A quest for ways to build more livable and sustainable cities is an unraveling journey filled with taking unexpected turns and discovering new perspectives.
Integrating all four pillars of society - social, economic, environmental and esthetical - makes our work as future urban planners and academics extremely complex. The importance of purposely interlinking the theme of social justice with planning activities complicates the subject even further. Indigenous research approach adds another dimension to our work challenging the incumbent policies and practices of city planning, and pushing for a paradigm shift. At the same time, ideas of many of great urbanists such as Jane Jacobs and Jan Gehl, who put community-based people- centric design at the heart of city planning ethos, may be viewed as echoing
Indigenous epistemology that centers on community and sharing. We can trace many synergies between progressive urban theories/practices and Indigenous research framework. In my view, both approaches share many common elements and rather compliment each other thus creating an overarching holistic framework of
conceptualizing cities and places.
William Whyte wrote about the sanctity of public space for preserving vital democratic cities. Public space is by definition a shared space where community interaction and civic engagement take place. Shared space and community are the backbone of Indigenous traditional way of life. Whyte’s poetic definition of small urban spaces and streets as cities’ “river of life” evokes parallels with Aboriginal storytelling. The significance of public space in both progressive urbanist and Indigenous approaches gave impetus for my research to focus on design and
110
transformation of public spaces in Toronto. Either an Aboriginal art walk or an Art installation at the Nathan Phillips square is small-scale open public place that in addition to educational component encourages lingering and exploration by foot.
Jan Gehl explains how public space that invites a multitude of people and activities, ideally not over-planned by authorities, is what actually makes cities a true meeting place. In order for Toronto to remain a healthy, safe, and lively city, it must strive to rediscover its historical role as a meeting place. In order for Toronto to be an authentic ‘meeting place’, it must integrate Indigenous heritage and Indigenous voice into its story. In order for Toronto to be a just inclusive city, it must celebrate not only its current diversity but also its historical Native roots. In order for Toronto to be a distinctively creative city, it needs to incorporate Aboriginal art and culture into its urban fabric (notably through Placemaking). In order for Toronto to be a democratic city, it must offer free and open public access to those artistic and cultural
installations. In order for Toronto to be a socially and culturally sustainable city, it needs to allow that ‘little sprinkle of chaos’ into the life of its public places.
The idea of walkability deserves a special attention. Prominent urbanists, such as Jeff Speck, consider pedestrianism a basis for urban vitality. The concept implies human dimension, and walkable collection of city streets and blocks as well as accessible public spaces. Walkability is integral to Indigenous epistemology:
traditionally spaces designed around people to be small-scale and accessible by foot. Keeping with the urban theory and Indigenous approach, proposed ideas in the paper, be it the Ontario Place Aboriginal Art Walk or the Indigenous Downtown Arts
111
It is important to reiterate, that the ideas presented in my paper serve not only as concrete propositions but also as food for thought, as opening for a dialog about public places and Placemaking in Toronto. While the ideas offer conceptual
possibilities, the design process and its implementation must be centered on participation of local Aboriginal communities. Planning for social sustainability as advocated by David Harvey includes both physical and social elements. Only when Indigenous artists and community members act as rightful participants in a
Placemaking project, we can achieve an authentic social construction of space. Our role as urban professionals boils down to mostly offering ideas and facilitating the consultation and design process. I believe this is the path of “doing it in a good way” towards exercising Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’.
TRC’s Calls to Action #62, #63 and #79 talk about Education and
Commemoration as paving stones in reconciliation process (TRC, 2015). Education about Indigenous history is recognized as an integral part of the process. The Commemoration actions call specifically to integrate Indigenous history, heritage values, and memory practices into Canada’s national heritage and history. In my opinion, Education and Commemoration should be part of not only national
educational and heritage projects. The practice of revising the policies, criteria, and practices of the National Program of Historical Commemoration should be continued and adapted to review Planning practices on all levels: federal, provincial and
municipal. It is my hope that, in addition to my initially stated goals, this paper also serves as an impetus towards improving Planning policies and practices in Toronto and in Canada in general.
112