds of our own institution, in collaboration with graduate and undergraduate students. We foreground the everyday experience of people who work or study in different corners of the institution, who live in its shadow, or respond to its public face.

A pilot phase 2019-2021 has been funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Insight Discovery Grant #430-2019-00054

For more information about the project please contact [email protected]

Visit our website at http://universityworlds.ca/

To cite this paper:

Hird-Younger, Miriam and Mariana Valverde. (2021) “A Case Study of the Governance of a U of T Capital Project: 90 Queen’s Park.” Working Paper # 5, Discovering University Worlds, University of Toronto

Contents

Abstract ...... 3

Background ...... 4

Executive Summary ...... 4

Overview of Capital Project ...... 6

Consultation Process ...... 8

Governing Council Approvals ...... 10

City Council Approvals ...... 12

Opposition to the Building ...... 13

Conclusion ...... 15

Abstract

This case study examines the governance, accountability, and transparency in the approvals process of the 90 Queen’s Park capital project at the University of Toronto (U of T). This capital project, which will have a stark golden exterior, is heralded by the university as the new “gateway to campus” and will be the future home of the Centre for Civilizations, Cultures, and Cities. Although the university affirms that the project’s consultation process went beyond legal requirements and several changes to the plans were made based on feedback, there has been much public opposition to the project. In fall 2020, this push-back resulted in a pause in approvals at the City of Toronto, where councillors have required a review of the “cultural heritage landscape” before going forward. We found that information on the consultation process, feedback, and approvals process was easier to identify in city documents than through university governance systems. For instance, the financial approvals for the capital project were made “in camera” at all levels of university governing council. This case study is part of broader interest in accountability and transparency in capital project development at the university, and we conclude by inviting contributions and reflections from other units and universities.

Background

As part of the capital projects research under the University Worlds Research Group, there was interest in researching the approvals and consultation process (in the city and university) of the development at 90 Queen’s Park, due to the high level of public interest in this proposed building.

Rendering of 90 Queen’s Park capital project1

Executive Summary

This case study focuses on the approvals processes within the University of Toronto (U of T) and the City of Toronto, for the development of 90 Queen’s Park. This new capital project is touted by the university as an “incredible new gateway to campus”.2 Previous research points to an accountability deficit in capital project approvals at the U of T.3 This case study sharpens that finding by showing that city involvement increased accountability significantly. The city’s records of the approvals process are far more transparent than those of U of T and provide much

1 Picture source: https://www.utoronto.ca/news/new-u-t-building-create-cultural-and- intellectual-gateway-between-university-and-city

2 U of T News. July 14, 2020. “90 Queen’s Park: ‘An incredible new gateway to the campus’.” https://www.utoronto.ca/news/90-queen-s-park-incredible-new-gateway-campus

3 Mariana Valverde, Jacqueline Briggs, Matthew Montevirgen and Grace Tran, “Public universities as developers in the age of ‘the art of the deal’.” Studies in Political Economy vol. 101:1, 35-58 (2020).

additional information to researchers. Further, the city’s documentary practices make it simple to find background information for development and other projects.

• All U of T communications reaffirm that consultations were extensive for this building, and went beyond what was legally required. U of T communications highlight 90 Queen’s Park as an example of the importance of public engagement and consultation on capital projects. The communications specify that the building design shifted significantly based on these inputs (shorter height, smaller size). • There was much public pushback once the designs were revealed (spring 2020). The two main reasons given are that the design was not in keeping with the aesthetic of the area and that the demolition of the planetarium has not been justified. The building is now on hold within the city’s approvals process, pending a review of the “cultural heritage landscape” of the area. It should be noted that this is a rare instance of the city not going along with U of T’s architectural and other campus plans. • The site was purchased in 2009 for $22m,4 but approvals for the project within the university’s governing council were just made in 2020. Decisions on the total project costs and sources of funding were in camera at all levels of governing council of U of T. (This was not the practice in the recent past. Even today, the lack of transparency on financing extends only to certain high-profile projects, such as the Schwartz-Reisman centre of AI being built on College St. or the recent major retrofitting and additions to the Faculty of Architecture building). • No changes appear to have been made to the project within the university’s internal approval processes of governing council (spring 2020). However, changes happened at the city level: Toronto-East York community council approved heritage designation for some of the buildings on the site (Falconer Hall and Edward Johnson Building), but referred back to staff the recommendations on changes to those existing buildings until a study of the “cultural heritage landscape” is completed

4 Mariana Valverde, who was head of her unit at the time, distinctly remembers then Provost Cheryl Misak reporting to a regular meeting of deans, chairs and principals that the land was bought for $10 million, but has no notes to confirm her memory. What is certainly true is that no critical questions were asked by the 40 or 50 people present; the only comment was from then UC principal Donald Ainslie, who praised Misak for the university’s wise real estate move. The $22 million purchase price is cited in a report from the Governing Council’s Business Board (Business Board. February 11, 2009. “Report Number 172 of the Business Board.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Boards+and+C ommittees/Business+Board/2008-2009+Academic+Year/r0211.pdf).

