Rise of the Neoliberal City: Condominium Development and 's CityPlace

Rachel Phillips

Condominium developments have become ubiquitous features of Toronto’s urban landscape, emerging in disinvested neighbourhoods, former industrial sites, and defning entirely new neighbourhoods. Tis paper examines Toronto’s condominium boom in the context of the city’s increasingly neoliberal urban governance strategies. Te development of City Place – a 44-acre condominium project located near Toronto’s waterfront on former railway lands – is used in this paper as a case study that highlights how a neoliberal conception of the roles of government and the private sector has shaped condominium development in Toronto. Focusing on how City Place was planned, fnanced, and then sold to particular demographic groups in Toronto, this paper attempts to illustrate who benefts from the city’s condominium boom, who loses out, and how public and private interests work together to produce an increasingly privatized and commodifed urban landscape.

Introduction Tis paper will attempt to understand how condominiums ft into this neoliberal landscape Te rise of the condominium is a well-doc- by exploring a series of sub-questions: whose umented phenomenon in Toronto. Since the interests are served by condominium develop- 1990s, a condominium boom has been trans- ment? What policy goals do they help to achieve? forming the city (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009), with How does a neoliberal conception of citizenship condos popping up in disinvested inner-city and the role of government relate to condo- neighbourhoods, former industrial sites, public miniums and the lifestyles they encourage? In housing redevelopment projects, and new-build order to address these questions, I will begin by master-planned neighbourhoods. Few places grounding my paper in a theoretical framework in the city, it seems, are safe from condomini- of the efects of neoliberalism on urban gover- um developments. While many explanations for nance, development, and citizenship, before fo- Toronto’s unprecedented condo market growth cusing on neoliberalism in Toronto specifcally. have been proposed – including changing con- I will then try to situate the city’s condominium sumer preferences and middle class demands boom in the context of the neoliberal city, look- for inner city living, the city’s shif to a service ing at how this boom serves (and is served by) economy, and the need to house infuxes of neoliberal policy objectives and private interests. immigrants and young people – these analyses Finally, I will ground this analysis in a case study tend to minimize the neoliberal political context of Toronto’s CityPlace neighbourhood, a 44-acre in which the condominium boom has occurred. condominium development on the city’s former Neoliberalism has been an important infuence Railway Lands. in Toronto since the 1990s, shaping not only po- litical and economic conditions, but also urban Te Neoliberal City development policy, working to create a neolib- eral urban landscape characterized by the pri- Neoliberalism is a political ideology root- vatization of urban space, urban processes, and ed in a ‘rejection of egalitarian liberalism… urban citizenship. combined with a selective return to the ideas 32 | Phillips | Landmarks of classical liberalism’ (Hackworth, 2007, p. 9). es, alongside an increased signifcance of pri- It emphasizes individual responsibility, the an- vatized landscapes; an emphasis on downtown ti-interventionist state, and the belief that the redevelopment; the rise of mega-projects and free market is the ‘optimal mechanism for so- Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs); and various cioeconomic development’ (Peck, Teodore forms of uneven development (Rosen & Walks, & Brenner, 2009, p. 50). Under neoliberalism, 2013). these core tenets justify various state actions (and inactions), including the de-regulation of Neoliberalism in Toronto industry, non-intervention in markets, and the Neoliberalism has been a signifcant politi- roll-back and/or privatization of social services cal and economic force in Toronto’s urban pol- and welfare state institutions (Peck et al., 2009). itics since the mid-1990s, when Mike Harris’s In cities, neoliberalism works to shif the newly-elected Progressive Conservative provin- boundaries and priorities of urban governance. cial government began to push through various As neoliberal policies are adopted at higher lev- neoliberal reform agendas (Keil, 2002). Har- els of government, the responsibility for public ris’s reforms focused on cutting social services, service provision is ‘downloaded’ (Peck et al., downloading service-provision responsibilities 2009, p. 11) to municipalities, who, lacking the to municipalities, and withdrawing funding for fnancial base to support these programs, must urban infrastructure and development projects either roll-back, privatize, or cut these programs (Keil, 2002). In response to this provincially-led (Hackworth, 2007). Cities are thus forced to em- neoliberalization, Toronto’s leadership adapted brace neoliberal policies and values regardless of by reconfguring its urban policy, privatizing their political context (Hackworth, 2007), as the or cutting various social programs and services ideology has become ‘naturalized as the “only” and engaging in Public-Private Partnerships to available choice to cities’ (Hackworth, 2007, p. achieve many development goals (Keil, 2002). 