From Waterfront to Watershed: Mapping a Big Idea in the Greater Toronto Region By MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Linda C. Ciesielski FEB 18 2011 B.S. in Landscape Architecture Cornell University LIBRARIES Ithaca, NY (2005) Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning ARCHIVES in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY February 2011 @ 2011 Linda C.Ciesielski. All Rights Reserved Linda Ciesielski here by grants to MIT the permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of the thesis document in whole or in part. Author Linda C. Ciesielski Department of Urban Studies and Planning December 17, 2010 Certified by Professor James L. Wescoat, Jr. Department of Architecture Thesis Supervisor Accepted by Professor Joseph Ferreira Chair, MCP Committee Department of Urban Studies and Planning Abstract Today, Toronto is revered among Great Lakes' and waterfront cities for its environmental planning: its massive re-investment in water and stormwater infrastructure; protected headwaters of the region's rivers; realized waterfront plans; and more swimmable beaches. Twenty years ago, the Metro area was designated a hotspot of pollution, the waterfront was marked with vacant brownfields, while rampant development grew from the city's edge. This thesis explores how Toronto transformed its relationship to water and Lake Ontario by examining the work and legacy of a federal and provincial inquiry into the Future of Toronto's Waterfront. While the Royal Commission's inquiry concluded nearly twenty years ago, its impact and legacy on regional planning appears embedded in the Toronto's planning today. The Commission advanced an ecologically-based approach to planning by using the established interest in the waterfront to leverage concerns for the region's watershed. The process of the Commission inquiry served as a vehicle for garnering public support and political will for policy change. The Commission's pragmatic approach to resolving growth and development pressures alongside environmental concerns strengthened its appeal, and contributed to the adoption of many of the Commission's recommendations at the federal, provincial and municipal level. The Commission's work led to significant land use and policy reform in the early 1990s, under the Liberal and New Democratic Parties. However, these policies were rescinded under a change in federal and provincial power in 1995. They were later re-adopted in the early-to-mid 2000s. Today, the language and ideas first presented by the Commission appear to resonate to a certain degree in the region's and province's planning policies. While certain unique circumstances of Toronto and the Commission distinguish it from other cities and regions, these exceptions do not detract from the fact that the Commission's ecosystem and watershed solution for the region was exceptionally strong and persuasive. The Commission's cohesive presentation of its ecological strategy largely resonated with the public and politicians, leveraging policy change. The Commission's plan warrants attention as an important case study for cities on the Great Lakes and waterfronts. Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Prof. Jim Wescoat, and reader, Prof. Brent Ryan, both of whom provided insightful comments on this inquiry, and pushed me to consider new questions, and deepen my understanding of the Toronto case and its broader implications. Prof. Wescoat strongly supported this work through weekly meetings and was always able to unfurl complexities into an organized analysis; I am indebted to your kind support, guidance and knowledge! I would also like to thank my academic advisor Prof. Larry Susskind for his ongoing support, open door to all my questions, numerous thesis proposals, and helpful leads. I would like to thank my interviewees for taking time from their busy schedules to speak with me and expand my understanding of Toronto and the Commission inquiry. Also, thank you DUSP classmates for sharing your own curiosities and enthusiasm with me over the past few years; you have broadened my perspective on the world around me. Thank you to my friends and family beyond the walls of MIT who always provided generous support, encouragement, humor and a listening ear. Special gratitude goes to my parents, and in particular my sister, Anna. About the Author This inquiry into Toronto comes from an outsiders' perspective: I grew up in Buffalo, New York, across the lake from Toronto. Both Buffalo and Toronto shared an industrial port past, the loss of manufacturing jobs, contaminated waterfront properties and waterways. But today the cities appear very different: Toronto has a relationship to the waterfront, its rivers, significant parkland, and a growing population; Buffalo does not. My curiosity about what made Toronto "work" in part prompted this thesis, specifically its relationship to water and watershed planning, unique among the Great Lakes cities. How did Toronto transform itself from a polluted urban waterfront with derelict buildings and degraded rivers, to something much better? How could other waterfront cities learn from Toronto's story? This thesis sets out to unravel these questions by following significant environmental and planning changes in the Toronto from the late 1980s through today. Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements List of Terms, Abbreviations and Acronyms List of Figures Chapter 1: Introduction 8 1.1 The Commission's "Ecosystem Approach" and Toronto Past and Present 12 1.2 Methodology and Analysis 12 Chapter 2: Background 17 2.1 Toronto's Geographic Context and Governance 17 2.2 Royal Commission Context 21 2.3 Royal Commission Term 24 Chapter 3: Advancing an Agenda 30 3.1 The Royal Commission's Argument 30 3.2 Showing a Region: The Bioregion Map 35 3.3 Royal Commission Recommendations 38 Planning Practice 39 Environmental Imperatives: Water 47 Environmental Imperatives: Shoreline 61 Environmental Imperatives: Greenways 67 Urban Watersheds 73 Municipalities 82 Regeneration and Recovery 85 Chapter 4: The Royal Commission's Impact 86 4.1 Publicity and the Commission's Narrative of Place 87 4.2 Commission Impacts 93 Planning Practice 95 Environmental Imperatives: Water 99 Environmental Imperatives: Shoreline 104 Environmental Imperatives: Greenways 109 Urban Watersheds 118 Municipalities 124 Chapter 5: Assessing the Commission's Ecosystem and Watershed Approach 128 Chapter 6: Toronto Today and the Legacy of the Royal Commission 131 6.1 Legacy of the Bioregion Map 134 6.2 Toronto, the Great Lakes and Waterfront Cities 137 6.3 Toronto's "Special" Circumstances 140 6.4 Conclusion 147 Bibliography 150 List of Terms, Abbreviations and Acronyms AOC Area of Concern ARCH Action to Restore a Clean Humber River COA Canada-Ontario Agreement CPDR Commission on Planning and Development Reform CSO Combined Sewer Overflow EAA Environmental Assessment Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement GTA Greater Toronto Area IJC International Joint Commission MISA Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement MNR Ministry of Natural Resources MOE Ministry of the Environment (M)TRCA (Metropolitan) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority MVVA Michael van Valkenberg Associates NEP Niagara Escarpment Plan OMAH Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing OMB Ontario Municipal Board ORM Oak Ridges Moraine PC Progressive Conservative party PPS Provincial Policy Statements RAP Remedial Action Plan STORM Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition THC Toronto Harborfront Commissioners TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load WRT Waterfront Regeneration Trust WWFMP Wet Weather Flow Master Plan List of Figures Figure 1: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Map 10 Figure 2: Toronto on Great Lakes 17 Figure 3: Toronto and Region ConservationAuthority Managed Watersheds 20 Figure 4: Metropolitan Toronto and regional municipalities 29 Figure 5: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Map 32 Figure 6: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Map from Watershed 36 Figure 7: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Map from Watershed 36 Figure 8: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Mapfrom Regeneration 48 Figure 9: The GreatLakes Basin and Areas of Concern 70 Figure 10: Greenways and Trails Conceptfor the GreaterToronto bioregion 83 Figure 11: "Places"Regions inlay shown by Commission 88 Figure 12: Map of Don River featured in Globe and Mail Toronto Magazine 103 Figure 13: Metro Toronto Area of Concern. RAP Clean Water, Clear Choices 1994 107 Figure 14: Waterfront Trail map 110 Figure 16: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Mapfrom Watershed 1990 114 Figure 17: Oak Ridges Moraine Designation 2002 116 Figure 18: The Greater Toronto Bioregion Mapfrom Regeneration 116 Figure 19: The Greenbelt Plan 2005 126 Chapter 1: Introduction Toronto sees water: in its waterfront master plans and urban wetlands, in its city-wide stormwater management plan, and in the upper reaches of its watersheds, where the headwaters of rivers are protected from development. Toronto has transformed its relationship with Lake Ontario from an industrial port and railroad corridor to publicly accessible trails, parks, mixed-use development, and more swimmable beaches (Dempsey 2010).1 Many places in North America have begun to see water as well - through the mapping of watersheds, the aid of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and investment in watershed plans. Unfortunately, thousands of these watershed plans and maps sit on government