This article investigates the impact of public land ownership on long-term processes of urban development by comparing the political histories of waterfront redevelopment in Chicago, Vancouver, and Toronto. The study is driven by two research questions: Why have redevelopment efforts in Chicago and Vancouver apparently succeeded whereas those in Toronto failed? And what was the impact of public land ownership on these outcomes? Drawing from archival, interview, and geospatial data, I argue that land ownership conditions had a defining and enduring impact on the shape and scale of waterfront redevelopment in each city. What separates Toronto’s waterfront from Chicago and Vancouver is not how much land was historically controlled by public versus private owners, but rather the relative distribution and concentration of these assets. Early political events involving the consolidation or fragmentation of land ownership established institutional arrangements that either enabled or inhibited effective implementation.
AlcobaNatalie. 2011. “City Wants to Seize Control of Port Lands.” National Post, August30, p. A10.
2.
AndersonMartin. 1964. The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal 1949-1962. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
AyerBenjamin Franklin. 1888. “Lake-Front Questions.” Barnard & Miller, Read before the Chicago Literary Club, May28, Daley Library special collections and university archives, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago.
4.
BachrachJulia S.2009. “Front Yard for All: The History of Grant Park.” In Sounds of Chicago’s Lakefront: A Celebration of the Grant Park Music Festival, edited by MacalusoTonyBachrachJulia S.SamorsNeil, 11–48. Chicago: Chicago’s Book Press.
5.
BachrachJulia S.2012. The City in a Garden: A History of Chicago’s Parks. 2nd ed.Chicago: Center for American Place, Columbia College Chicago.
6.
BertonPierre. 1996. The Great Lakes. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing.
7.
BoudreauJulie-AnneKeilRogerYoungDouglas. 2009. Changing Toronto: Governing Urban Neoliberalism. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
8.
BulaFrances. 2010. “Vancouver Takes Control of Olympic Village.” The Globe and Mail, November17.
9.
BurnhamDaniel H.BennettEdward H.1909. Plan of Chicago. Chicago: Commercial Club of Chicago.
10.
ButtleJeff. 1990. “Marathon’s Coal Harbor Project Passed by 6-5 Vote.” Vancouver Sun, July27.
11.
CastanoTimothy, ed. 2008. Land and Power: The Impact of Eminent Domain in Urban Communities. Princeton: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Policy Research Institute for the Region.
12.
CaulfieldJon. 1974. The Tiny Perfect Mayor: David Crombie and Toronto’s Reform Aldermen. Toronto: James Lorimer.
13.
City of Chicago. 1972. “The Lakefront Plan of Chicago.” Chicago: City of Chicago, December.
14.
City of Chicago. 1973. “Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance.” Passed by the City Council of the City of Chicago, October24.
15.
Chicago Plan Commission.1943. “Land Use in Chicago.” Volume 2 of the Report of the Chicago Land Use Survey, Conducted by United States Works Project Administration. Special Collections, Daley Library, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved from the Daley Library Special Collections of the University of Chicago at Illinois.
16.
ChurchillDennis Michael. 1953. “False Creek Development: A Study of the Actions and Interactions of the Three Levels of Government as They Affected Public and Private Development of the Waterway and Its Land Basin.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology, Univ. of British Columbia.
17.
City of Toronto. 2000. “Our Toronto Waterfront: Building Momentum.” A Report to Council on the Proposal of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force. Policy and Finance Committee Report No. 10. Adopted by City Council, August1.
18.
City of Toronto Department of Planning and Development. 1984. “The Central Waterfront: Final Recommendations.” Toronto: Department of Planning and Development, March.
19.
City of Vancouver. 1973. “Waterfront Planning Study.” A Public Information Report Sponsored by the City of Vancouver and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, December.
20.
City of Vancouver. 1990a. “Coal Harbour Policy Statement.” Approved by City Council, February6.
21.