(fall 2020). There are also minor changes that that university made to the plan in response to the public consultations. • There is no evidence that actual or potential university financial crises related to COVID-19 have impacted the university’s ambitious capital projects agenda in any way. Many approvals took place during the lockdowns of 2020 but concerns about potential losses of revenue were never mentioned in minutes of Governing Council meetings related to this capital project. Overview of Capital Project

The building planned for 90 Queen’s Park is named the “Centre for Civilizations, Cultures, and Cities.”5 It is pitched as a site of scholarship on “urban issues”,6 which suggests the President’s signature project, the new School for Cities, may have outsized influence in the space allocation process and perhaps in other governance areas. It is expected to house some or all of the following units: School of Cities, Departments of History, Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, Institute of Islamic Studies, Anne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies, (a Jewish Museum of Canada promoted by a private donor was announced in 2014 but shelved in 2016 due to other funding priorities of the donors7), the Archaeology Centre, Department of Global Religions, considerable Faculty of Music space, Faculty of Law space, some Royal Ontario Museum space, and a recital hall (which could be seen, if taking a cynical view, as an inducement for the Faculty of Music to go along with a building that will shut off natural light and views to the current Edward Johnson building; the allocation of some university space to the Museum may have served a similar purpose). It should be noted that as the School for Cities was being set up in 2018-19 there was talk about a potential mystery donor, but nothing seems to have transpired.8

Construction is supposed to begin in spring 2021 and finish in 2025. A Globe and Mail piece on the building described it as “high architecture” and that its

5 University Planning, Design and Construction. “Centre for Civilizations and Cultures.” https://updc.utoronto.ca/project/centre-for-civilizations-and-cultures/

6 U of T News. July 14, 2020. “90 Queen’s Park: ‘An incredible new gateway to the campus’.” https://www.utoronto.ca/news/90-queen-s-park-incredible-new-gateway-campus

7 Knelman, M. January 21, 2016. “U of T plans to build new cultural, academic centre.” https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2016/01/21/u-of-t-plans-to-build-new-cultural- academic-centre.html

components “all glitter in shades of gold,” with the Globe’s architecture critic noting that U of T has had a “mixed record” on its capital projects to date.9

The Architect firm is Diller Scofidio + Renfro, which designed New York’s High Line. The price offered to the New York firm is not public, and it is not known whether this was a sole-source contract or the result of a tender process. University documents list “consultation fees” for this project at $4.9million.10 While the original consultation fee was approved by the university’s Capital Projects and Space Allocation Committee (CaPS) in 2014, increases were approved in twice in 2018 and again in 2019, and it is unclear whether the $4.9million includes these increases or not and whether all of this amount went to the architecture firm. From what we could find, none of the approvals for the consultation fees needed to be done at the level of governing council, because the $4.9 is within the CaPS’ approval ceiling of $5m, and increases were under the 10% cap allowed by the Policy on Capital Planning & Capital Projects.11

This is how a city planning report described the project (note: despite the positive city staff report, the Toronto and East York Community Council, made up solely of councillors, deferred approval):

“This report reviews and recommends approval of the application to amend the Zoning By-law. The application proposes a compact built form on a site that is appropriate for further intensification, within a built-up area, that would take advantage of existing infrastructure, conserve heritage resources, provide new institutional uses, allocate approximately 50 percent of the site as open space and contribute to the vitality of the campus and surrounding area. This application proposes to permit a nine-storey institutional building with an overall height of approximately 43 metres and a gross floor area of approximately 14,770 square metres for the property at 78-90 Queen's Park. Falconer Hall and the Edward Johnson building are proposed to be retained and integrated into

9 Bozikovic, Alex. Feb 21, 2019. Globe and Mail. “In place of McLaughlin Planetarium, the University of Toronto plans for iconic golden architecture.” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-in-place-of-torontos- mclaughlin-planetarium-some-golden-architecture/

