Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 24: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 3: Economic Development: Introduction; Part 1: Accelerating Development

Posted on August 12, 2019 by bhaggart

Previous Master Innovation and Development Plan liveblog entries and relevant documents available here

Chapter 3 of Volume 1! And we’re coming up on the halfway point of the report, which is something, right?

Introduction (pp. 422-427; not listed in Table of Contents)

In which Sidewalk Labs reiterates its plan for kickstarting economic development. Note that this all is focused on its desired wider waterfront, not Quayside. The plan:

First, Sidewalk Labs plans to help boost general economic growth by accelerating development across the underutilized areas of the IDEA District. (p. 423)

This will be accomplished by:

  • “upfront investments in critical infrastructure, such as light rail transit” (paid for by the City)
  • bringing Google Canada’s branch headquarters to town, along with the Urban Innovation Insittue
  • “people-first planning” to bring people to the district
  • Which will all create “an ‘expanded downtown’ area capable of supporting new and existing industries.” (p. 423)

Second, Sidewalk Labs plans to help catalyze a cluster focused on urban innovation with the potential to spark a new economic engine. (p. 424)

Toronto as digital export processing zone:

This approach involves establishing the IDEA District as a designated zone subject to a special set of regulatory and policy tools to promote innovation and accelerate development.

This is the same type of policy that developing countries like Mexico adopt in order to convince transnational corporations to set up manufacturing facilities: lax labour and environmental standards in exchange for low-wage jobs. It has the effect of locking these countries into a subordinate position in the global economy, making it harder for them to rise up the global value chain. It is not the type of policy pursued by strong, economically vibrant countries.

Calculating the economic impact

Sidewalk Labs also touts the urbanMetrics consulting firm’s economic analysis that underlies this chapter. The report is part of the MIDP Technical Appendix; I covered it in Entry 20. The report is based on statistics and projections provided by Sidewalk Labs.

It compares two possible scenarios, a status quo and one in which the MIDP proposal is implemented in full. In each case, it breaks out a Quayside-only development and a full-area development.

Unfortunately, as I noted in that previous post, the urbanMetrics report does not contemplate anything other than the best-case scenario, and so we have no idea how this proposal would develop if, say, Google decided to stay home, or if planners decided not to approve the construction of timber skyscrapers.

Not pursuing any alternative scenarios means that we can’t break out, say, the relative importance of bringing Google to town (my guess is if it’s not there, most of the benefits from this proposal would not materialize), including both direct and indirect effects.

Part 1: Accelerating Development (pp. 428-459)

Introduction (p. 430; not listed in Table of Contents)

Strategy 1: Unlock the waterfront through infrastructure investments (pp. 431-437; not listed in Table of Contents)

In which Sidewalk Labs once again makes the hard sell for a light-rail line. Despite an up-front note that the infrastructure cost (utilities, energy, public transit) to outfit the IDEA district would likely be over $3 billion, or more than $4.5 billion if the entire eastern waterfront is covered (p. 431), this section is all about making the case (again) for light rail.

Sure, it would cost the city at least $1.2 billion (p. 434), but financing and building it all at once would be worth it, they say, citing examples from other cities, including London’s Canary Wharf, a reference that will doubtlessly bemuse Canadians of a certain age.

Left undiscussed is the remaining $1.8 billion-plus of infrastructure spending, which presumably would also come out of ratepayers’ pockets, one way or another. More proof that this is more a sales brochure than an actual planning document. Otherwise, their discussion of infrastructure investments would have discussed all infrastructure.

Strategy 2: Anchor waterfront growth with a new Google campus (pp. 438-443; not listed in Table of Contents)

In this section, what stood out to me is this claim:

Based on its impact in other neighbourhoods in cities around the world, described more on Page 441, Google’s arrival on the waterfront has the potential to catalyze economic growth, attracting firms of all sizes and a diverse workforce, while contributing to the growth of Toronto’s existing innovation ecosystem. (p. 439)

Perhaps, but why rely on comparative anecdotes and not the company that you’ve commissioned to analyze this proposal? For now, I’ll note again that their urbanMetrics report doesn’t break out Google’s individual impact on Toronto’s economy. And notice how this section – in a report that doesn’t shy away from making grandiose predictions – doesn’t provide any predictions about Google’s effect on Toronto.

This section is much less than meets the eye in terms of providing substantive analysis.

Strategy 3: Attract talent and jobs with complete communities (pp. 444-447; not listed in Table of Contents)

This section merely repeats the proposals outlined elsewhere in the report. I’m still waiting for the economic analysis. This is padding.

Strategy 4: Support new and existing industries with an “expanded downtown” (pp. 448-451; not listed in Table of Contents)

See above.