11). Neoliberal provincial policies, alongside the In this context, ‘urban neoliberalism’ (Keil, political rhetoric employed by Harris and vari- 2002, p. 697) emerges as a political and econom- ous other Progressive Conservative politicians, ic restructuring project (Keil, 2002) that results also changed conceptions of citizenship in To- in the roll-back of various government funded ronto (Keil, 2002). Te roll-back of public ser- social and welfare programs and urban devel- vices and welfare worked to ‘encourage people opment activities, combined with the roll-out to see themselves as individualized and active of policies that focus on privatization and mar- subjects responsible for enhancing their own ketization (Peck et al., 2009). Tis roll-back/roll- well-being’ (Larner, 2000, p. 13). Torontonians, out process can be understood as part of what therefore, began to exist in a more privatized and Harvey (1989) identifes as a shif from urban commodifed urban environment (Keil, 2002). managerialism to entrepreneurialism. In the Pressure to embrace neoliberalism and en- context of increasing inter-urban competition, trepreneurialism also came from Toronto’s lead- urban governments begin to focus less on their ers’ desire to compete globally with other cities ‘managerial’ duties of providing services and for investment, business activity, and highly infrastructure, and more on ‘entrepreneurial’ mobile workers (Keil, 2002). In pursuit of global activities of marketing the city as an attractive city status, the city has embraced various spatial place for investors, tourists and afuent citizens and economic restructuring projects that are de- (Harvey, 1989). Taken together, these chang- signed to ‘create the local political and economic es in urban policy result in a new neoliberal base required for a development strategy which urban landscape characterized by: a declining is ever more global in its reach, and thoroughly signifcance of public housing and public spac- Landmarks |Neoliberal City | 33 commodifying in its intent’ (Todd, 2002, p. 202). Condominiums frst emerged in Toronto Tis restructuring, Todd (2002) argues, tends in 1968, positioned as a response to inner-city to prioritize the needs of capital and elites over housing shortages (Risk, 1968) and as a way to the city’s needs for social services. Tis process increase the number of home owners in the city of ‘going global’ (Todd, 2002, p. 192) is therefore (Harris, 2011). Te condominium introduced indicative of a shif toward more entrepreneurial a new and innovative form of property regime strategies in Toronto, as economic development that combines individual and common own- is increasingly predicated on the ability to attract ership, allowing for the subdivision of a single private investment, corporate headquarters, and parcel of land into multiple units, contributing service economy workers. In combination with to urban density and to the re-intensifcation of neoliberal provincial policy, this ‘global city the inner city (Lehrer et al., 2010). Condomini- strategy’ (Keil, 2002, p. 591) has worked to re- ums went beyond the functional consideration confgure Toronto’s economic, social, and polit- of dealing with housing shortages, however, and ical landscapes. by the 1990s they occupied a more strategic and political role in Toronto’s urban landscape. Te Condominium in the Neoliberal City In the context of entrepreneurial urban Te condominium is a central fgure in this governance strategies, condominiums can be reconfgured neoliberal landscape, and its dra- understood as a place-marketing tool for cities, matic rise in Toronto’s housing market can be working to attract consumers, businesses and in- linked to neoliberal policy objectives in two key vestors to the downtown core. As a result of the ways. First, condominiums are indicative of the inter-urban competition that occurs under neo- previously mentioned shif from managerialism liberalism, local governments increasingly sup- to entrepreneurialism. Private-sector led con- port downtown residential development, with dominium developments transfer development the aim of reproducing inner cities as attractive costs away from municipal governments (there- spaces for afuent groups (Lehrer & Wieditz, by decreasing their managerial role), while also 2009). According to Ley (1996) middle classes re-fashioning the city as an attractive place for have a strong desire for home ownership, which afuent consumers and investors and thereby is increasingly coupled with a desire to live in fulflling the city’s new, more entrepreneurial the amenity-rich inner city. Te condominium, goals (Lehrer, Keil & Kipfer, 2010). as a form that works to satisfy these desires, thus ‘joins renovated property as the landscape face Second, condominiums can increase the of embourgeoisement’ (Ley, 1996, p. 49), draw- number of home owners in the city, theoretical- ing afuent citizens into the city with promises ly decreasing these citizens’ reliance on the state of security, social status, and exciting inner city and increasing their support for privatization living (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009; Rosen & Walks, (Kern, 2007; Rosen & Walks, 2013). Neoliberal 2013). policies in turn work to support condominium development, embracing the deregulation of Te rationale for supporting this inner city planning controls, and supporting unfettered residential development is to encourage real private investment and development (Hayek, estate development and intensifcation (Kern, 1960). Tis gives developers more freedom and, 2010). Harvey (1985) argues that this intensif- theoretically, the ability to extract more profts cation primes the city for large fows of capital from condominium projects. Tis section will investment, which allows economic growth to explore these two intersections of condomini- occur even as cities lose their traditional man- ums and neoliberalism in more detail. ufacturing and industrial economic bases. Te real estate sector can thus work to support urban