City of Vancouver. 1990b. “False Creek North Official Development Plan.” By-Law No. 6650.
22.
City of Vancouver Planning Department.1970. “False Creek Development Concepts.”
23.
City of Vancouver Planning Department.1974. “Final Report of the Waterfront Steering Committee.” City of Vancouver Archives, box 27-F-3.
24.
DesforGene. 1993. “Restructuring the Toronto Harbour Commission: Land Politics on the Toronto Waterfront.” Journal of Transport Geography1 (3): 167–81.
25.
DesforGeneVesalonLucianLaidleyJennifer. 2011. “Establishing the Toronto Harbour Commission and Its 1912 Waterfront Development Plan.” In Reshaping Toronto’s Waterfront, edited by DesforGeneLaidleyJennefer, 49–74. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
26.
DowrickF. E.1974. “Public Ownership of Land—Taking Stock.” Public Law:10–24.
27.
EdmundsR. G. B.1964. Personal Correspondence from the Secretary to Members of the Metropolitan [Toronto] Waterfront Technical Committee, Re: Waterfront Visits, April 9. Archives of Ontario, RG 19-59, B354630, Minutes of Metro Waterfront Technical Committee. Retrieved from Archives of Ontario.
28.
EidelmanGabriel. 2011. “Who’s in Charge? Jurisdictional Gridlock and the Genesis of Waterfront Toronto.” In Reshaping Toronto’s Waterfront, edited by DesforGeneLaidleyJennefer, 263–86. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
29.
EidelmanGabriel. 2013a. Landlocked: Politics, Property, and the Toronto Waterfront, 1960-2000. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Political Science, Univ. of Toronto.
30.
EidelmanGabriel. 2013b. Three’s Company: A Review of Waterfront Toronto’s Tri-Government Approach to Revitalization. Toronto: Mowat Centre.
31.
EidelmanGabriel. 2016. “Rethinking Public Land Ownership and Urban Development: A Canadian Perspective.” Cities55:122–26.
32.
FainsteinSusan S.2001. The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London, 1980-2000. 2nd ed.Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
33.
FukuiJune. 1968. A Background Report on False Creek for the Vancouver Board of Trade. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
34.
GarberJudith A.ImbroscioDavid. 1996. “‘The Myth of the North American City’ Reconsidered: Local Constitutional Regimes in Canada and the United States.” Urban Affairs Review31 (5): 595–624.
35.
GilfoyleTimothy J.2006. Millennium Park: Creating a Chicago Landmark. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press.
36.
GlubokNorman. 1965. “Daley Pledges Plan by ’67 to Improve Lakefront.” Chicago Daily News, November2.
37.
GoheenPeter G.2000. “The Struggle for Urban Public Space: Disposing of the Toronto Waterfront in the Nineteenth Century.” In Cultural Encounters with the Environment: Enduring and Evolving Geographic Themes, edited by MurphyAlexander B.JohnsonDouglas L., 59–78. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
GoodchildRobinMuntonRichard. 1985. Development and the Landowner: An Analysis of the British Experience. London: George Allen & Unwin.
39.
GordonDavid L. A.1997. Battery Park City: Politics and Planning on the New York Waterfront. New York: Routledge.
40.
GutsteinDonald. 1990. The New Landlords: Asian Investment in Canadian Real Estate. Victoria: Porcépic Books.
41.
HailaAnne. 2000. “Real Estate in Global Cities: Singapore and Hong Kong as Property States.” Urban Studies37 (12): 2241–56.
42.
HarcourtMikeCameronKen. 2007. City Making in Paradise: Nine Decisions that Saved Vancouver. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
43.
HayesDerek. 2012. British Columbia: A New Historical Atlas. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
44.
HomeRobert. 2009. “Land Ownership in the United Kingdom: Trends, Preferences and Future Challenges.” Land Use Policy26 (Special Issue): S103–108.
45.
HuntJ. BradfordDeVriesJon B.2013. Planning Chicago. Chicago: American Planning Association.