Page 451 is a chart of the predicted number of jobs this plan would produce. That’s the extent of the economic analysis in this section so far.

Strategy 5: Plan for prosperity with equity (pp. 452-459; not listed in Table of Contents)

More repeated commitments, with several interesting commitments. Although I’ll start by noting that it’s kind of weird to include a recycled pitch for its proposed mass-timber factor in a section about equity (pp. 458-459). And that there’s nothing in here that draws on the urbanMetrics report.

Okay, let’s go:

Sidewalk Labs plans to provide workforce development opportunities to ensure the local workforce is equipped with the skills needed to succeed in a 21st-century economy. (p. 454)

And:

Sidewalk Labs’ workforce strategy aims to support Torontonians of all ages and backgrounds so that they are trained to compete, and remain competitive in the 21st-century economy. Sidewalk Labs also wants to help employers — from tiny startups to major corporations — fill their talent needs. (p. 455)

There seem to be two separate promises here. There’s a “workforce strategy,” which could simply be a banal statement that there will be lots of different types of jobs in their new districts.

And there’s Sidewalk Labs’ promise to create yet another bureaucracy, Sidewalk Works:

This strategy begins by establishing a proposed non-profit entity, Sidewalk Works, to help those who are currently underrepresented in the tech sector prepare for jobs in the new economy. Working closely with qualified partners, Sidewalk Works would curate and influence skills training to meet real-time employer needs, recruit across the city to broaden workforce participation, and provide access points to the urban innovation economy — all supported by cutting-edge digital tools. It would also champion equity in the tech sector by convening employers in the IDEA District across industries to identify and address common challenges, build their capacity to support and retain diverse candidates, and drive equity through economic opportunity. (p. 455)

Part of Sidewalk Works would be a service called Talent Connect, a “talent concierge” that can provide curated access to top-tier talent and assistance with navigating government-funded services and post-secondary co-op and work placement programs. Talent Connect would be available to all member firms operating in the IDEA District but would likely be of particular value to small firms that may not have dedicated human resources staff. (p. 457)

As has been par for the course so far in this document, this is more idea than proposal or plan. There are a lot of “coulds” in here. What type of partners?  Sidewalk Labs mentions many people it could work with, in a way that recalls an undergraduate methods assignment where they’re throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick.

Who would run it? Who will pay for it? How long, and to what extent, would Sidewalk Labs be involved in it?

Contractors requirements

Contractors would be required to provide opportunities for mentorships, intern- ships, and other work-integrated learning opportunities, as well as to consider qualified candidates from targeted communities first for professional, administrative, and technical positions — an approach known as “first source” hiring. (p. 456)

Sidewalk Labs proposes to require that contractors provide opportunities for mentorships, internships, and other work-integrated learning opportunities and implement a first-source hiring approach for professional, administrative, and technical positions. (p. 458)

I have questions: Would this just be for the projects Sidewalk Labs directly controls, or would it be for the entire district? If the latter, should Sidewalk Labs be allowed to dictate these types of things?

Google as educator

Sidewalk Works would also work to connect tenant employers with graduates of an entry-level information-technology (IT) certification course called the Google IT Support Professional Certificate, a program developed by Google and Coursera to help non-traditional candidates begin careers in technology. This course is a component of “Grow with Google,” an initiative to help Canadians acquire the digital skills needed to get jobs or grow businesses. (pp. 456-457)

Google: Creating the Google talent Google will need in the Google century.

Also: Sidewalk Labs can’t make promises like this and seriously claim to not to be a Google subsidiary.

Noted: Other promises

Sidewalk Labs plans to build on the Waterfront Toronto Employment Initiative, working with Construction Connections (a unique construction-sector workforce development program man- aged by the city and the province) and Toronto Employment and Social Services, to target at least 10 percent of construction hours for racialized youth, women, and Indigenous people.

Posted in Quayside | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 24: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 3: Economic Development: Introduction; Part 1: Accelerating Development

Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 23: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 2: The River District, Part 2: Scaling Urban Innovations; The Future Can Start Now

Posted on August 11, 2019 by bhaggart

Previous Master Innovation and Development Plan liveblog entries and relevant documents available here

Let’s get right to it, shall we?

Part 2: Scaling Urban Innovations (pp. 348-407)

Padding alert

  • Sixty pages.
  • Three full-page photos.
  • Four full-page pull quotes.
  • Five full-page title pages.

Part 2.1: Mobility (pp. 350-367; not listed in Table of Contents)

Accelerating mass transit extensions across the eastern waterfront (pp. 352-355; not listed in Table of Contents)

In which the pitch is made for light rail as a means to build at scale the infrastructure discussed in the Quayside chapter.

