Constructing a Foundation for Change: the Ecosystem Approach and the Global Imperative on Toronto’S Central Waterfront
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Constructing a Foundation for Change: The Ecosystem Approach and the Global Imperative on Toronto’s Central Waterfront Jennefer Laidley 5 August 2005 A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Jennefer Laidley, MES Candidate Gene Desfor, Supervisor Abstract: This paper explores the micro-level politics involved in the processes of planning Toronto’s Central Waterfront in the period between the mid-1980s and the early 2000s. Using a conceptual framework that reviews and integrates ideas from growth machine literature as well as urban regime, regulation and globalization theories, the paper sets current waterfront development efforts in a theoretical context through which they can be understood as a 21st-century strategy for capital accumulation. In order to understand the ways in which Toronto’s waterfront has come to be mobilized to accommodate the imperatives of global economic and spatial restructuring, this paper takes an historical approach, reviewing waterfront planning activities undertaken in Toronto in the past twenty years. A new and novel “ecosystem approach” to waterfront planning was adopted in this period which, through its ability to both encompass and conceal a range of meanings, allowed its proponents to accommodate a variety of historical problems that had impeded waterfront development. This paper demonstrates that, in so doing, this approach set the stage for the elite pursuit of world city status through the development of Toronto’s Central Waterfront. i Foreword: My enrolment in the MES program was intended as a step toward a new career in a related but perhaps tangential field to the one in which I had worked for more than a decade. Now, in reviewing my journey over the past two years, I am struck by the degree to which the program was instead an opportunity to realign my ideological compass and to bolster my understanding of the world through a new set of theoretical and conceptual tools. My application of these tools to Toronto’s Central Waterfront throughout my coursework and in writing this major paper has been a fascinating and challenging task, one which has broadened my appreciation for the role of urban waterfronts – and, indeed, urban regions writ large – in the world’s changing political and economic geography. It has also solidified my conviction that urban areas and the politics with which they are inscribed are not only the sites at which domination is enacted, but also primary locations through which emancipation can occur. While specifically fulfilling Component 3.2.2 of my Plan of Study, this major paper brings the three components of my plan together in an integrated and comprehensive whole. In contributing to my understanding of urban planning, this paper has demonstrated that, indeed, planning processes which aspire to the ideals of egalitarianism are instead “necessarily and fundamentally skewed toward the interests of private capital” (76). An examination of the processes of urban development and the geometries of urban politics has been fundamental to this paper, and has been informed by a variety of theoretical frameworks which have helped me to better understand the motivations and connections behind the activities of any given urban regime. And while this paper has demonstrated that Toronto’s elite are almost inexorably reshaping the city’s waterfront to conform to the global imperative, it has also shown that waterfront development is fundamentally influenced by local conditions, indicating the importance that a rigorous examination of context plays in uncovering the opportunities for change. ii Table of Contents: Abstract i Foreword ii Table of Contents iii Acknowledgements v Figure: Map of Toronto’s Central Waterfront vi Introduction: Waterfront Planning in Toronto: Contradictions and Connections 1 Chapter 1: The Global Imperative: Urban Theory and the Toronto Waterfront 8 Globalization 10 Neoliberalism 16 Local Governance and Urban Change 18 World City Formation 21 Chapter Two: Waterfront Development Struggles in Context: Setting the Stage 24 Conflicting Mandates and the Problem of Jurisdictional Gridlock 24 Industrial Hegemony and the Politics of Land Use Change 28 Private Interests on the Waterfront: Public Access and the Public Interest 33 Toward a Royal Commission and the Future of the Toronto Waterfront 37 Chapter Three: Toward Resolution: The Royal Commission 41 The Ecosystem Approach 43 Unlocking the Jurisdictional Grid 49 The Toronto Harbour Commissioners 49 An Ecosystem Approach to Jurisdiction: The Stakeholder Roundtable Model 56 Land Use: Ending the Supremacy of Old Industry on the Waterfront 