34 | Phillips | Landmarks economies as they go through economic transi- icies (Ansell, 2014). Private property ownership tions, not only providing a source of capital in- has long been understood as a means of fos- vestment, but also working to re-fashion disin- tering independence and responsibility (Reich, vested built environments into new, productive 1964) – a concept that is easily embraced under forms (Kern, 2010). neoliberal ideologies.

In the context of transitions to a ser- Te condominium’s link to neoliberal citi- vice-economy and the decline of industrial zenship goes beyond home ownership, however. activities in North American cities, the condo- Rosen and Walks (2013) argue that condomini- minium can be understood as one form that this ums act as a ‘private club realm’ (p. 162), where real estate investment can take (Kern, 2010). residents enjoy exclusive access to the amenities Condominiums re-purpose disused industri- and services provided by their condominium, al land in order to make it proftable again, by including private security, gyms, and recreation providing housing to service-economy workers and community spaces. Kern (2007) argues that (Kern, 2010). In the context of neoliberalism, these club realms transform the nature of pub- condominiums are useful because they work to lic and private urban life, as condo dwellers rely serve government policy goals – turning disused increasingly on the private services provided by real estate into new sources of proft – without their condominium, and less on the public ser- state spending or interference in market pro- vices provided by the state. Condominiums also cesses (Rosen & Walks, 2013), thereby maintain- work to increase support bases for neoliberal ing the kind of non-interventionism that is key policy objectives. In a survey of urban residents, to neoliberal urban politics. Rosen and Walks (2013) found that the greatest predictor of a citizens’ support for the privatiza- Te condominium also extends this non-in- tion of public services was living in or owning a terventionism into the relationship between ur- condo. Tis support, they argue, indicates that ban governments and their citizens. Condomini- condominiums facilitate a ‘neoliberalization of ums help to cultivate ideal neoliberal citizens urban life and urban policy’ (Rosen & Walks, who are individualistic and less reliant on pub- 2013, p. 169), not only by decreasing reliance on lic services and spending (Kern, 2007; Rosen & public services, but also by increasing the base Walks, 2013). Tis occurs in two key ways. First, of support for neoliberal privatization policies condominiums increase the number of private (Rosen & Walks, 2013). property owners in the city (Harris, 2011) by di- viding a single parcel of land into multiple units, Te relationship between condominiums and by providing an afordable route to home and neoliberal policy objectives is mutual- ownership to large numbers of people (Lehrer ly benefcial. While the condominium works et al., 2010; Harris, 2011). According to Harris to support neoliberal policy objectives, neo- (2011), ‘many observers touted the condomini- liberal policy environments work to support um and its capacity to increase the density of condominium development by privileging the private interests as a legal mechanism with enor- interests of private investors, emphasizing pri- mous potential to efect positive change’ (p. 703) vate over public spending, and de-regulating and to foster a new class of ‘responsible citizens’ development controls and taxation (Peck et al., (p. 703). From a neoliberal perspective, this pos- 2009). Although condominiums have been un- itive change comes in the form of decreased re- derstood as a route to easy profts for developers liance on public and social services. Home own- since their inception (Callaway, 1975), political ership increases a person’s asset-based welfare, non-interventionism and looser taxation rules which in turn decreases their reliance on state (which have emerged in Toronto under neolib- welfare, social insurance, and redistributive pol- eral political leadership) allow condominium