As before, they suggest self-financing, on the assumption that it “create enough value to offset the cost of building [the] expansion” (p. 352). Only the “River District,” not Quayside, provides sufficient density to justify this “self-financing” (i.e., borrowing against the anticipated extra revenues the project will spur).

Creating new neighbourhoods with people-first street networks (pp. 356-361)

Again, an expansion of their Quayside ideas and why scale is needed for them to unlock the majestic awesomeness of their plans.

Big assumptions:

That self-driving vehicles — often called autonomous vehicles — will be both safe and commercially ubiquitous available for rides by roughly 2035, and that smart planning can harness their potential to be better neighbours for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit user. (pp. 356-358)

As I’ve said before, I would not take this bet. At the very least, I would not build a multi-billion-dollar development around an eventuality that is so far out of my control and so far down the road (pun maybe intended due to sheer exhaustion).

Also worth re-highlighting that, “people-first street networks” is quite vague. Strictly speaking, Sidewalk Labs is promoting different types of roads for different forms of mobility (cars, transit, pedestrians, cyclists). “People-first street networks” (p. 360).

Expanding opportunities for cyclists (pp. 362-363; not listed in Table of Contents)

Dedicated bike paths and bikeways.

A neighbourhood moved by new mobility (pp. 364-367)

Your at-scale mobility benefits:

  • “Discounted mobility packages” compared to the higher price people would pay if Sidewalk Labs only controls Quayside. (p. 364)
  • And yet more on self-driving cars (p. 365).
  • You only get the self-supporting freight system mentioned in the Quayside chapter if you give Sidewalk Labs the River District as well. Reason: “It is not financially feasible” (p. 367) – one wouldn’t be able to make enough money off of it.
  • Quality of life: If policies are adopted only at Quayside, the surrounding districts would continue to be noisy and polluting, affecting Quayside’s quality of life. But if you control the land around it… (p. 368)
  • Similar parking policy as the Quayside proposal. (p. 368)
  • New Bureaucracy alert! The proposed Waterfront Transportation Management Association, at scale, could engage in active traffic management (read: constant surveillance of traffic) to “not only optimize the available road and curb space but also apply pricing to encourage shared rides during congested periods.” (p. 368)

Part 2.2: Public Realm (pp. 368-379; not listed in Table of Contents)

Creating an expanded, varied, and active public realm network (pp. 368-372; not listed in Table of Contents)

Basically the Quayside plan at scale, where they will be “more affordable.” (p. 371)

And would include “a new 30-hectare nature preserve that functions like a central park for the entire River District…” (p. 371).

An expanded ground-floor network would create new economic, creative, and programming possibilities (pp. 373-379)

Already covered in the Quayside chapter, although it is depending on the private sector to take up its preferred models. Includes three case studies.

My question: to what extent would private-sector developers be forced into adopting these models based on Sidewalk Labs’ control over standards and rules in these neighbourhoods?

Part 2.3: Buildings and Housing (pp. 380-389; not listed in Table of Contents)

Catalyzing a new mass timber industry and construction supply chain (pp. 381-383; not listed in Table of Contents)

In which the case for mass timber at the scale of the “River District” is made, because Quayside is too small for it to be financially viable.

It involves the creation of a “new supply chain” based in Ontario (p. 381).

The payoff: “accelerating timelines, improving predictability, reducing costs, minimizing neighbourhood disruption from work sites, and yielding a healthier, more sustainable, and stunning built environment” (pp. 381-382). Recall that the “healthier claim, from the Quayside chapter, is based on the assumption that it’s pleasant to look at a wooden skyscraper.

As for the worksite claim, I just figured out, thanks to page 383 and the fact that I just finished playing the second epilogue in Red Dead Redemption 2 (ultra-minor spoiler ahead), that they’re proposing wooden pre-cut skyscrapers! (I got a silver in that particular mission.)

So, if you’re keeping track, the two biggest parts of Sidewalk Labs’ proposal – bringing Google to town and timber skyscrapers – will only work if Waterfront Toronto buys into the whole project. Sidewalk Labs has taken the “Quayside on its own” option off the table, if it ever really considered it.

Beyond that, we’ve already heard their pitch in this area. Let’s move on.

Achieving new levels of housing affordability, choice, and inclusivity (pp. 384-389)

Here, again, we’re told that if you truly want to capture all the benefits of Sidewalk Labs’ affordable-housing plan, you need to go River District big.

Here’s something interesting: this affordable housing can be provided through:

  • “the increased value of public land due to factory-built timber construction” ($639 million);
  • “a condo resale fee” ($321 million);
  • “new value captured by more efficient unit design” (which they call “affordability by design”) ($475 million). (p. 384)

In other words, they’re betting on higher publicly owned land values because developers will be able to build more with less and will be thus willing to pay more for the land.

