Will public good prevail? Toronto in the face of Sidewalk Labs
Sidewalk Labs is making headlines right now and not for all the right reasons. Concerns relating to data privacy, management of personal information and public interest are ever so prevalent. The most recent story released by the Toronto Star revealed Sidewalk Labs’ intent to receive a portion of property tax revenues as well as incremental land value. This could not be timelier as last week we had the chance to speak and understand the three perspectives that are impacted and involved by the new Quayside project in Toronto. Our day consisted of engaging in conversations with Bianca Wylie — an open government advocate, Waterfront Toronto — a tri-government agency and Sidewalk Labs — Alphabet’s city design company. There were a lot of thoughts running through my mind that day and I felt that many necessary questions were left unanswered.
At the beginning of the day, I was fairly clear with my opinion about the expected Sidewalk Labs project and that it should not be undertaken by the city of Toronto. As our day progressed however, and we had the chance to speak with Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs, my opinion became less clear. But if there is one thing that I am clear on, is that the intention of sidewalk labs thus far does not appear to be purely focused on the quality of life for Torontonians. There is something unsettling about a giant American company re-imagining our city for us.
Some red flags from recent developments worth mentioning:
1. The initial Quayside project encompassed only 12 acres of Toronto’s land. However, in the recent Toronto Star article a different story was told. CEO Dan Doctoroff said he doesn’t believe their promises can come to fruition with such a small amount of land and that they need to develop 350 acres of the Port lands area — This sounds more like maximizing profitability.
2. As recognized by the Toronto Star, the leaked Sidewalk Labs presentation raises many questions about the transparency of the Waterfront policy process. The company seems to be having conversations outside of the scope of land publicly agreed upon. Moreover, very little has become public regarding their futuristic smarty city neighborhood design for Quayside — If this project is intended to the improve the quality of life for those living in Toronto, why aren’t they being informed and consulted at every step of the process and in a timely manner?
There is evidently a degree of soft power being exerted by sidewalk labs to “attract” and “distract” the public from the real concerns surrounding the implementation of the project. As Bianca Wylie asserted, there is a lot of talk about concrete things such the use of timber for the architecture and establishing retail stores but a lack of conversation about concepts such as digital governance and data privacy.
Additionally, procurement policy has been crucial in this matter and something that demonstrates room for improvement. Who had the final say in selecting Sidewalk Labs and which company came second and even third in the competition? I feel that it would have been more effective for Waterfront Toronto to have selected the top three city proposals and then allowed the public to vote on the best idea. This method would have afforded the public to be involved at an earlier stage in the process and to also provide more meaningful input.
If there is one thing that brings some direction to all of this is that the project will only proceed if it is truly benefiting the quality of life of Torontonians. If Waterfront Toronto feels that there are other plans involved that are not necessarily in the best interest of the public, then the project will not proceed. I have faith in our city and the government that at the end of the day, the right decision will be made.