Landmarks |Neoliberal City | 35 developers to extract maximum profts from that would provide a major expansion to down- their developments (Rosen & Walks, 2013). town (DeMara, 1999). Still other plans imagined Neoliberal policies also encourage the privatiza- a large public park (DeMara, 1999). All of these tion of state-owned assets, including publically plans were met with citizen opposition and polit- held land in valuable downtown locations (Leh- ical debate, however, and redevelopment stalled rer et al., 2010). As the inner city is ‘rediscov- until the 1980s, when the building of the Metro ered as a proft-maximizing place’ (Lehrer et al., Convention Centre drew attention back to the 2010, p. 88), this privatization serves developer area and reignited debate over its revitalization interests by opening up valuable public land for (DeMara, 1999). At this time, ofce towers were proftable downtown residential developments the redevelopment option of choice, but a major (Lehrer et al., 2010). recession and city budget restraints made this unlikely, and shifed the emphasis of the rede- Condominiums and a neoliberal policy en- velopment toward tourism (DeMara, 1999). vironment thus exist in a reciprocal relationship. Neoliberal policies open up opportunities for Te decisive phase in the site’s redevelop- developers to increase their profts on develop- ment came in the mid-1990s, when the Canada ments, and these developments in turn work Lands Co. Ltd., a crown corporation, decided to to serve neoliberal policy goals of privatization sell of the land to a private interest (DeMara, and spending cut-backs. Te condominium thus 1999). In 1996, the corporation began to seek becomes a key feature of neoliberal urban land- proposals for a private-sector redevelopment scapes, joining other forms of privatized, entre- of the Railway Lands that would centre around preneurial spaces and uneven developments that entertainment and tourism, envisioning an en- mark the neoliberal city (Rosen & Walks, 2013). tertainment expansion around the CN Tower In Toronto, this relationship between neoliber- (Zehr, 1996). At odds with this vision, however, alism and condominium development is evident the proposal which eventually won out did not at CityPlace, the city’s largest residential condo- focus on entertainment and tourism. Instead, minium development. Concord Adex, a residential real estate giant owned by Concord Pacifc and Adex Develop- Case Study: CityPlace ments, proposed a 44 acre condominium devel- opment for the site (Immen, 1999). Te compa- CityPlace is a master-planned condominium ny entered negotiations to purchase the site in development on Toronto’s former Railway Lands 1996, and in 1997 the sale of the land to Conord (DeMara, 1999). Originally home to the Cana- Adex was fnalized, and the proposal to build 20 dian National Railway’s Spadina Street Yard, the high-rise condominiums in a ‘dynamic, mas- site had fallen into disuse by the mid-1960s, as a ter-planned community’ was approved (Lover- wave of de-industrialization swept through the ing, 2002). Concord Adex broke ground on the city’s downtown, and Canadian National moved site in 1999, with a plan to spend $1.5 to $2-bil- their operations to suburban Vaughn (Zehr, lion and ten years redeveloping the site, which 1996). Te empty Railway Lands quickly became is projected to house 12,000 condominium resi- seen as a blight, prompting the City of Toronto dents in 6,000 units (van Rijn, 1999). to call for development proposals for the site in the late 1960s (DeMara, 1999). Many plans were Although the CityPlace condominiums are put forward, beginning with the 1968 Metro now a prominent feature in Toronto’s urban Centre Project, a dramatic proposal that called landscape, their construction was far from in- for demolition of and the build- evitable. Concord Adex’s purchase of the west ing of the CN tower (DeMara, 1999). Later plans Railway Lands was the culmination of almost 30 envisioned the area redeveloped as an ofce park years of contentious and confict-ridden eforts