They’re also betting that condo owners will be cool with a new resale tax.

And that the timber play will work out in terms of the technologies and required regulatory approvals.

And that they can shave a significant amount off of the normal cost of building residential units via Murphy Beds etc. at scale. (For what little it’s worth, “Affordability by design” reminds me of IKEA furniture.)

Or to rephrase again, they’re betting that nothing will go wrong in any of these (I’d like to see an independent engineering review of these “more efficient unit” designs). If any of them don’t happen, their housing affordability plan will be in trouble.

Part 2.4: Sustainability (pp. 390-403; not listed in Table of Contents)

Achieving climate positivity requires bold solutions only possible at scale (pp. 391-399; not listed in Table of Contents)

The argument – and stop me if you’ve heard this one: For climate positive development, you have to develop the River District. Again, the issue is economic feasibility (presumably in terms of Sidewalk Labs’ bottom line? Because if it’s socially worth doing, you can make a case to fund it out of general tax revenue):

these initiatives proposed are not economically feasible to deploy in Quayside unless they are part of a comprehensive approach that spans a large enough geographic area to support inventing, implementing, and operating this entirely new ecosystem of sustainable infrastructure. (p. 391, emphasis added)

The costs in question: “infrastructure, … designing, building and installing digital technologies to manage these new systems” (p. 393).

Cost in sticking just to Quayside: $19 million to keep Quayside energy bills in line wit hthe rest of Toronto.

They need scale for (pp. 393-394):

  • Increasing transportation options
  • To reach an all-eelctirc mobility system
  • To make full electricification affordable
  • To reduce energy demand (via energy-efficient buildings)
  • To design an advanced power grid
  • To develop a thermal grid

Regulation-relevant:  Sidewalk Labs would like the City to move toward developing
“operational energy targets based on real-time metering for new buildings — not on pre-construction designs.” These would be based on an energy auditing tool Sidewalk Labs would like to develop (but hasn’t yet).

River district is required to: “help to accumulate a critical mass of building data, leading to powerful insights that can inform building design and enable new approaches to energy use regulation.” (p. 395)

Also promised: “an anaerobic waste digestion facility” (p. 396). Sidewalk Labs also wants to “partner with the city’s Toronto Water division to extend the proposed thermal grid infrastructure to tap into the waste heat generated at Ashbridges [Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant], with a commitment not to impact the plant’s operations.”

I don’t know anything about such things, so I’ll leave them to others to examine. 

An opportunity to use waste as a resource (pp. 400-401; not listed in Table of Contents)

It promises more efficient recycling, including the construction of a local materials recovery facility (MRF), which only works… at scale.

And that cool real-time feedback recycling system that Sidewalk Labs promised with Quayside? Well, “Quayside is too small to support its own MRF… .” As a result, its recycling would leave the area, and its waste would be recycled (or not, as is often the case) as it is today, which is often not great or not at all.

An expanded public realm could minimize the need for grey stormwater infrastructure (pp. 402-403; not listed in Table of Contents)

At scale.

New bureaucracy alert: The Open Space Alliance would collect an upfront green infrastructure fee from developers to manage green infrastructure that would reduce the size and cost of stormwater infrastructure. Again, such proposals are beyond my competence, but in terms of bureaucracy, the question to ask is, what capabilities does the Open Space Alliance need to operate this infrastructure? As Dr. Natasha Tusikov’s overview of Sidewalk Labs’ various proposed new bureaucracies indicates, the Open Space Alliance is being asked to do quite a lot.

Part 2.5: Urban Innovation (pp. 404-407; not listed in Table of Contents)

From the Time Before, that half-remembered era before my life was subsumed into this cursed report, I dimly recall that Sidewalk Labs proudly trumpeted that it wanted to build the first city “from the internet up.” Sidewalk Labs CEO Daniel L. Doctoroff used to say as much. What’s more, the phrase appears no less than ten times in the part of Sidewalk Labs’ response to Waterfront Toronto’s Request for Proposals. Waterfront Toronto was obviously impressed; it hired Sidewalk Labs to develop Quayside, after all.

Quayside was to be the digital city of the future.

Which makes it odd that not only is Sidewalk Labs no longer using the phrase “from the internet up” – in this report’s 1,496 pages it appears not at all – but that it spends so little space discussing its digital plan. A mere three pages of this 60-page section are devoted to digital issues.

Sidewalk Labs is a Google company. Its competitive advantage isn’t building materials (covered here in a nine-page section) or cars (covered here in a 17-page section). It’s data and connectivity.