10 Business Board. No date. “Capitals Project Construction Report.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/agenda-items/07_BB.pdf

11 Planning and Budget Committee. March 18, 2020. “Capital Project: Report of the Project Planning Committee for the Centre for Civilizations, Cultures and Cities.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/media/29192

the development while the McLaughlin Planetarium is proposed to be demolished. Three vehicle parking spaces and 83 bicycle spaces are proposed.”12

Adding a very large building with only 3 parking spaces, especially one with a recital hall presumably used for public events, to a part of the campus that currently has very few parking spots, seems like a radical environmental move, but while it saves a great deal of money, is out of keeping with Toronto’s transportation realities. Consultation Process

While the consultation processes for the 90 Queen’s Park development went beyond the bare legal requirements, and some changes to the plans did take place, participants have voiced disappointment that their input was not adequately reflected in the changes to the plans. Consultation processes began as far back as 2010, which the University states has resulted in many “refinements and improvements”.13 The university has repeatedly cited this project as an example of the “importance of the community engagement”.14 To substantiate this statement, official university communications cite the consultations on the University’s St. George campus Secondary Plan in general, because the 90 Queen’s Park site was listed in that plan. VP for capital projects Scott Mabury told The Varsity that “the building has significantly evolved as a direct result of dozens of conversations that we’ve had with community members and others going back almost 10 years.”15 However, U of T has a website listing “misinformation” they have heard about the 90 Queen’s Park development, countered by a list labelled as “the facts”.16

12 City of Toronto, Toronto and East York Community Council. October 15, 2020. “Item TE19.2.” http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.TE19.2

13 U of T News. July 14, 2020. “90 Queen’s Park: ‘An incredible new gateway to the campus’.” https://www.utoronto.ca/news/90-queen-s-park-incredible-new-gateway-campus

14 Ibid

15 Anielska, M. and A. Levesque. August 11, 2020. The Varsity. “Toronto residents push back against U of T’s proposed 90 Queen’s Park facility.” https://thevarsity.ca/2020/08/11/toronto- residents-push-back-against-u-of-ts-proposed-90-queens-park- facility/?fbclid=IwAR3pSD7uVMqJ7TAkK0gfScgS_w4hJlL6aJ3gyiLHsX9mxVGhska4ujXDVFU 16 To view the table of “misinformation” and “facts,” please see: University Planning, Design and Construction. “Centre for Civilizations and Cultures.” https://updc.utoronto.ca/project/centre- for-civilizations-and-cultures/

The public consultations on 90 Queen’s Park specifically (i.e., not including those on the Secondary Plan) have included:17

• Two Community Liaison Committee meetings (June 11 and July 5, 2018) • City and U of T design review panel meetings (May 22, 2018, July 18, 2019) • City-hosted community consultation (June 12, 2019) • Four working group meetings (led by the local city councillor) (Oct 15 and Nov 20, 2019; Jan 27 and March 11, 2020) • Community Consultation (July 14, 2020)

Student Perspectives: From the limited record of internal consultations, it seems that students spoke in favour of the building (e.g., University of Toronto Students Union, UTSU), saying that the space was badly needed and some of the older buildings (Edward Johnson Building) were not functional and were unpopular among students.18

Changes Based on Consultations:

• Proposed height was significantly reduced in the consultations on the University Secondary Plan in 2011 and 2016. [Note: it is routine for developers to initially propose a building that is far larger than the norm for the area and then shave off some density, especially in height, if complaints emerge.] • Amount of Falconer hall maintained • Larger public realm • Reduced recital hall and smaller classroom numbers • Café area reduced • Total area reduced19

Assistant Vice-President for Planning, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships Christine Burke described the changes as:

• “aesthetic elements better respond to its surroundings,

17 U of T News. July 14, 2020. “90 Queen’s Park: ‘An incredible new gateway to the campus’.” https://www.utoronto.ca/news/90-queen-s-park-incredible-new-gateway-campus

18 Anielska, M. and A. Levesque. August 11, 2020. The Varsity. “Toronto residents push back against U of T’s proposed 90 Queen’s Park facility.” https://thevarsity.ca/2020/08/11/toronto- residents-push-back-against-u-of-ts-proposed-90-queens-park- facility/?fbclid=IwAR3pSD7uVMqJ7TAkK0gfScgS_w4hJlL6aJ3gyiLHsX9mxVGhska4ujXDVFU

