Where The Sidewalk Ends: The Governance Of Waterfront Toronto’s Sidewalk Labs Deal

Alexandra Flynn, Mariana Valverde
{"title":"Where The Sidewalk Ends: The Governance Of Waterfront Toronto’s Sidewalk Labs Deal","authors":"Alexandra Flynn, Mariana Valverde","doi":"10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In May 2020 Sidewalk Labs, the Google-affiliated ‘urban innovation’ company, announced that it was abandoning its ambition to build a ‘smart city’ on Toronto’s waterfront and thus ending its three-year relationship with Waterfront Toronto. This is thus a good time to look back and examine the whole process, with a view to drawing lessons both for the future of Canadian smart city projects and the future of public sector agencies with appointed boards. This article leaves to one side the gadgets and sensors that drew much attention to the proposed project, and instead focuses on the governance aspects, especially the role of the public ‘partner’ in the contemplated public-private partnership. We find that the multi-government agency, Waterfront Toronto, had transparency and accountability deficiencies, and failed to consistently defend the public interest from the beginning (the Request for Proposals issued in May of 2017).  Because the public partner in the proposed ‘deal’ was not, as is usually the case in smart city projects, a municipal corporation, our research allows us to address an important question in administrative law, namely: what powers should administrative bodies outside of government have in crafting smart city policies? \nIn Canada, the comparatively limited Canadian scholarly work regarding urban law and governance has mainly focused on municipal governments themselves, and this scholarly void has contributed to the fact that the public is largely unaware of the numerous local bodies that oversee local matters beyond municipal governments.  This paper hones into the details of the WT-Sidewalk Labs partnership to understand the powers and limitations of WT in assuming a governmental role in establishing and overseeing ‘smart city’ relationships. It ultimately argues that WT has not been – nor should it be – empowered to create a smart city along Toronto’s post-industrial waterfront. Such tasks, we argue, belong to democratic bodies like municipalities. An important contribution of this paper is to situate the evolving role of public authorities in the local governance literature and in the context of administrative law.","PeriodicalId":56232,"journal":{"name":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In May 2020 Sidewalk Labs, the Google-affiliated ‘urban innovation’ company, announced that it was abandoning its ambition to build a ‘smart city’ on Toronto’s waterfront and thus ending its three-year relationship with Waterfront Toronto. This is thus a good time to look back and examine the whole process, with a view to drawing lessons both for the future of Canadian smart city projects and the future of public sector agencies with appointed boards. This article leaves to one side the gadgets and sensors that drew much attention to the proposed project, and instead focuses on the governance aspects, especially the role of the public ‘partner’ in the contemplated public-private partnership. We find that the multi-government agency, Waterfront Toronto, had transparency and accountability deficiencies, and failed to consistently defend the public interest from the beginning (the Request for Proposals issued in May of 2017).  Because the public partner in the proposed ‘deal’ was not, as is usually the case in smart city projects, a municipal corporation, our research allows us to address an important question in administrative law, namely: what powers should administrative bodies outside of government have in crafting smart city policies? In Canada, the comparatively limited Canadian scholarly work regarding urban law and governance has mainly focused on municipal governments themselves, and this scholarly void has contributed to the fact that the public is largely unaware of the numerous local bodies that oversee local matters beyond municipal governments.  This paper hones into the details of the WT-Sidewalk Labs partnership to understand the powers and limitations of WT in assuming a governmental role in establishing and overseeing ‘smart city’ relationships. It ultimately argues that WT has not been – nor should it be – empowered to create a smart city along Toronto’s post-industrial waterfront. Such tasks, we argue, belong to democratic bodies like municipalities. An important contribution of this paper is to situate the evolving role of public authorities in the local governance literature and in the context of administrative law.
人行道的尽头在哪里:多伦多滨水区的人行道实验室交易的治理
2020年5月,谷歌旗下的“城市创新”公司Sidewalk Labs宣布,将放弃在多伦多海滨建设“智能城市”的雄心,从而结束与多伦多海滨的三年合作关系。因此,现在是回顾和审查整个过程的好时机,以期为加拿大智能城市项目的未来和拥有指定董事会的公共部门机构的未来吸取教训。本文将备受关注的小工具和传感器放在一边,转而关注治理方面,特别是公共“合作伙伴”在拟议的公私合作中的作用。我们发现,多伦多海滨多政府机构存在透明度和问责制不足,从一开始就未能始终如一地维护公众利益(2017年5月发布的征求建议书)。由于拟议的“交易”中的公共合作伙伴不是市政公司,就像智能城市项目中通常的情况一样,我们的研究使我们能够解决行政法中的一个重要问题,即:政府以外的行政机构在制定智能城市政策时应该拥有什么权力?在加拿大,加拿大关于城市法律和治理的学术工作相对有限,主要集中在市政府本身,而这种学术空白导致公众在很大程度上不知道监督市政府以外地方事务的众多地方机构。本文深入探讨了WT Sidewalk Labs合作伙伴关系的细节,以了解WT在建立和监督“智能城市”关系中承担政府角色的权力和局限性。它最终认为,WT没有——也不应该——被授权在多伦多后工业时代的海滨创建一个智能城市。我们认为,这样的任务属于像市政当局这样的民主机构。本文的一个重要贡献是将公共当局不断演变的作用置于地方治理文献和行政法的背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信