36 | Phillips | Landmarks to redevelop the site (van Rijn, 1999). So the denser than the rest of the city (see table 1). Te question is: why, afer years of debate and strug- neighbourhood’s demographic profle speaks gle, did condominiums win out as the develop- to the city’s interest in attracting young profes- ment option of choice? Neoliberal urban policy sionals who will theoretically contribute to the goals, along with Concord Adex’s economic service-oriented economy with their work and clout appear to have been the decisive factors. consumption patterns. Te neighbourhood’s density and its growth-rate speak to the city’s in- Concord Adex’s development for CityPlace terest in re-intensifying the downtown core and served neoliberal policies in three key ways. re-fashioning it as an attractive place for afuent First, it can be seen to facilitate the shif from consumers. managerialism to entrepreneurialism which was taking place in Toronto at the time. Te City- Tis emphasis on entrepreneurialism is also Place site occupies prime real estate in the city’s evident in the rhetoric surrounding the project. downtown core, and its development has been In 1999, then-mayor Mel Lastman used a variety used to attract the afuent professional popula- of superlatives to describe the project, including tion that Toronto is competing with other cities the claim that it was the ‘largest development in to attract. It has been marketed as ‘Yorkville by the history of Canada’ (Wong, 1999, p. 1) (a state- the lake,’ (Wong, 1999, p. 1) and ‘Bloor West Vil- ment that was categorically untrue). Concord lage by the SkyDome’ (Wong, 1999, p. 1) appeal- Adex’s senior vice president called CityPlace a ing to middle class consumers’ renewed taste for ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ (Wong, 1999, p. chic, downtown spaces. Concord Adex’s adver- 1) for the developer and for condominium buy- tising tends to target young, single, and afuent ers, portraying the development as an exciting, frst-time buyers (Carlucci, 1999), and has been exclusive opening in Toronto’s booming housing largely successful in attracting these residents. In market. Part of the CityPlace conversation also doing so, CityPlace clearly compliment’s Toron- surrounded the neighbouring SkyDome, which to’s entrepreneurial turn, helping it to compete was called, in one article, the ‘world’s greatest en- for desirable citizens who are wealthy, young, tertainment centre’ and credited with attracting and creative. residential development to the area (Harding, 2002, p. B02). Tis discourse, which positioned CityPlace is demographically and physically CityPlace as a large, exciting and vital project, distinct from the rest of Toronto. It is growing is symptomatic of broader attempts to market much faster, it’s population is much younger Toronto as a globally competitive city, and to (and made up of far more singles), and it is much

Table 1: 2011 Census Data for Census Tract 5350012.01 (Statistics Canada, 2011)

Landmarks |Neoliberal City | 37 market the condominium development to con- sector. Te City of Toronto had been trying to sumers as part of the city’s competitive package. redevelop the Railway Lands for close to 30 years by the time Concord Adex submitted their pro- As part of this substitution movement away posal, and had faced enormous pressure to fnd from managerialism and towards entrepre- a solution to the perceived ‘blight’ of the disused neurialism, Concord’s development project can waterfront area (DeMara, 1999). Te city could also be understood to serve the city’s interest in not carry out any redevelopment itself, however rolling back social services and decreasing in- (DeMara, 1999): by the 1990s, provincial poli- frastructure provision costs. In terms of service cies led to the downloading of service provision provision, CityPlace de-emphasizes public hous- responsibilities to the municipal level, and dra- ing provision, while focusing on private and ex- matically cut funding for urban development clusive housing for the city’s middle class. While projects. Te city thus faced the challenge of se- the city ensured that Concord Adex would cede vere fnancial constraints, along with the newly 3 blocks of land to build 1,200 units of public dominant neoliberal conception that govern- housing as part of its negotiations with the de- ment involvement in urban development need- veloper (DeMara, 1999), the public housing ed to be reduced in order to prioritize private buildings have not been completed and are not sector activity. projected to meet the 1,200 unit goal (Bentley Mays, 2014). Other so-called public amenities, When it called for redevelopment proposals like parks and community spaces, have been in the 1990s, the city and the Canada Lands Co. built and maintained by Concord as part of the Ltd. were explicit about the need for the project redevelopment (Bentley Mays, 2005). Although to be funded by the private sector (Zehr, 1996), these spaces are ostensibly public, they are not and symbolically rejected any involvement in managed or funded by a public body, and are the project by seeking a private buyer for the thus indicative of the privatized landscapes of publically held land. According to many observ- the neoliberal city. ers, it became clear that money was the major expedient in getting the redevelopment project CityPlace’s private amenities and the typical of the ground (DeMara, 1999). Jack Layton, a profle of its residents may also reduce demands city councillor at the time, remarked that ‘the for public services. Residents of CityPlace tend visions have fopped back and forth. It was go- to be single young professionals or couples who ing to be ofce, then it was going to be hous- spend much of their time working (Korducki, ing, it was going to be ofce, then it was going 2013), and thus might rely on public services less to be housing. Finally, the guy with the money than a typical family or lower-income resident walked in and said, it’s housing’ (DeMara, 1999, would. Te services they do need can ofen be p. 1). Similarly, a major Toronto developer was found in their condominium, instead of in the quoted as saying ‘What the railway lands need is public sphere, as CityPlace ofers its residents someone with deep pockets and lots of patience’ luxe condominiums with a wide range of ameni- (DeMara, 1999, p. 1). In the context of neoliberal ties and services (Bentley Mays, 2005). Tus, we provincial policies that slashed the city’s spend- can see CityPlace – and its emphasis on privat- ing power, those deep pockets had to come from ized service delivery – as part of neoliberal pro- the private sector if the city was to achieve its cesses that ‘reorient the private and public na- goals of redeveloping the Railway Lands as a ture of urban life’ (Rosen & Walks, 2013, p . 168). productive and proftable downtown site afer years of de-industrialization induced disuse. Finally, the CityPlace development has served the city’s neoliberal policy goals by allow- Te need for private sector planning and ing it to shif redevelopment costs to the private funding put Concord Adex in a position of ex-