46.
Illinois and Michigan Canal Commissioners. 1936. Survey of Chicago [map]. Available from the Chicago Historical Society, ICHi-37310.
47.
KearneyJoseph D.MerrillThomas W.2004. “The Origins of the American Public Trust Doctrine: What Really Happened in Illinois Central.” The University of Chicago Law Review71 (3): 799–931.
48.
KearneyJoseph D.MerrillThomas W.2011. “Private Rights in Public Lands: The Chicago Lakefront, Montgomery Ward, and the Public Dedication Doctrine.” Northwestern University Law Review105 (4): 1417–530.
49.
KivellPhilip. 1993. Land and the City: Patterns and Processes of Urban Change. London: Routledge.
50.
KivellPhilipMcKayI.1988. “Public Ownership of Urban Land.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers13 (2): 165–78.
51.
LehrerUteLaidleyJennefer. 2008. “Old Mega-Projects Newly Packaged? Waterfront Redevelopment in Toronto.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (4): 786–803.
52.
LeyDavid. 2012. “Waterfront Redevelopment: Global Processes and Local Contingencies in Vancouver’s False Creek.” In New Urbanism: Life, Work, and Space in the New Downtown, edited by HelbrechtIlseDirksmeierPeter, 47–60. Burlington: Ashgate.
53.
LilleyWayne. 2003. “Water Front Man.” National Post Business Magazine, January1.
54.
LoganJohn R.MolotchHarvey L.1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
55.
LouwErik. 2008. “Land Assembly for Urban Transformation—The Case of ’s-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands.” Land Use Policy25:69–80.
56.
MacphersonC. B.1978. “The Meaning of Property.” In Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions, edited by MacphersonC. B., 1–14. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
57.
MahoneyJames. 2003. “Strategies of Causal Assessment in Comparative Historical Analysis.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by MahoneyJamesRueschemeyerDietrich, 337–72. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
58.
MahoneyJamesRueschemeyerDietrich, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
59.
MalonePatrick, ed. 1996. City, Capital, and Water. London: Routledge.
60.
Marathon Realty. 1966. “Project 200: A Comprehensive Waterfront Development for Vancouver, British Columbia.” City of Vancouver Archives, PD233. Retrieved from City of Vancouver Archives.
61.
MasonGary. 2014. “Olympic Village Proves to Be a Costly Lesson for Vancouver.” Globe and Mail, April29.
62.
MasseyDoreenCatalanoAlejandrina. 1978. Capital and Land: Landownership by Capital in Great Britain. London: Edward Arnold.
63.
McConnellAllan. 2012. “Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between.” Journal of Public Policy30 (3): 345–62.
64.
McDonaldTerrence J., ed. 1996. The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
65.
MellenFrances N.1974. “The Development of the Toronto Waterfront During the Railway Expansion Era, 1850-1912.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, Univ. of Toronto.
66.
MerrensH. Roy. 1988. “Port Authorities as Urban Land Developers: The Case of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Their Outer Harbour Project, 1912-1968.” Urban History Review17 (2): 92–105.
67.
Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board. 1967. “The Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Area.” Report prepared by Proctor, Redfern, Bousfield, and Bacon Consulting Engineers and Town Planners for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board and the Metropolitan Council. Toronto: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, December.
68.
Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department. 1994. “Metropolitan Waterfront Plan.” Toronto: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, February.
69.
MolotchHarveyVicariSerena. 1988. “Three Ways to Build: The Development Process in the United States, Japan, and Italy.” Urban Affairs Quarterly24 (2): 188–214.
70.
MooreRuth. 1965. “Deplore ‘Onslaught’ on Lakefront.” Chicago Sun-Times, December2, p. 3.
71.
NeutzeMax. 1989. “A Tale of Two Cities: Public Land Ownership in Canberra and Stockholm to the Early 1980s.” Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research6 (4): 189–99.
