Developing Toronto: A Strategy Game
It is very rare that large scale development in Toronto goes unnoticed without sharp scrutiny, so it should be unsurprising that the Quayside project headed by Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs came under fire from all sides. What is unique about the Quayside case is that the often shrouded game of development played between City officials and private developers has been forced onto the public record — at least parts of it. Public consultations, public statements, public resignations, and public complaints have turned spotlights onto many actors, some expected and some not, and we are all now carefully watching the strategic moves made by each.
For example, a recent Toronto Star article revealed Sidewalk’s interest in obtaining rights to a portion of future development fees for properties surrounding Quayside. Following immediate outcries from those already distrusting Sidewalk’s intentions, CEO Dan Doctoroff responded in his own blog post, attempting to spin Sidewalk’s perspective into a more palatable message.
Understanding the actors, their perspectives and desires, and how they interact with each other can be a valuable way to better understand the context of a situation such as Quayside’s controversial development. With some gentle modifications, we can adapt Helen Ingram and Anne Schneider’s “Social Construction and Power Typology” to gain a better understanding of the power dynamics and strategic positioning of the various actors who are attempting to influence the Quayside development.
The Advantaged
The “Advantaged” are actors who enjoy power, social and economic benefits, and are generally shielded from overbearing public protest. In the case of Quayside, Waterfront Toronto can be considered the primary “Advantaged” actor given that it enjoys political credibility due to its stewardship of the waterfront and balanced authority from three orders of government. While Waterfront Toronto (and Toronto City Council) hold the reins of the Quayside project, they are not impervious to the influence of others.
The Contenders
The “Contenders” are actors who enjoy some power, but also have reputations for playing by their own rules and using their power to (fairly or not) influence other actors. “Contenders” are the most strategy-focused players since they typically have a lot to gain or lose from the outcome. The major Quayside “Contender” is Sidewalk Labs, who holds the most amount of power besides Waterfront Toronto but suffers public suspicion and a turbulent public reputation. Less obvious “Contenders” are data and privacy advocates — like Toronto’s fierce Bianca Wylie — who are also invested in Quayside’s outcomes and are attempting to strategically influence the top authorities and members of the public in order to achieve their own goals. The power of these “Contenders” can be ranked based on wealth, organization, and access to decision-makers and influencers.
The Dependents
The “Dependents” are typically groups who lack power (most often economic or decision-making) and struggle to organize themselves in an efficient manner conducive to achieving a set goal. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why the general public can be seen as “Dependents” in the game of development in Quayside. The public is reliant on government, advocates, and Sidewalk to provide them with information about the project and to help them understand complex issues such as data management and privacy — this may be the raison d’être for advocates such as Wylie, who feel a responsibility to provide a different perspective than the glossy, corporate messaging being produced by Sidewalk.
The Deviants
Ingram and Schneider’s definition of “Deviants” does not perfectly suit the Quayside scenario — while “Deviants” are fairly described as groups of negatively portrayed (perhaps counter-culture) actors, I would argue that they are not powerless as Ingram and Schneider suggest. In a tech-centric development project such as Quayside, concerns abound regarding data hacking and those lurking below the surface of the internet who seek to steal and abuse private information. These “Deviant” actors are not powerless, but their influence may or may not be intentional since their action (or mere existence) may elicit strong but undesired reactions from decision-making authorities. Arguably, the existence and awareness of these “Deviant” actors has directly influenced privacy advocated (“Contenders”) to put up such a strong effort against their tech giant adversary.
Other actors are involved with the Quayside project, such as local urban planners, construction companies, architects, and of course, the lucky timber company that is set to score big, assuming Sidewalk’s plans go through. Where these smaller players may fit in at this point is unclear, but they may prove to be more significant during later contract negotiations should Sidewalk’s proposal be accepted by City Council.
Ultimately, power dynamics and strategy cannot be removed from the narrative underlying the Quayside development. Each actor has a goal and strategy in mind, however clear and defined they are (or not). The outcome of the Quayside development will likely be determined by which “Contender” can strategically and successfully recruit the support of the “Dependents” first.