38 | Phillips | Landmarks treme infuence. Te development company is and its goals. CityPlace represented an oppor- jointly owned by the Concord Pacifc Group, tunity for enormous proft for Concord Adex which was founded by billionaire Li Ka-shing, (DeMara, 1999). Toronto’s condominium mar- and Grand Adex Developments Inc., a frm that ket was among the strongest in the world at the is privately held by the famously wealthy Hui time (Boyle, 2006), and the CityPlace property family of Hong Kong (Littlemore, 1997). Con- ofered Concord Adex the opportunity to buy cord Adex and the CityPlace project are backed into that market on an unprecedented scale. Te by a ‘bevy of blue-chip Asian investors’ (Little- empty, 44-acre site provided the company with more, 1997, p. 37), giving the company the abil- enough real estate to provide a 10-year supply ity to put up enormous amounts of money up of housing in 20 high-rise buildings (DeMara, front, in order to buy the location for CityPlace 1999). With a total of 6,000 units to sell to an (Littlemore, 1997). Terry Hui, the president of eager population of condo-enthusiasts (Wong, BurCon Properties Ltd. (the parent-company of 1999), CityPlace will undoubtedly be extreme- the Concord Pacifc Group, and the ofcial own- ly proftable. Tough the projected costs of the er of the Railway Lands) explained that the key project are $1.5 to $2 billion (Wong, 1999), and factor in the companies success in securing the Concord’s potential profts are somewhat limit- purchase Railway Lands, was purely a matter of ed by zoning restrictions and planning policies fnancial infuence, telling his interviewer that (including requirements that it provide public ‘All you need is money’ (Littlemore, 1997, p. 36), art and parks, and conform to controls on den- which Concord Adex has in abundance. sity, height, and design) (Bentley Mays, 2005) Concord stands to make a substantial proft of Concord Adex had more than just the mon- of CityPlace. In 2011, the average value of one of ey to purchase the land, however. It had a repu- the 6,000 units at city place was $377,159 (Statis- tation. Concord Pacifc, one of its parent com- tics Canada, 2011). Although this does not rep- panies, had recently purchased the Vancouver resent the average original price that Concord Expo lands in 1988, in order to build a $3 billion sold the units for, this number can be used to condominium community on the city’s water- make a rough estimate of Concord Adex’s prof- front called Concord Pacifc Place. Hui, the man its. A crude analysis using the 2011 average value behind the CityPlace redevelopment, controlled for a CityPlace unit indicates that Concord Adex the Pacifc Place redevelopment, which is to date would have made more than $90 million from the largest residential development project in its CityPlace redevelopment. Although analysts Canada (Wong, 1999). Te company’s track re- have warned of a condominium market bust cord is impressive, and its experience turning a (Reguly, 2004) in coming years, Concord Adex disused brownfeld site on prime inner city real appears to have gotten into the condo game early estate gave its plans for the Railway Lands cred- enough to avoid this problem: it’s sales are fair- ibility (Littlemore, 1997). Tis reputation and ly still strong, and CityPlace is nearly complete credibility, coupled with its major fnancial pow- (Wong, 2009). If the condominium market bub- er, put Concord Adex in a privileged and infu- ble does burst in coming years, and the value of ential position in the Railway Lands redevelop- CityPlace depreciates, Concord Adex’s stake will ment project (DeMara, 1999). In the context of a be practically non-existent. For Concord Adex, neoliberal urban policy environment, its ability therefore, CityPlace has been a dramatic success. to achieve the city’s goals, without the city’s f- nancial assistance, would have proved extremely Te redevelopment of CityPlace makes clear appealing to the City of Toronto. the intersections that exist between city policy goals and developer interests. Concord Adex’s Concord’s involvement in the CityPlace re- plan for CityPlace helped to achieve the City of development was not only desirable for the city Toronto’s goals to redevelop the site in the con-

Landmarks |Neoliberal City | 39 text of neoliberal privatization and reductions in Te condominium can thus be understood city expenditures. In turn, the city’s shifs toward as a form that privileges certain policy goals and neoliberal policy created an environment in private interests, while disregarding others. In which Concord’s money was highly infuential, the neoliberal city, the condominium supports and where private investment was privileged. privatization and proftable redevelopment, CityPlace adds an important dimension to the while it de-emphasizes public spending, service conversation surrounding the role of the con- provision, and state-led development. Tis re- dominium in Toronto’s evolution as a neoliberal sults in a close relationship between the condo- city, illustrating how neoliberal goals both serve, minium and the neoliberal city, as the two work and are served by, private-sector residential de- together to support and reproduce each other. velopment that re-fashions disinvested areas While it would be wrong to dismiss the other into newly proftable sites of capital accumula- factors that have supported Toronto’s condo- tion. While the condominium is just one part of minium boom – including consumer demand, the neoliberal landscape, it plays a central role in immigration and downtown intensifcation – it the creative destruction processes that are work- is important to acknowledge the central position ing to reshape the Toronto’s formerly industri- that the condominium occupies in the landscape alized built environment into one that serves of the neoliberal city that Toronto has become. In the current conditions of the city’s new service the context of neoliberalism, it is easy to under- economy and facilitate the reproduction of capi- stand how state policies and developer interests talist accumulation processes. have worked to promote and sustain the city’s condominium boom. Terefore, we can under- Conclusion: Condominium Development and stand the rise of the condominium in Toronto as Neoliberalism one facet of the rise of the neoliberal city. Te process of condominium-oriented re- development seen at CityPlace is now fairly com- mon in Toronto. From to , the condominium seems to have become a tool for achieving and fnancing the city’s rede- velopment goals, and for attracting young ser- vice-economy workers to the inner city. Less ob- viously, however, the condominium has become a tool for promoting privatization and commod- ifcation of urban space, for privileging private interests and profts over the needs of citizens, and for rolling-back public service provision. In this context, CityPlace is a fairly benign case: the outcomes of privatization and public service re- duction are problematic, but not dire for the rel- atively afuent citizens who live there. As con- dominium development spreads, however, into heavily disinvested neighbourhoods like Park- dale and Regent Park which are home to public housing projects and low-income populations, these efects will be increasingly challenging for the city’s marginalized populations.

