LANDLOCKED: POLITICS, PROPERTY, AND THE TORONTO WATERFRONT, 1960-2000 by Gabriel Ezekiel Eidelman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Gabriel Eidelman 2013 Landlocked: Politics, Property, and the Toronto Waterfront, 1960-2000 Gabriel Eidelman Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2013 Abstract Dozens of major cities around the world have launched large-scale waterfront redevelopment projects over the past fifty years. Absent from this list of noteworthy achievements, however, is Toronto, a case of grand ambitions gone horribly awry. Despite three extensive revitalization plans in the second half of the 20th century, Toronto’s central waterfront, an area roughly double the city’s central business district, has remained mired in political gridlock for decades. The purpose of this dissertation is to explain why this came to pass. Informed by extensive archival and interview research, as well as geospatial data analyzed using Geographic Information Systems software, the thesis demonstrates that above and beyond political challenges typical of any major urban redevelopment project, in Toronto, issues of land ownership — specifically, public land ownership — were pivotal in defining the scope and pace of waterfront planning and implementation. Few, if any, waterfront redevelopment projects around the world have been attempted amidst the same degree of public land ownership and jurisdictional fragmentation as that which plagued implementation efforts in Toronto. From 1961-1998, no less than 81% of all land in the central waterfront was owned by one public body or another, dispersed across a patchwork of public agencies, corporations, and special purpose authorities nestled within multiple levels of government. Such fragmentation, ii specifically across public bodies, added a layer of complexity to the existing intergovernmental dynamic that effectively crippled implementation efforts. It created a “joint-decision trap” impervious to conventional resolution via bargaining, problem solving, or unilateral action. This tangled political history poses a considerable challenge to conventional liberal, structuralist, and regime-based theories of urban politics derived from US experiences. It also highlights the limits of conventional implementation theory in the study of urban development, and calls into question longstanding interpretations of federal-provincial-municipal relations and multilevel governance in Canada. iii Acknowledgments To those under the impression that completing a PhD is a strictly individual achievement, know this: nothing could be further from the truth. I could never have come this far without the help and encouragement of so many colleagues, friends, and family. Richard Stren, my supervisor, was absolutely instrumental in guiding me to the finish line. When I needed a coach, he drew up strategy; a cheerleader, he raised my spirits. He is the strongest advocate of my work, and the kindest mentor imaginable. I am truly honoured to have been taken under his wing. My committee members, David Cameron and Phil Triadafilopoulos, provided me with unrelenting support throughout. David is an honest-to-goodness sage; no matter how jumbled my thoughts, I could always count on him to lend a conscientious ear. Phil is, without a doubt, the finest role model a young scholar could ask for — sharp as a knife, yet disarmingly warm (not to mention a heck of a D-partner on the ice). I can only hope to follow in their footsteps. I am grateful as well to members of my extended committee. Graham White took time out of his well-earned sabbatical to carefully critique my work. Caroline Andrew offered her comments with precision and grace. And though he played only a small role in the direct making of this thesis, I am particularly thankful that Matt Hoffmann, from whom I have learned so much over the years, could be there at the end of the road. Others deserving thanks for their professional contributions include: Grace Skogstad, Christian Breunig, Linda White, Doug Macdonald, Ed Schatz, Ingrid Stefanovic, Richard White, and Lionel Feldman. Many in this group read portions of my work, others simply helped shape my ideas. All, however, left their own distinct mark on the thesis before you. Special mention to Kristin Good, Martin Horak, and Chris Gore for their invaluable “insider” advice. iv I would like to acknowledge the collective candour of my interview participants, whose insights, as you will see, enliven nearly every page of this project. Thanks especially to David Crombie for multiple engaging chats, Peter de Tolly for going the extra mile (from many miles away), Tony Coombes for his early guidance, and Gene Desfor for not only allowing me access to his personal vault of waterfront materials, but the confidence he showed in me from day one. Credit also to the gang of unheralded, yet indispensable, archivists who piloted me through hundreds of boxes of historical treasures at the City of Toronto Archives, the Archives of Ontario, the National Library and Archives, and the Toronto Port Authority archives. A nod as well to Marcel Fortin and Gerald Romme at the University of Toronto’s Map and Data Library for their expertise and tutoring in GIS. My visits to all of these outstanding resources, I should add, were made possible by financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, as well as the University of Toronto’s Institute for Municipal Finance and Governance, and Centre for Environment. The ups and downs of “dissertating,” as we say in the business, certainly take their toll. Whatever sanity I have left I owe to a great group of friends. A big hug to: Zack Taylor, for being a fantastic partner in academic crime; Mike Painter-Main, for good laughs, European adventures, and summer ball in the park; Deb Thompson, for turning the definition of “enemy” on its head; Laura Sparling and Evan Sotiropoulos, for making lunch the most important meal of the day; Mark Purdon, for patrolling the blue line and making do with a short couch; Dave Gordon, for sharing the thrill of cycle tracks in Copenhagen; David Houle and Yannick Dufresne, for showing me the best in (French) Canadian camaraderie; Joerg Wittenbrinck, for his unsurpassed kindness (and that cold, cold ride to Scarborough); Vuk Radmilovic, for never turning down a debate, even on Darwin; Megan Gaucher, for reminding me that venting in Kingston is just as cathartic as it is at home; Khalid Ahmed, for never failing to give my ego a boost, even when I did not deserve it; and the urban reading group of Carey Doberstein, Heather Millar, Scott Sams, and Jack Lucas, for always saying yes to patios and pints. A very special thanks to my old friend and roommate, Dan Buchman, with whom I (and a pesky audience of v mice) shared so many lively discussions on politics, ethics, and sports in our “cozy” basement apartment on Bathurst St. Finally, I would not be writing these words without the remarkable dedication and patience of my adoring partner, Chana Korenblum. Chana read every word of this thesis, and then some, even when her sleepy eyes wanted no more. How lucky to be in love with the world’s most charming and devoted amateur editor. Thank you to my extended family — Marshall, Tami, Rita, Jacob, and Vanessa — for your affection and a permanent seat at Friday night dinners. To my cousins, Adriana and Roni, for being my lucky charms. To my brother, Alex, for doing what big brothers do best — giving me a hard time only when I ask for it — and Seleen, for being the closest thing to a sister in a family with too many men. And most importantly, un beso a mi mama y papa, Beatriz Grinsteinas and Adolfo Eidelman, to whom I dedicate not only the following pages, but all my accomplishments to date. In all my thirty years, all you have asked of me is to do my best. Who would have guessed that would bring me a PhD? I hope I’ve made you proud. Gabriel Eidelman Toronto, Canada October 2012 vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xii Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 Three Eras of Modern Waterfront Planning ................................................................... 6 Unlocking the Puzzle ...................................................................................................... 9 Theoretical Considerations ........................................................................................... 11 The Structure of the Argument ..................................................................................... 15 Chapter Two: