IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijurrs/v32y2008i4p786-803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Old Mega‐Projects Newly Packaged? Waterfront Redevelopment in Toronto

Author

Listed:
  • UTE LEHRER
  • JENNEFER LAIDLEY

Abstract

The mega‐project is experiencing revived interest as a tool for urban renewal. The current mode of large‐scale urban development is, however, different from its predecessor in so far as its focus is flexible and diverse rather than singular and monolithic. However, the diversity that the new approach offers, we argue, forecloses upon a wide variety of social practices, reproducing rather than resolving urban inequality and disenfranchisement. Further, we suggest that the diversity of forms and land uses employed in these mega‐projects inhibits the growth of oppositional and contestational practices. The new mega‐project also demonstrates a shift from collective benefits to a more individualized form of public benefit. The article is based on Toronto's recent waterfront development proposals, which we identify as an example of a new paradigm of mega‐project development within the framework of the competitive city. Its stated but paradoxical goal is to specialize in everything, allowing for the pretence that all interests are being served while simultaneously re‐inscribing and reinforcing socioeconomic divisions. Our findings are centred on four areas: institutional change; the importance of mega‐projects to global interurban competition; the exclusive nature of public participation processes; and the increasing commodification and circumscription of urban public space. Résumé Le mégaprojet connaît un regain d'intérêt en tant qu'outil de rénovation urbaine. Le mode actuel d'aménagement urbain à grande échelle diffère toutefois de son prédécesseur dans la mesure où son orientation est souple et diverse, au lieu d'être unique et monolithique. Cependant, à notre avis, la diversité qu'offre la nouvelle approche exclut une grande variété de pratiques sociales, puisqu'elle reproduit, plutôt qu'elle ne résout, l'inégalité urbaine et la privation de droits. De plus, la diversité dans les formes et les utilisations de l'espace de ces mégaprojets empêche le développement de pratiques d'opposition ou de contestation. En outre, le mégaprojet révèle un décalage des bénéfices collectifs vers une forme plus individualisée de bénéfice public. Les propositions récentes d'aménagement du front de mer de Toronto sont identifiées comme typiques d'un nouveau paradigme du mégaprojet d'aménagement dans le cadre de la ville compétitive. Son objectif affiché, quoique paradoxal, est d'être spécialisé en tout, ce qui permet de prétendre que tous les intérêts sont pris en compte, tout en réimplantant et en renforçant les divisions socio‐économiques. Nos résultats portent sur quatre aspects: la transformation des institutions, l'importance des mégaprojets dans la concurrence interurbaine mondiale, la nature exclusive des processus de participation publics, ainsi que l'accentuation de la marchandisation et des délimitations de l'espace public urbain.

Suggested Citation

  • Ute Lehrer & Jennefer Laidley, 2008. "Old Mega‐Projects Newly Packaged? Waterfront Redevelopment in Toronto," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 786-803, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijurrs:v:32:y:2008:i:4:p:786-803
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00830.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00830.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00830.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Ley & Heather Smith, 2000. "Relations between Deprivation and Immigrant Groups in Large Canadian Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(1), pages 37-62, January.
    2. Simona Florio & Sue Brownill, 2000. "Whatever happened to criticism? Interpreting the London Docklands Development Corporation's obituary," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 53-64, April.
    3. Donald McNeill & Mark Tewdwr‐Jones, 2003. "Architecture, banal nationalism and re‐territorialization," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 738-743, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Santos, Georgina & Behrendt, Hannah & Teytelboym, Alexander, 2010. "Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 46-91.
    2. Mike Raco, 2005. "A Step Change or a Step Back? The Thames Gateway and the Re-birth of the Urban Development Corporations," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 20(2), pages 141-153, May.
    3. Paul Jones, 2009. "Putting Architecture in its Social Place: A Cultural Political Economy of Architecture," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(12), pages 2519-2536, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijurrs:v:32:y:2008:i:4:p:786-803. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0309-1317 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.