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

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 universityworlds@outlook.com 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 2 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. 3 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). 4 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). 5 (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,

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    17 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us