19 U of T News. July 14, 2020. “90 Queen’s Park: ‘An incredible new gateway to the campus’.” https://www.utoronto.ca/news/90-queen-s-park-incredible-new-gateway-campus

• reduced the height of the building to 38.7 metres (plus mechanical penthouse), • increased the amount of Falconer Hall to be retained, • reduced the overhang of the recital hall over our heritage building [see image at the beginning of this report], • and further reduced size including classrooms to bring the overall size of the building down by approximately 20 per cent of the original building application.”20 • Larger courtyard

Governing Council Approvals

The following enumerates the approvals timeline for the 90 Queen’s Park development within U of T’s Governing Council.

1. Approval by Business Board for the purchase of 90 Queen’s Park from the ROM for $22million [Jan 14, 2009]21; 2. Approval of a Project Planning Committee by the CaPS [capital projects] Executive Committee [August 18, 2014]; 3. Governing Council meeting Sept 11, 2014: “A Governor highlighted the positive community reaction to the proposed capital project at 90 Queen’s Park; the President affirmed that the response had been overwhelmingly positive, and that he had initiated a wide ranging dialogue with the community.” 4. CaPS approval of funding for architects, Diller Scofidio + Renfro Architects, in partnership with architectsAlliance, who were retained in 2015, [December 18, 2014]; 5. Development application submitted to the city on February 22, 2019. 6. Recommended to go forward by Planning and Budget Committee [April 1, 2020]22 a. No questions noted in minutes b. Total project cost and sources of funding approved in camera

20 Ibid

21 Business Board. February 11, 2009. “Report Number 172 of the Business Board.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/Assets/Governing+Council+Digital+Assets/Boards+and+C ommittees/Business+Board/2008-2009+Academic+Year/r0211.pdf).

22 Planning and Budget Committee. April 1, 2020. “Report 192.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/governance-bodies/planning-and-budget- committee/reports/apr-01-2020

7. Approval by Academic Board [April 23, 2020]23 a. Some clarifying questions noted and answered by Prof Scott Mabury. b. Total project cost approved in camera, with funding sources mentioned but without specifics about commitments and/or financing (that is, new debt) 8. Approval by Business Board [April 28, 2020]24 a. Project, including funding, approved in camera 9. Approval by Executive Committee of Governing Council [May 5, 2020]25 a. No questions noted b. Total project cost and sources of funding approved in camera26 10. Approval by Governing Council [May 14, 2020]27 a. No questions noted b. Total project cost and sources of funding approved in camera

U of T financial transparency: As is now the case for high-profile capital projects, the budget and funding sources were discussed and approved in camera at all levels. This means not only that the figures are secret but also that members of Governing Council and its committees cannot share reservations they might have with their colleagues or constituents. The only information provided is that the funding sources would be: “Future Major Capital Project Reserves, Divisional Operating Reserves, Fundraising (Divisional), Divisional Borrowing, Fundraising

23 Academic Board. April 23, 2020. “Report 227.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/governance-bodies/academic-board/reports/apr-23- 2020

24 Business Board. April 28, 2020. “Report 252.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/governance-bodies/business-board/reports/apr-28-2020

25 Executive Committee. May 5, 2020. “Report 513.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/governance-bodies/executive-committee/reports/may- 05-2020

26 A noted local architect informed one of us that U of T regularly underbudgets for capital projects, presumably in order to quickly obtain internal approvals, but then keeps returning to Governing Council for additional monies needed to complete the project, or else has further funds approved outside of Governing Council (capital expenses below certain limits do not require Council approval). Thus, even if the initial budget had been made public, the figure could well be misleading. In the absence of budget transparency at U of T, the architect’s observation cannot be confirmed.

27 Governing Council. May 14, 2020. “Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Council Held on May 14, 2020.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/governance-bodies/governingcouncil/reports/may-14-2020

(Institutional), Institutional Borrowing (ROM and University).”28 The mention of “Divisional borrowing” suggests that despite the financial uncertainty of the COVID pandemic senior administrators are unafraid to continue issuing debentures. These debentures function as quasi municipal bonds, and, unlike mortgages for specific buildings, are not assigned to particular projects in advance. City Council Approvals