Still, what’s here? A promise of ubiquitous connectivity and standardized mounts, an “Urban USB port.” Digital services catalyzing the ecosystem (not mentioned: It will probably help that Google is here.) Open data standards (who sets the standard?)

Did I mention that these will only work at scale?

The proposed mount requires significant geographic distribution to gain the widespread adoption needed for device manufacturers (such as Wi-Fi antenna producers) to incorporate the standard into their own designs, just as existing USB ports needed to prove their worth before laptop and phone manufacturers made them standard features. The River District would provide the necessary scale for development and adoption of the standardized mount. (p. 405)

Question: Is the claim that a small Toronto neighbourhood provides sufficient scale for the adoption of such a standard? It seems… tiny in the context of the whole wide world.

One last bit

The Urban Data Trust should be launched in Quayside, where it could begin to work through use cases. Over the longer term, once the entity has benefited from many use cases in Quayside and certain parts of the River District, Sidewalk Labs expects that the Urban Data Trust could have broader coverage. (p. 407)

Seeming to privilege Quayside makes a virtue of the necessity of appearing to have a separate Quayside plan. Of course the Urban Data Trust, should it come to pass, would be launched in Quayside, because Quayside would be the first part of the Waterfront development plan, and it would be the first to collect data. This is no promise at all.

The Future Can Start Now (pp. 408-415)

More public relations content. I’m done. See you for Chapter 3, Economic Development.

Posted in Quayside | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 23: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 2: The River District, Part 2: Scaling Urban Innovations; The Future Can Start Now

Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 22: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 2: The River District, Part 1: Neighbourhood Planning concepts

Posted on August 10, 2019 by bhaggart

Includes a nostalgic look back to the times when Sidewalk Labs promised us a community built “from the internet up.”

Previous Master Innovation and Development Plan liveblog entries and relevant documents available here

Onward, into Part 1.

Part 1: Neighbourhood Planning Concepts (pp. 292-348)

Lots of repetition from things mentioned in the Quayside chapter and the Overview.

Part 1.1: The River District Program (pp. 294-302)

Padding alert

Full-page photos comprise half of Part 1.1’s eight pages.

Neighbourhood production

New production and workshop facilities, enabled by Sidewalk Labs’ unique lower-floor stoa spaces, can be located throughout the district, strengthening the commitment to a diversity of uses and providing additional opportunities for small businesses that build off new technologies and capabilities. (p. 295)

the ability to live and work in the same neighbourhood (p. 296)

Question: What specific bylaws changes would this plan require? Here, we’re just being sold on the benefits, not the – what’s the word – planning required to actually do it.

And, yes, some of this information is provided (or will probably be provided) elsewhere in the report, but why not include all the relevant information in one section?

Part 1.2: Villiers West: Creating an Economic Hub With a Thriving New (pp. 303-313; not listed in Table of Contents)

Padding alert

Eleven pages, three full-page photos, three-quarters of one page taken up with a pull quote.

Urban innovation: it’s not just tech; it’s political

This effort defines urban innovation as going beyond the mere pursuit of urban efficiencies associated with the “smart cities” movement, towards a broader set of digital, physical, and policy advances that enable government agencies, academics, civic institutions, and entrepreneurs both local and global to address large urban challenges. (p. 304)

This quote highlights the extent to which Sidewalk Labs and Google are not just, or maybe even primarily, interested in creating new technologies. Rather, they are interested in the policies and politics that shape technology. This makes sense, because technology reflects the society that produces it. What’s more, just as different people have different views of how society should be structured and what government should do, so too are there different views about what technologies should be developed, how they should be used, and to what ends.

In other words, technology is highly political. This proposal shows that Google isn’t interested in reacting to these social imperatives and constraints; it wants to shape them so as to favour its own particular interests. This is what this Urban Innovation Institute is about.

Most importantly, Google’s interests may not align with those of Torontonians or Canada. This is something that we should be discussing publicly, in City Council, in the Ontario Legislature, and in Parliament. They’re also conversations that academics need to be having, including the extent to which private-sector (particularly Google and the other big US tech companies) research financing is shaping our participation in these debates.

As it stands, these plans are another example of how Sidewalk Labs’ seemingly benign proposals, in this case for an Urban innovation Institute (p. 306) and having Google anchor and “catalyze” (p. 306) the Toronto tech sector, would pre-empt vital and necessary policy conversations.

Quick note on Urban Innovation Institute governance: Sidewalk Labs is committing to $10 million in seed funding, which would be administered by an “agreed-upon” entity. (p. 307)

Part 1.3: Beyond Villiers West: A Different Role for Sidewalk Labs (pp. 314-315; not listed in Table of Contents)

Two pages outlining/repeating how Sidewalk Labs sees its role in the wider waterfront (discussed in the previous post covering the River District Introduction).

