Even though it would turn out that the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation’s public consultation processes had less of an influence than they were supposed to, as we saw above with the Corus Quay Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation /Toronto Economic Development Corporation debacle, it bears looking into these consultation processes nonetheless. In terms of the East Bayfront Precinct, the current planning processes came into effect in
2003.130 The precinct’s design team was hired by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (which became known as “Waterfront Toronto” in early 2007) and the planning process began to take shape shortly after that.131 The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation had also hired Lura Consulting to head up all of their efforts to engage the public and organize public consultations, beginning with the East Bayfront public consultations.132
126 See e.g. Marrelli, supra note 122.
127 Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, supra note 3; Marrelli, supra note 122 128 Central Waterfront Secondary Plan, supra note 3; Marrelli, supra note 122.
129 Certainly noise was not the sole consideration in implementing the new crane system. The new cranes are, among
other things, much more efficient (“Redpath Sugar is Clearing the Dock Faster with SENNEBOGEN Equilibrium Crane”, Marketing Strategies and Solutions (website), online: <www.marketingstrategiesandsolutions.com>).
130 White, supra note 83 at 184.
131 Ibid at 185. See also Lehrer & Laidley, supra note 92 at 791. 132 See e.g White, supra note 83 at 184-85.
169
These started with four bi-monthly public forums and four bi-monthly Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings held by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation over the seven month period from October 2003 to April 2004, and since then additional public forums and Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings have been organized to solicit views on a range of matters pertaining to the mechanics of the redevelopment process as it occurs, including: zoning by-law amendments, the development of urban design guidelines, progress updates, and
unforeseen changes that have arisen as redevelopment occurs.133
In addition to these consultations, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation has also organized general public forums along with Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings leading up to the major individual development projects in the precinct, like the Sugar Beach project, for example.134 Despite the unfortunate turn of events with the Toronto Economic Development Corporation’s alternative plan for the precinct, the TWRC had developed a significant amount of goodwill and support amongst those who had participated in its initial consultation processes.135
But it is also important to examine how these consultations were constituted, and what kind of measurable influence they had. If, as Patterson and Silver suggest, the development or decline of a city’s waterfront provides perspective into how a city goes about mediating between the various interests of those invested in the space in question as well as how and what cities prioritize, then Toronto’s focus in designing this “creative” and “cultural” vision for the waterfront has prioritized attracting cultural businesses and private entities like Corus
133 Ibid at 185-86. 134 Ibid.
170
Entertainment into the space, post-secondary education institutions like George Brown College, and building some open, outdoor, publicly accessible space.136
While Waterfront Toronto may now be seen by some as effective in engaging the local public in consultations regarding Toronto’s waterfront revitalization project, significant
improvements have been made from the period between 1999-2006, which was a key formative period in shaping the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and what Toronto’s waterfront
revitalization program looks like today.137
In terms of how various interests were mediated, Ute Lehrer and Jennefer Laidley suggest that Toronto’s waterfront redevelopment project—what they term a “mega-project” that
embodies neoliberal processes at work within the city—winds up benefiting only particular groups in the city.138 In making this suggestion, Lehrer and Laidley refer to the public consultations and stakeholder meetings that Waterfront Toronto ran leading up to its
recommendations as to how to proceed with redeveloping the space.139 There were between 200 and 250 people at each public meeting.140 Attendees were largely comprised of the members of local neighbourhood associations, but also included individuals involved with local government, such as city planners, as well as members of the local architectural and urban design
communities and a range of local advocacy groups interested in topics as varied as heritage to cycling.141 Predictably perhaps, there was also a showing of graduate students.142 Even though these consultations were carried out and attracted many participants, Lehrer and Laidley argue
136 Patterson & Silver, supra note 84 at 272; White, supra note 83 at 184, 214.
137 White, supra note 83 at 155-59, 167-68; Gabriel Eidelman, “Who's in Charge? Jurisdictional Gridlock and the
Genesis of Waterfront Toronto” in Gene Desfor & Jennefer Laidley, eds, Reshaping Toronto's Waterfront (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011) 263 at 280 [Eidelman, “Who’s in Charge?”]; Laidley, supra note 96; Central
Waterfront Secondary Plan, supra note 3; Lehrer & Laidley, supra note 6 at 794.