The consultation and approval processes of the City of Toronto seemed to have garnered more input and changes in the process than those of the University of Toronto, ultimately leading to a pause in the development. City Council approved designating Falconer Hall and the Edward Johnson Building as heritage sites on October 27, 2020, after the partial approval given by Toronto and East York Community Council on October 15 (Item TE 19.11). The Community Council only approved and put forward half the recommendations of city planners. The other half were referred back to city planners in an amendment. The recommendations held back, which therefore did not go to city council on October 27, were those to alter the heritage designations of existing buildings to allow for major construction on them. The delay will continue until city planners complete a “comprehensive study of the Queen's Park cultural heritage landscape.”29 The same decisions were made by Toronto Preservation Board on September 29, 202030 (i.e., it approved the designation of Falconer Hall and the Edward Johnson Building as heritage sites, but did not approve the recommendations to make changes to these sites requested by the university).31

Note on city vs U of T practices of transparency: It is much easier to find minutes of meetings and the decisions made within the city’s document system. Also, all emails and letters received from the public are listed, many with links to download the PDFs. One can also easily find previous council or committee decisions and staff reports (hyperlinks to documents relevant to the history of the proposal are helpfully inserted at the top of each council document). The city councillor for the

28 Academic Board. April 16, 2020. “Capital Project: Report of the Project Planning Committee for the Centre for Civilizations, Cultures and Cities.” https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/media/29218

29 City of Toronto, City Council. October 27, 2020. “Item TE19.11.” http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.TE19.11

30 City of Toronto, Toronto Preservation Board. September 29, 2020. “Item TE17.4.” http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.PB17.4

31 City of Toronto, Toronto and East York Community Council. October 15, 2020. “Item TE19.2.” http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.TE19.2

university area, Mike Layton, clearly received many letters and emails questioning the project, and appears to have been largely responsible for referring the project back to city staff. His prominent role is in keeping with common practice in Toronto City Council where a councillor is given much deference by other councillors regarding development projects in their area. Opposition to the Building

Resident groups have pushed back against the project based largely on the grandiose design, which they find does not fit in with the area, triggering a pause in approvals until a review of the “cultural heritage landscape” is conducted by city staff. The Queen’s Park Coalition32 wrote an open letter to councillor Layton expressing strong concerns about the harmony of the neighbourhood. “It’s a brash and flashy look-at-me ‘starchitect’s’ structure that is an aggressive 2.5 times the height of the ROM’s Heritage Wings.”33

Interestingly, Elizabeth Sisam, former Assistant Vice-President Campus and Facilities Planning at U of T, has spoken out publicly against the building (in The Varsity and BlogTO) for blocking other buildings, and said the plan would not create a “cohesive landscape.”34

When the city was reviewing the heritage designations for some existing buildings, they received many complaints (96 letters and emails for item TE19.2 were mentioned by the Toronto and East York Community Council, one from Adrienne Clarkson, presumably the former Governor General herself, although the PDF of the letter was not linked). The letter from the Harbord Village Residents’ Association articulated its issues:

32 From what we could find, this coalition formed in response to this capital project proposal. The Coalition includes: The Annex Residents' Association, ABC Residents' Association, Bay-Cloverhill Community Association, East Annex Condominium Association, Grange Community Association, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association, Harbord Village Residents' Association and the Huron- Sussex Residents' Organization.

33 Robertson, Becky. July, 2020. BlogTO. “Toronto Neighbourhoods Oppose U of T’s Plans for Landmark Building.” https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2020/07/toronto- neighbourhoods-oppose-u-of-t-building/

34 Anielska, M. and A. Levesque. August 11, 2020. The Varsity. “Toronto residents push back against U of T’s proposed 90 Queen’s Park facility.” https://thevarsity.ca/2020/08/11/toronto- residents-push-back-against-u-of-ts-proposed-90-queens-park- facility/?fbclid=IwAR3pSD7uVMqJ7TAkK0gfScgS_w4hJlL6aJ3gyiLHsX9mxVGhska4ujXDVFU

“They are embedded in the proposal for a 43-metre building on a roadway which, if approved, would overwhelm, rather than complement, the cultural heritage landscape of the northwest flank of Queen’s Park. The massing of the building, the presence of a truck ramp big enough to accept large transport trucks, the loss of trees would forever change that streetscape.”35

The Huron Sussex Residents’ Organization, which was part of the City’s Working Group for this site, submitted a letter against the proposal, stating that the concerns they had expressed throughout the development and consultation process had not been properly incorporated and they were “disappointed to see little progress made through this [consultation] process.”36