Part 1.4: Vision for Villiers East: Achieving Key Public Policy Goals (pp. 316-329; not listed in Table of Contents)

Part 1.5: Vision for Keating Channel: Reclaiming a Historic Canal (pp. 330-335; not listed in Table of Contents)

Part 1.6: Vision for McCleary: Creating a Model Live-Work Neighbourhood (pp. 336-341; not listed in Table of Contents)

Part 1.7: Vision for Polson Quay: Reinventing a Working Waterfront Neighbourhood (pp. 342-347; not listed in Table of Contents)

Padding alert

Forty-two pages. Nine full-page illustrations. Three full-page pull-quotes.

And that’s not counting all the maps and artists’ renderings of communities (e.g., p. 325).

Key points

Again, this section generally repeats what we’ve already read; it’s basically the Quayside plan rolled out to its desired parts of the Eastern Waterfront, with some site-specific proposals a lot of “could-ing”. Here’s what may stand recalling.

On governance:

  • Sidewalk Labs would be involved in developing “an ‘Infrastructure and Transportation Master Plan’ that sets the guidelines for the types of systems required and identifies and supports pathways to implementation. (p. 320)
  • “At Villiers Island, both west and east, Sidewalk Labs would work with Waterfront Toronto to identify and establish specifications and a path to implementation for each infrastructure system. These systems include … Thermal grid … Advanced power grid … Active stormwater management … Freight delivery … Ubiquitous connectivity … Additional systems … such as water and sanitary sewer connections … Ongoing exploration [to develop] advanced infrastructure systems …” (p. 322)

More tomorrow.

Posted in Quayside | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 22: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 2: The River District, Part 1: Neighbourhood Planning concepts

Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 21: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 2: The River District, Introduction

Posted on August 9, 2019 by bhaggart

Same volume (one), but new chapter (2). Progress!

In which I wonder exactly how deep Google’s pockets actually are.

Previous Master Innovation and Development Plan liveblog entries and relevant documents available here

Introduction (pp. 256-291)

Here, Sidewalk Labs attempts to move the goalposts of the RFP from a Quayside project with possible extensions into the wider Eastern Waterfront to an Eastern Waterfront project (relabeled the IDEA District) of which Quayside is an integral part. It’s a deft, if long-winded sleight of hand.

And of course, Sidewalk Labs hasn’t bothered to list the subsections of each sections in the Table of Contents. Also, there is no overarching (four-volume) Table of Contents.

Just in case you’ve lost track, here’s the land under discussion (map on page 259):

  • The IDEA District consists of the “River District” and Quayside.
  • The “River District” consists of the IDEA District minus Quayside. It includes Villiers Island, McCleary, Polson Quay, and part of the Keating Channel Precinct.
  • Sidewalk Labs wants to divide Villiers Island into Villiers East and Villiers West, taking Villiers West for Google’s Canadian branch headquarters.
  • It also divides the Keating Channel Precinct into East and West, claiming “Keating East” for this project.

Much of the introduction repeats things we’ve already read: Sidewalk Labs wants to be the lead developer on Villiers West, which will be the Google Canadian branch HQ. In the rest of the area, Sidewalk Labs would

  • provide the design standards and guidelines (the rules for the district);
  • work with a government partner to plan, design and implement everything;
  • provide particular core technologies; and
  • possibly provide financing. (p. 262)

As I’ve previously noted, these roles would place Sidewalk Labs at the heart of waterfront governance rule-setting.

A reminder that Sidewalk Labs is ambivalent as to Waterfront Toronto’s continued existence

Sidewalk Labs proposes that government designate a public entity to serve — or in the case of Waterfront Toronto, continue to serve — as revitalization lead for the IDEA District. (p. 260)

Sidewalk Labs: Developer as fixer

Sidewalk Labs presents itself here as a fixer, a company that can bring together a crack team to do whatever you want them to do it. They’re the visionaries; others will do most of the work.

It’s all very platform-y:

As a company founded to leverage the latest innovations to improve the quality of life in cities, Sidewalk Labs can bring together the expertise and tools required to devise, finance, and implement creative solutions to large- scale problems. (p. 260)

The River District’s Scale Is Necessary to Realize Priority Outcomes (pp. 263-269; not listed in Table of Contents)

And now we get to the hard sell, where we are told that “many” of the things they are planning for Quayside “can only become effective or financially feasible at the scale of the 62-hectare River District.” (p. 263).