40 | Phillips | Landmarks References Hayek, F. (1960). Te constitution of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ansell, B. (2014). Te political economy of home ownership: Housing markets and the wel- Immen, W. (1999, Jun 07). New development fare state. American Political Sci- plan aims at railway lands disused area west ence Review, 108(2), 383-402. of SkyDome would be site of multiple con- dominium projects, golf course. Te Globe Bentley Mays, J. (2005, February 18). CityPlace and Mail. neighbourhood redrawn. Te Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. Keil, R. (2002). “Common-Sense” neoliberal- com/docview/383729813?accountid=14771 ism: Progressive conservative urbanism in Toronto, Canada. Antipode, 578-601. Bentley Mays, J. (2014, April 03). Toronto Com- munity Housing goes high-style for low- Kern, L. (2007). Reshaping the boundaries of cost homes. Te Globe and Mail. Retrieved public and private life: Gender, condomini- from http://www.theglobeandmail.com. um development and the neoliberalization of urban living. Urban Geography, 28, 657 Boyle, T. (2006, September 30). Growth is on the – 681. highrise; good job market and attractive in- terest rates are contributing to afordability. Kern, L. (2010). Selling the ‘scary city’: Gender- Toronto Star. ing freedom, fear and condominium de- velopment in the neoliberal city. Social and Callaway, R.J. (1975). Condominiums revisited. Cultural Geography, 11(3), 209-230. Te Appraisal Journal, 517-526. Kipfer, S., & Keil, R. (2002). Toronto Inc? Plan- Carlucci, M. (1996, November 26). Condo ning the competitive city in the new Toron- builder targets young, frst-time buyers. Te to. Antipode, 34, 227-264. Globe and Mail. Korducki, K. (2013, August 24). Te challenge at DeMara, B. (1999, August 07). Te concrete di- CityPlace: Redefning condo life. Te Globe vide. Toronto Star. and Mail.

Hackworth, J. (2007). Te neoliberal city: Gov- Larner, W. (2000). Neoliberalism: Policy, ide- ernance, ideology, and development in ology, governmentality. Studies in Political American urbanism. Ithaca: Cornell Uni- Economy, 63, 5-25. versity Press. Lehrer, U., Keil, R., & Kipfer, S. (2010). Reurban- Harding, K. (2002, Apr 04). Dome sweet home: ization in Toronto: Condominium boom as landmark enters its teens, residential de- and social housing revitalization. Te Plan- velopers discover its allure. Toronto Star. ning Review, 46(180), 81-90.

Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to en- Lehrer, U., & Wieditz, T. (2009). Condomini- trepreneurialism: Te transformation in ur- um development and gentrifcation: Te ban governance in late capitalism. Geograf- relationship between policies, building ac- iska Annaler, 71(1), 3-17. tivities and socio-economic development in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Urban Re- Harvey, D. (1985). Te urbanization of capital. search, 18(1), 140-161. Oxford: Blackwell.

Landmarks |Neoliberal City | 41 Ley, D. (1996). Te new middle class and the re- van Rijn, N. (1999, Jun 7). $1.5 billion project making of the central city. Oxford: Oxford set for rail lands; new CityPlace to house as University Press. many as 12,000 people. Toronto Star.

Littlemore, R. (1997, December). Building from Wong, T. (1999, Jun 08). Rail lands plan on track scratch: For Terry Hui, real estate develop- ; developers present $1.5 billion project to ment isn’t an asset play, it’s all about creating house 12,000. Toronto Star something of lasting value. Financial Post Magazine, 36-43. Wong, T. (2009, May 06). If you build, will they come?; while the housing market in the Lovering, J. (2002, February 23). City within the GTA is showing signs of recovery, oversup- city: Afer years of planning and millions ply remains a problem. Toronto Star. spent, a company’s grandiose plans for To- ronto shoot up at CityPlace. National Post. Zehr, L. (1996, Jun 21). Proposals sought for To- ronto railway lands. Te Globe and Mail. Peck, J., Teodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review of International Af- fairs, 29(1), 49-66.

Reich, C. (1964). Te new property. Yale Law Journal, 75(5), 733-787.

Reguly, E. (2004, May 29). T.O. condos' founda- tion gets shaky. Te Globe and Mail.

Risk, R. (1968). Condominiums and Canada. Te University of Toronto Law Journal, 18, 1-72.

Rosen, G., & Walks, A. (2013). Rising cities: Condominium redevelopment and the pri- vate transformation of the metropolis. Geo- forum, 49, 160-172.

Smith, N. (1979). Toward a theory of gentrifca- tion: A back to the city movement by capi- tal, not people. Journal of the Ameri- can Planning Association, 45(4), 538-548.

Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Cana- da census profles: Census tract 5350012.01. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca.

Todd, G. (1995). ‘Going Global’ in the semi-pe- riphery: World cities as political projects. Te case of Toronto. In P. Knox & P. Tay- lor (Eds.), World Cities in a World-System (192-212). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. 42 | Phillips | Landmarks