Planetarium Push-Back

This project is on the site of the Planetarium (closed in 1995) and is located adjacent to the ROM. The long-shuttered building is supposed to be demolished, and a new planetarium is planned as part of a new Astrophysics building at U of T. An online petition on change.org to save the planetarium was started by Architecture Prof. Jeff Balmer and has over 12,500 signatures.37 There is also a Facebook group called “Save the Planetarium”.38

The city reviewed the Planetarium as a potential Heritage site in 2013 based on a motion of the local city councillor.39 However, as it stands the Planetarium is not a

35 City of Toronto, Communication File for item 19.2. “Letter from Harbord Village Residents’ Association.” “http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/te/comm/communicationfile- 121751.pdf

36 City of Toronto, Communication File for item 17.4. “Letter from Huron Sussex Residents Organisation.” http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/pb/comm/communicationfile- 119722.pdf

37 Change.org. “Save Toronto’s McLaughlin Planetarium Building.” Petition started by Jeff Balmer. https://www.change.org/p/university-of-toronto-save-toronto-s-mclaughlin-planetarium- building?use_react=false

38 Facebook Page. “Save the Planetarium.” https://www.facebook.com/SaveThePlanetarium/

39 City of Toronto, Toronto and East York Community Council. January 22, 2013. “Item TE21.111.” http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE21.111

heritage site. There are a few heritage designations at the address of 90 Queen’s Park, but these are parts of the Museum and a sculpture.40

Replies to the critics

The main response to the resident groups’ criticisms has been a slight decrease in the size of the building,41 although, as noted earlier, slightly decreasing the size of projected megabuildings after an outcry is the norm in city consultations concerning controversial buildings, whose initial plans are so outsized as to suggest that the initial plan is simply an opening bargaining position.

Within the university, we are not aware of any campaign to question either the golden exterior, which presumably is expensive as well as out of keeping with the sensibilities of the COVID-19 era, the choice of architects, or, more generally, the university’s decision to go ahead with plans for grandiose buildings at a time of financial uncertainty. Hence, U of T has not had to respond to its own members’ views.

On its part, the city has deferred its approval based on needing to review the cultural heritage of the area, a decision likely the result of push back from the Queen’s Park Coalition and other groups.42 Conclusion

We hope that those who read or just skim our case study will be prompted to take the time to look into the governance of capital projects and space allocation within their own units within U of T, and that interested colleagues at other institutions will do the same, since it has proved impossible for the two of us, in our

40 City of Toronto. “Heritage Property Detail: 90 Queen’s Park.” http://app.toronto.ca/HeritagePreservation/details.do?folderRsn=2437577&propertyRsn=718382

41 Anielska, M. and A. Levesque. August 11, 2020. “Toronto residents push back against U of T’s proposed 90 Queen’s Park facility.” https://thevarsity.ca/2020/08/11/toronto-residents-pushback-against-u-of-ts-proposed-90-queens-park- facility/?fbclid=IwAR3pSD7uVMqJ7TAkK0gfScgS_w4hJlL6aJ3gyiLHsX9mxVGhska4ujXDVFU

42 Olsen, D. November 18, 2020. “Opposition to development on McLaughlin Planetarium site continues to grow. https://trnto.com/mclaughlin-planetarium- toronto/?fbclid=IwAR1FkXjUH10xOyIg9CyTJzCQlVLumhX3W_hCdOJcD2RUNkTCiyThCyT0_Q8; and, CityNews. October 30, 2020. “The battle continues over replacing the planetarium.” https://toronto.citynews.ca/video/2020/10/30/the-battle-continues-over-replacing-the- planetarium/?fbclid=IwAR04KMG8w_m1sBVnRBHocKRsv8NA0ALr8vH7VCMs0CtWeNC_5f2z0HyAS vE

“spare time,” to acquire all the information that would be needed to provide a comprehensive analysis of university governance in the field of capital projects and the governance of campus space. It might be advisable to start with U of T projects that involve the city, since the municipality offers more transparency and accountability in its planning processes than the university. If our case study had relied solely on information made available by U of T, we would have learned little or nothing about the substance of the opposition to the project. As it is, we were unable to discover much about the financial decision making due to U of T’s current practice of making financial decisions about major capital projects exclusively in camera.

We also encourage readers of this report, within U of T or elsewhere, to consider sharing relevant information that they have gained through experience. The knowledge of retired faculty members would be especially useful to shed light on the evolution of transparency practices. Individuals who have relevant information should contact Mariana Valverde directly at [email protected].