In particular, as I noted in my previous post on the economic effects of this project, the “economic anchors” that seem to drive most of the project’s economic benefits – a Google HQ and a mass-timber factory with a guaranteed market – will only arise if Waterfront Toronto gives them all this land. (p. 264)

My question: exactly why does Sidewalk Labs/Google need all these other changes? Why not just locate its headquarters in the Eastern Waterfront and work on developing tech in laboratories and real-world conditions? Why do they need to rewire the rules and regulations and governance of an entire community to do this? After all, I’m assuming that not all of Sidewalk Labs’ future clients will want to change all their laws just to install smart street lights. So why not develop your tech under that realistic restriction? Why not try to implement technological solutions that fit clients’ existing circumstances?

And if Waterfront Toronto wants to kickstart development and thinks that an anchor company will do it (which also probably won’t work, but that’s an argument for another day), then why not cut all the extraneous stuff and just bring in the anchor? If all these changes are needed just to bring Google to town, is it worth it?

“Financially feasible”

This section also reminds us that Sidewalk Labs is a for-profit company. As a result, its claim that Quayside is too small a parcel of land to develop these new technologies is based in large part on financial considerations. In other words, it would not be feasible for a for-profit company to do a lot of these things. (p. 266, e.g. re clean energy)

This reality highlights a very significant drawback to depending on for-profit companies to run your city or your research and development projects. Their bias will always be toward what will pay off financially, and on their desired timeline, not what is socially beneficial or (key point) what will only become profitable in a time horizon beyond what a company is comfortable with.

Despite all its talk about how it can depend on Google’s deep pockets to have a lengthy time horizon, Sidewalk Labs is telling us that this horizon is not as long as they’re letting on. They’re in this to make lots of money in a certain period of time. They will focus on the shiny, sellable tech. They will focus on shorter development time frames than would governments.

They will also, if business conditions warrant it, abandon Toronto. Or if politicians don’t play ball with them once they’re ensconced here, which amounts to the same thing. Because they’re a money-making business. That’s their deal. Governments can’t leave a town, but companies can and will and do if their bottom line is threatened.

Public funding of Light Rail Transit

Another reminder that the public would be on the hook for light rail costs, either in terms of public funding or financing (possibly backed by future tax revenues from all the awesome stuff that this project will yield). (p. 268)

Also, Sidewalk Labs argues that merely the provision of light rail “would become a fundamental driver of the east- ern waterfront’s economic development strategy, accelerating the creation of thriving new transit-first neighbourhoods” (p. 268). Possibly. But if so, then why not just build the line? Are all of Sidewalk Labs’ other changes needed? What is their marginal contribution to growth?

Also, I’d love to see a comparative analysis of the benefits of building Sidewalk Labs/Google’s light rail and using that money for transit in other parts of the city. This proposal is silent on that bit of information.

Bottom line is, if you want economic development, a climate-positive neighbourhood, affordable housing and a “21st century mobility network” (including LRT. They really want that LRT.), it’s everything or nothing.

A Pivotal Moment for the Future of the Eastern Waterfront (pp. 272-279; not listed in Table of Contents)

Mostly history and a continued sales pitch for developing this area. The amount of PR and promises – as opposed to actual plans – in this document is draining.

Touted ways their proposed changes would “add[] value to the Port Lands Planning Framework” (p. 275):

  • Villiers Island “as a major economic hub” (i.e. the Google effect)
  • Preparing for self-driving vehicles (see previous discussions about the policy discussions this move is pre-empting, and also the possibility the tech won’t work out)
  • Developing advanced energy infrastructure
  • Planning for greater density to unlock a transit expansion and sustainable development (read: we really want that light rail line but not, you know, enough to pay for it ourselves)
  • Expand the supply of affordable and below-market housing
  • Accelerating the development timeline (ah, timeline promises: the bane of planners and politicians)

Maybe governments can actually do development?

While the investment in the Port Lands Flood Protection Project is extraordinary, it is only a first step. Substantial additional investments are required to fully unlock the area’s potential. (p. 277)

A reminder of how Sidewalk Labs’ proposal builds on a massive, $1.25 billion, Waterfront Toronto-coordinated public investment. Any private return on investment they make if this project goes forward will be due entirely to this public investment.

The River District Can Anchor a Renewed Eastern Waterfront (pp. 280-291; not listed in Table of Contents)

And we’re back to full-page pictures. Which is a bit of a relief as it gives me a break from reading, but also depressing because it means I have to work my way through yet another empty-calorie section that repeats so much of what I’ve already read.

Added bonus: pages 282-291 are lifted wholesale from the Overview (pp. 136 (excerpt); 144-147), only with different pictures.

These Overview sections should’ve come with a note saying, “For the exact same information, please consult Volume 1, pages 280-291.”

Posted in Quayside | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 21: The MIDP Volume 1, The Plans; Chapter 2: The River District, Introduction

Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 20: The MIDP’s economic drivers: A Google-themed rerun of Amazon’s HQ2 debacle?

Posted on August 8, 2019 by bhaggart

Previous Master Innovation and Development Plan liveblog entries and relevant documents available here

As if Sidewalk Labs’ MIDP wasn’t long enough, I decided I wanted to go deeper into the world they’ve created. If the MIDP is The Lord of the Rings (spoiler: only in length; it would be sacrilege to suggest otherwise), then the Master Innovation and Development Plan Technical Appendix is The Silmarillion: More world-building detail transacted at tedious length.

For all that, like The Silmarillion, these Technical Appendices can be enlightening.*

For example, I’ve been wondering what, exactly, is driving Sidewalk Labs’ anticipated economic effects. As it happens, while reading through the MIDP’s endnotes I realized that they had published a whole series of appendices that they didn’t bother to include with their 1,500-page four-volume report. Maybe they were worried that people would balk at the extra reading?

Anyway, among these documents is an economic impact analysis by urbanMetrics, which makes for some interesting reading.

So, on what’s driving Sidewalk Labs’ economic-growth predictions. As far as I can tell, the sustained economic growth (as opposed to one-time boosts from construction) envisioned by Sidewalk Labs would come primarily from Google’s Canadian branch headquarters’ presence in the Eastern Waterfront, the creation of a mass-timber construction industry, and a weakening of city bylaws.

On Google’s presence in the Eastern Waterfront, urbanMetrics notes:

Notwithstanding the range of other urban innovations proposed, this initiative alone presents an opportunity to cement the Eastern Waterfront as an innovative new district that could become an industry leader in advancing city-based technologies. (p. 15, emphasis added)

a proposal to relocate Google’s Canadian Headquarters to the Eastern Waterfront and establishing a corresponding Urban Innovation Cluster collectively represent a significant divergence from the types of traditional mixed-use development likely to prevail at this location in the absence of SWL. This will alter the core composition of the resulting employment base in this area, as well as the corresponding level and type of output from local businesses. (p. 13)

On a tall-timber industry

This initiative marks a significant departure from more traditional steel and concrete forms of development, which continue to dominate the construction landscape across North America.

Despite the significant environmental, cost and building efficiency benefits of timber-based construction, it has not yet been utilized on such a large scale to date; particularly in the Toronto context. (p. 16)

On weakening regulation (“radical mixed use”):

As demand for space changes through inevitable market cycles and technological advances, the SWL vision establishes an unparalleled degree of flexibility to avoid lengthy and expensive reconstruction projects and time delays in repositioning assets for various uses. This type of modularity also delivers significant benefit to individual businesses that could occupy space in these building, reflecting their own expansion and growth patterns over time. (p. 16)

They also highlight tourism as a potential economic driver. Unfortunately, of these potential ongoing contributors to economic growth, urbanMetrics only provides an economic model for tourism. However, it seems pretty clear that urbanMetrics at least recognizes that it’s Google’s presence via a branch headquarters that is the real game-changer, not any of Sidewalk Labs’ vapourware innovations.

Is Sidewalk Labs running a Google HQ2 play?

Which raises the question:

Are we witnessing a Google-themed rerun of Amazon’s HQ2 play, in which cities debased themselves to offer sweet concessions to bring a big company to town?

Consider what Toronto, Ontario and Canada could be giving to Google/Sidewalk Labs for the privilege of their presence:

  • A new light rail line in its preferred area;
  • Cheaper-than-market-value land;
  • Extensive weakening and/or changes of laws and regulations at every level of government, including minimal apartment sizes;
  • A share of tax revenue going forward; and
  • A dedicated market for a risky mass timber product.

Looked at from this perspective, it certainly seems like one of Sidewalk Labs’ main goals is to get Google a good deal on its headquarters on the most favourable conditions possible.

If the presence of Google HQ either is or is seen as the centrepiece of Sidewalk Labs’ proposal, the whole thing starts to seem less like a 21st century innovation district and more like the 21st-century digital equivalent of a free trade zone, or maquiladora, subject to its own rules. Once established, the overriding objective becomes keeping the foreign companies happy so that they won’t leave when they’re offered a better deal elsewhere.

 

 

* I should probably admit that I’ve never actually read The Silmarillion – its reputation precedes it. But it’s a good analogy, right?

Posted in Quayside | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liveblogging Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan, Entry 20: The MIDP’s economic drivers: A Google-themed rerun of Amazon’s HQ2 debacle?