OldsKris. 1995. “Globalization and the Production of New Urban Spaces: Pacific Rim Megaprojects in the Late 20th Century.” Environment and Planning A27 (11): 1713–43.
74.
OliverJ. C.CousinsE. L.1955. “Report on False Creek: A Report to his Worship the Mayor and Members of the City Council.” October31. City of Vancouver Archives, PD 153. Retrieved from City of Vancouver Archives.
75.
PiersonPaul. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review94 (2): 251–67.
76.
PiersonPaul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
77.
PlevaEdward G.1973. “Public Land in Ontario: Policy and Trends.” In Canadian Public Land Use in Perspective, edited by NelsonJ. G.ScaceRobert C.KouriR., 25–38. Ottawa: Social Science Research Council of Canada.
78.
PrzeworskiAdamTeuneHenry. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
79.
PunterJohn. 2003. The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Planning and Design. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia Press.
80.
RastJoel. 2012. “Why History (Still) Matters: Time and Temporality in Urban Political Analysis.” Urban Affairs Review48 (1): 3–36.
81.
ReevesWayne C.1992. “Visions for the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront, I: Toward Comprehensive Planning, 1852-1935.” Major Report No. 27. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Univ. of Toronto.
82.
Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 1992. “Regeneration: Toronto’s Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report.” Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, Queen’s Printer of Ontario, Ottawa.
83.
RoykoMike. 1971. Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago. New York: New American Library.
84.
SandersonChristopherFilionPierre. 2011. “From Harbour Commission to Port Authority: Institutionalizing the Federal Government’s Role in Waterfront Development.” In Reshaping Toronto’s Waterfront, edited by DesforGeneLaidleyJennefer, 224–44. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
85.
SandersonChristopherFilionPierre. 2013. “The Development of the Toronto Waterfront: Federal Presence, Institutional Complexity, and Planning Outcomes.” In Federal Property Policy in Canadian Municipalities, edited by IrchaMichael M.YoungRobert, 110–56. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
86.
ScharpfFritz. 1988. “The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration.” Public Administration66 (3): 239–78.
87.
ScharpfFritz. 2006. “The Joint-Decision Trap Revisited.” Journal of Common Market Studies44 (4): 845–64.
88.
SchroederDouglas. 1964. The Issue of the Lakefront: An Historical Survey. Chicago: Chicago Historical Committee.
89.
SmithNate. 1977. “False Creek Crusade Runs Out of Steam.” The Province, July18.
90.
State of Illinois Department of Public Works and Buildings.1957. “Jurisdictions Along Lake Michigan.” Chicago Park District Archives, archival scan 076026 (MAPS-0001-1957). Retrieved from Chicago Park District Archives.
91.
StrongAnn. 1979. Land Banking: European Reality, American Prospect. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
92.
TennantPaul. 1980. “Vancouver Civic Politics, 1929-1980.” BC Studies46:3–27.
93.
The Globe and Mail. 1989. “The Hasty History of the Expo Lands.” June23.
94.
ThelenKathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
95.
The Province. 1968. “City Swaps for Creek Land.” November15.
96.
The Province. 1980. “$60m Deal Paves Way for BC Place.” November7.
97.
Toronto Harbour Commissioners. 1968. “A Bold Concept for the Redevelopment of the Toronto Waterfront: A Conceptual Plan for the Development of the City of Toronto Waterfront.” Prepared by J. H. Jones, Chief Engineer, Toronto Harbour Commissioners, January.
98.
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force. 2000. Our Toronto Waterfront: Gateway to the New Canada. Toronto: Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force.
99.
Vancouver Sun. 1974. “Housing, Commercial Area Approved for False Creek.” June12.
100.
WilkinsonMike. 2011. “Governments Own 50,000 Properties in Detroit.” The Detroit News, February4.
101.
WilleLois. 1991. Forever Open, Clear and Free: The Struggle for Chicago’s Lakefront. 2nd ed.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
