I watched The Master Plan

Last night, as part of a social event for work, we secured tickets to see The Master Plan at Soulpepper Theatre. It is something I was hoping to see during it's first run at Crow's Theatre, and was excited to have the chance to watch as we approach the holidays. I am not a theatre critic, but I found the acting (caricatures of the real people involved in Sidewalk Labs failed foray into development) spot on.

The themes of the play were ones I have experienced in various ways during my time at City Hall, and I commend the playwright (Michael Heaney) author (Josh O'Kane, Sideways: The City Google Couldn’t Buy) and creative team (led by Chris Abraham) for piecing together an experience that truly reflects the frustration, coping, humour, anger, and difficulty someone who works with the City of Toronto endures day after day.

I remember during my time at Council being agnostic about how Quayside proceeds. But then I am also someone who allows Google to track my movements in maps, host my photos, and perform who knows what else with the use of their Android Phone. I admit that I am a little more willing to see what role technology can play in making my life a little more convenient at the expense of some impact to my privacy.

I believe that a City that harnesses new technology to improve the lives of its residents and respond to environmental changes are acting in the greater good. I am under no illusion that the collection of private data is not limited to the actions of Google, and that nearly everything we do is tracked and sold or attributed in some way. So wouldn't having a direct say in how this data is used be a step up from that status quo?

I don't want to spoil too much -- anyone with an interest in City politics should stop reading and go see it for themselves, if you can! -- but I do want to review a few of the key themes which run throughout the show, and might be lost in the humour and overbearing presence of Sidewalk Labs/Google.

The play ends with a shot of the subject property, Quayside at 259 Lakeshore Blvd. E. sitting vacant, a decade on without construction*.

(*As an aside, this site was recently accepted into Mayor Chow's Purpose-built Rental Housing Incentives Stream, which will see construction start within 2 years, build 1818 new units and include 551 units of affordable housing. More on this program in another post.)

This is meant to make the point referenced humourously multiple times throughout the play, that the City has a problem seeing the forest through the trees, and with getting in its own way. That the political environment constantly pushes decision making power around until somebody takes the unprecedented step to say yes.

The City (and many places across the globe) have an affordability crisis created by over-reliance on the private sector to deliver housing, the commodification of housing leading to construction being subject to the whims of investors, and the withdrawal of public investment in housing options. This is compounded by local zoning by-laws and the processes required to approve new housing, and reluctance to allow taller styles of buildings in specific areas.

Municipalities in Canada certainly lack the financial tools to deliver all of the services expected of them and to be able to tackle housing affordability alone. They tend to make property tax dollars they collect stretch to provide all of the quality of life services residents demand. However, these same municipalities have traditionally failed to be able to make substantial changes to their zoning by-laws, or to take brave steps to support new and innovative ideas to support much needed growth and livability.

Where Sidewalk Labs tried to push the City outside of it's comfort zone, they were met with substantial public pressure to not deviate from established process, and to not trust external forces. One could say the City capitulated to public pressure/NIMBYism, but it would not do the entire process that led to the collapse of the relationship justice. Sidewalk Labs is not blameless. As the villain of the play, Dan Doctoroff and his team (both in the play, and IRL) deviated from a partnership with Waterfront Toronto and tried to negotiate a larger share of land than what all levels of government felt comfortable proceeding with, or could legally provide.

The Master Plan raises the question of: if not now, when? What are the circumstances under which the City will be brave and try something new? What are the circumstances under which the City will recognize the status quo has not been working and more radical approaches to how people live in their City is needed? Incremental changes help, but when will there be a substantial policy shift away from the status quo on how people live in their City, and address issues related to livability?

All of the answers require substantial change and are not popular among those who vote. In a democracy we are at the whims of the majority and what our politicians feel a majority will support. Such steps as banning cars in the downtown, eliminating maximum building heights in neighbourhoods, or removing public services to enhance others will surely lead to the politician's demise. One only look at the impact of denying garbage collection for a week to learn that lesson. While Councillor seats seem to be secure no matter what you do, the Mayor's Chair changes often, and every decision made has to fulfill your core mandate. You cannot waste time on controversial projects.

A lot of people look at the John Tory years as one of lost potential. A politician with heaps of political power and capital, but without the ambition to spend it on legacy projects. The Sidewalk Labs/Quayside project strikes me as the type of partnership he would have valued and pushed harder for, but for reasons only he and his team can understand, this becomes another situation in which the administration was happy to allow the public service to determine process and allow another chance at a legacy project to turn itself into art.