138 Ibid. See also White, supra note 83 at 182-83. 139 See also ibid.
140 Ibid at 185-86. 141 Ibid.
171
the participants were predominantly from the comparably affluent nearby neighbourhoods and that these consultations did not effectively engage groups who live near the waterfront in less- affluent neighbourhoods—leading, as political scientist Gabriel Eidelman has suggested, to an underrepresentation of their concerns and views regarding the development of the waterfront.143
But regardless of whether Waterfront Toronto’s public consultation processes are thought to have improved from the early 2000s,144 a recurring problem that is noticeable at the public consultations (primarily relating to heritage issues) that I have attended in Toronto, is that they still do not effectively engage all of the parties affected by decisions and do not do so at the most pertinent stages in decision-making processes.145 The questions asked at these meetings, even if they might be the right questions, are not necessarily reaching those the questions need to be asked of, or at the right time in order for their answers to have any weight.146 There is an expressed interest at these consultations to have a diversity of both geographic-based and interest-based perspectives represented in order to develop policies and design redevelopment that is inline with a representative sampling of what the public wants, but public consultations are attended by (a) those who are able to find out that a consultation is taking place, (b) those who are able to attend, and (c) those who feel that they have something to say about the matter being consulted. There is a lot of agency required to participate in a consultation and, while this is not necessarily an unfair expectation, it does not yield a representative sampling of urban citizens affected by redevelopment decisions.
143 Lehrer & Laidley, supra note 6; Eidelman, “Who's in Charge?”, supra note 137 at 280; White, supra note 83 at
182-83.
144 Ibid at 155-59, 167-68.
145 In terms of the points at which a community in question is consulted within the lifespan of a redevelopment
project’s design and approval process, see e.g. Brian Hoyle, “Confrontation, Consultation, Cooperation? Community Groups and Urban Change in Canadian Port-City Waterfronts” (2000) 44:3 Can Geographer 228 at 237.
172
If the legal complexes of a city are satisfied that the onus should be on its citizens to ensure their opinions are heard, then this is less of a concern, but if the onus is on the city to go out of its way to effectively represent the interests of various affected parties, then more must be done to engage opinions beyond the current public consultation format. For example, early in my research period, as Guvernment was closing, the individuals who used the East Bayfront Precinct space during nighttime hours as well as the adjoining Guvernment had not been canvassed for their views about what that part of the waterfront should be used for.147 Certainly there are layers of difficulty where spaces are used at less conventional times, such as spaces like Guvernment that were used predominantly during nighttime hours. Area observation and engagement by, for example, city employees, or those of a private consulting firm, are less likely to occur during less dominant times of the day/night continuum. Unlike Guvernment’s employees, these kinds of jobs do not usually require employee availability at 2am on a Saturday. Nevertheless, as will be discussed further in Chapter 8, it is necessary to consider the kinds of alternative and unconventional strategies that could be deployed to better engage the different portions of a city’s urban citizenry in redevelopment decisions that ultimately affect the spaces they inhabit and frequent in the city and which shape their lives.
For example, a simple method of reaching community members at times when they are using the affected space in question is done within the drum ‘n’ bass and electronic music scene itself, whereby those looking to inform community members of an upcoming event distribute small flyers outside of venues at closing time. While currently these are used to advertise
upcoming parties or that evening’s afterparty, these could be used to distribute information about an upcoming consultation or a link to online participation platforms that Toronto often uses for
147 Sara Ross, “Who Wins the Waterfront: A Sociolegal Approach to Port Development, Urban Regeneration,
Industry and Culture” (Paper delivered at the Canadian Law and Society Mid-Winter Meeting at Concordia University, Montreal, 17 January 2015) [unpublished].
173
remote citizen participation. This utilizes an existing communications pipeline within the community to access individuals who are not currently figuring within public consultation design, and does so in a manner common to the community, whereas other methods such as daytime visits to a space not frequented by these community stakeholders during the day does not effectively access them.
As Chapter 8 will address, while the serial displacement of Toronto’s music spaces is the primary concern of this dissertation, alongside the lack of valuation of music spaces like
Guvernment receive in a city’s redevelopment plans, as Lehrer and Laidley highlight, an intimately attached problem is the way in which community consultation processes that occur during the planning stages prior to the sanctioning of these redevelopment plans do not effectively reach out to capture the views of those affected.