58 Residential Uses: Plans for a Liveable Waterfront 59 Industry of the Future: Environmental Opportunity on Industrial Lands 64 Parks and Public Spaces: Green Infrastructure and the Water’s Edge 68 Environmental Audit: New Land Use and the Environmental Straightjacket 70 Private Sector Interests: A Seat at the Table, a Finger in the Pie 74 iii Chapter Four: Waterfront Transformations: Institutional Responses and Mega- 80 Strategies The Provincial Political Climate 80 A Vehicle for Change: The Waterfront Regeneration Trust 81 Facilitating Growth through Jurisdictional Co-operation 82 Land Use: The Environmental Foundation 85 The Private Sector: Who Pays? and the Global Imperative 96 Going Big: The Olympics as a Mega-Catalyst for Growth 101 Chapter Five: The 2008 Olympic Bid: Waterfront Development via Mega-Event 102 Jurisdiction: Consolidating the Growth Coalition 103 Land Use: The Politics of Olympic Support 109 Private Sector Involvement: Olympic Investment as a Subsidy for Growth 112 Epilogue: Bid Dies, Vision Endures 122 Conclusions: A New Waterfront Development Paradigm 125 End Notes 133 iv Acknowledgements: I would like to sincerely thank the following: My supervisor, Gene Desfor, whose patience and unwavering support sustained me through this paper and, indeed, much of my degree, and without whom both would have been substantially more difficult; My advisor, Stefan Kipfer, whose belief in my capacity to get through my Plan of Study and willingness to meet at the Jet Fuel at all hours was integral to my ability to keep moving forward; Roger Keil, whose introduction to urban theory and environmental politics challenged my assumptions and provided me with just the right paradigm shift at just the right time; My interview subjects and my contacts at City Hall and elsewhere who provided me with important information about the history and politics of the waterfront; The entire ENVS 6325 class, who gave me a new and refreshing perspective on the waterfront – but especially Andrew Brooks, whose discussions were invaluable to helping me work through my theoretical framework (and whose cool coffee maker kept my caffeine levels high); Rebekah McGurran, who always there to support me, despite my indecisiveness and self-doubt; My colleagues Raouf, Mike, Melissa, Catherine, Paul, Hena, Tosh, Punam, Mari, Shannon, Roberto, Richard, Lisa, Frederick, Ali, Sylvie, Nicole, James, and the many others whose camaraderie (and sometimes ‘comraderie’) was gratifying and deeply enjoyed; Erik Swyngedouw, who showed me that “justice is a deeply geographical affair,” David Harvey, who reminded me that planning is “a social practice that preserves, in a deep sense, the domination of capital over labour,” and the host of others – including Gene, Stefan, and Roger – whose work has profoundly influenced my thinking about politics, justice, planning, nature, and the often frustrating but always fascinating contradictions of living life in the world’s cities; And last, but certainly not least, David, who got me into this mess in the first place and whose support and insistence on an outline got us both through. v Introduction: Waterfront Planning in Toronto: Contradictions and Connections In 1992, the Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto’s Waterfront released its final report, entitled Regeneration. After nearly four years of study, two interim reports, countless consultations and public forums, and a plethora of published working papers and reports, all of which examined many aspects and areas of the waterfront, Regeneration introduced what was then heralded as a new era of progressive, holistic, environmentally-based planning for Toronto’s waterfront and the ecosystem to which it is connected. The “ecosystem approach,” as it was called, promised to bring together in one development model “the long-term promise of a healthy environment, economic recovery and sustainability, and maintaining a livable community” (Royal Commission 1992: 16-17). Ecosystem planning was said to produce “more effective and creative solutions” than traditional planning due to its concentration on understanding the interactions in ecosystems and on its long-term view of change (77). Founded on the notion that “everything is connected to everything else” (Royal Commission 1990b: 17), the ecosystem approach recognised connections between human activity and the natural world and the various impacts of environmental health and degradation on economic and social activity. Only through a reconfiguration of waterfront planning and development from within the intersection of environment, economy, and community, the ecosystem approach proclaimed, could the vision be found to “restore the health and usefulness of the waterfront” (83). The approach quickly gained currency.