![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The paper transposes aspects of the histography of Fernand Braudel to the exploration of planning. It explores the extent to which different time scales, dominated by a longue durée perspective, reveal different facets of the history of planning and of how it operates. Lesser time scales focus on specific events while long perspectives bring to light durable aspects of planning, such as those relating to its embeddedness within fundamental relations between the state and the market economy. The paper contends that planning history and theory are largely shaped by a middle-scale histography, focussed on the succession of periods in the evolution of planning and on how they mark its progression. It proposes to counterbalance this historical perspective with a long-term historical lens highlighting persistent dimensions of planning, many referring to the fundamentals of its political economy. The paper argues that a full understanding of planning requires a consideration of different historical scales. The object of study is Downtown Toronto planning and development since 1945. A medium time scale identifies three distinct phases in Downtown Toronto history over this period, while a long-term perspective reveals how this district evolved with remarkable consistency into an expanded and diversified downtown during these years.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Pierre Filion is a professor at the School of Planning of the University of Waterloo. His research interests include downtown and metropolitan scale planning.
Notes
1 Hodge and Gordon, Planning Canadian Communities; Wolfe, “Our Common Past.”
2 Bloch, The Historian’s Craft; Bloch, La société féodale; Febvre, Combats pour l’histoire.
3 Among others, Braudel, Capitalism and Material Life; Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World; Braudel, Memory and the Mediterranean.
4 Much of his conceptual writing from the Annales is grouped in Braudel, On History.
5 Braudel, “History and Social Sciences,” 49; Gurvitch, Déterminismes sociaux et liberté humaine.
6 Lee, “Introduction: Fernand Braudel,” 3.
7 Tomich, “The Order of Historical Time,” 11–12.
8 Grenier, “Expliquer et comprendre la construction du temps.”
9 Giddens, The Constitution of Society.
10 Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 621.
11 Braudel, “History and Social Sciences,” 31; Tomich, “The Order of Historical Time,” 12.
12 Pierson, Politics in Time, 79–102.
13 Armitage, Guildi and Baudry, “Le retour de la longue durée”; Guildi and Armitage, The History Manifesto.
14 Chakrabarty, “The Climate of History”; Sayer, “Time after Time.”
15 Sorensen, “Taking Path Dependency Seriously,” 17; Ward, Freestone and Silver, “The ‘New’ Planning History,” 244.
16 Hall, Cities of Tomorrow; Ward, Planning the Twentieth-Century City.
17 E.g. Alexander, Approaches to Planning; Allmendinger, Planning Theory; Fainstein and DeFilippis, “Introduction.”
18 Lowndes, “New Institutionalism”; Verma, Institutions and Planning; Woodlief, “The Path Dependent City.”
19 Polanyi, The Great Transformation; Cangiani, “Karl Polanyi’s Institutional Theory”; Dale, Karl Polanyi; Alvater and Hoffmann, “The West German State Derivation Debate”; Hirsh and Kannankulam, “The Spaces of Capital”; Holloway and Piciotto, State and Capital; Jessop, State Theory; Jessop, “Bringing the State Back In”; Jessop, State Power.
20 Sorensen, “Institutions and Urban Space,” 22–23.
21 Knowles, “Transit Oriented Development.”
22 Monocle, “Most Liveable City.”
23 DRIÉA, Le schéma directeur d’aménagement.
24 Mourard and Fourquet, La naissance des villes nouvelles.
25 Frisken, The Public Metropolis; Lemon, Toronto since 1918; Sewell, The Shape of the City; White, Planning Toronto.
26 Alexander, Approaches to Planning; Hackworth, The Neoliberal City.
27 Lemon, Toronto since 1918, 84–92.
28 Lemon, Toronto since 1918, 134.
29 White, Planning Toronto, 195–6.
30 Kerr and Spelt, The Changing Face of Toronto, 145–146.
31 Toronto Daily Star, “Editorial: Vote Yes on the Subway Station”; Toronto Daily Star, “Editorial: A $65 Million Transit Project”; White, Planning Toronto, 52–54.
32 MTRTS, Transportation for the Region Study.
33 White, Planning Toronto, 166.
34 Nowlan and Nowlan, The Bad Trip; Sewell, The Shape of the City.
35 Thomson, Great Cities and their Traffic.
36 Filion, “Balancing Concentration and Dispersion.”
37 Goldenberg, Report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto; Lemon, Toronto since 1918, 111, 134–8; Sewell, The Shape of the Suburb.
38 This was the case of: Ontario, Design for Development; Toronto, Third Report and Official Plan; Toronto, The Changing City, 6–8; Metro Toronto, Official Plan of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area; Metro Toronto, Metropolitan Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 2.; MTARTS, Choices for a Growing Region.
39 Toronto, The Changing City, 43; Toronto, Plan for Downtown Toronto, 19; White, Planning Toronto, 183–188.
40 Toronto, Proposals for a New Plan for Toronto, 15.
41 Globe and Mail, “Editorial: Tighten the Zoning Bylaw”; Globe and Mail, “Board Votes to Ease Apartment Zoning”; Toronto, Urban Renewal; Toronto, Improvement Programme for Residential Areas; Toronto Daily Star, “Editorial: Apartment Muddle Thickens”; White, Planning Toronto, 150–157, 166–171, 201–207; among plans for specific projects: Toronto, Don Vale Urban Renewal Scheme; Toronto, Trefann Court Urban Renewal Scheme; Toronto, Redevelopment Plan for Alexandra Park.
42 Jessop, “Fordism and Post-Fordism.”
43 Bourne, Britton and Leslie, “The Greater Toronto Region”; Globe and Mail, “New City Hall Judges.”
44 Gad and Holdsworth, “Building for City”; Pain and Prentice, “Canadian Cities.”
45 Toronto, Central Area Plan Review, B2-1 – B2-53.
46 Allmendinger, Planning Theory, 49–78, 148–171; Healey, “Planning Through Debate.”
47 Filion, “Rupture or Continuity?”
48 Filion, “The Neighbourhood Improvement Plan”; Globe and Mail, “Zoning Change Favoured.”
49 Caulfield, The Tiny Perfect Mayor; Sewell, Up Against City Hall; Sewell, How We Changed Toronto.
50 Lemon, Toronto since 1918, 151–158; Sewell, The Shape of the City, 135–171; White, Planning Toronto, 302–310.
51 Metro Toronto, Official Plan for the Urban Structure; Toronto, Central Area Plan.
52 Lind, “Chief Purpose”; Lind, “Aldermanic Ups and Downs”; White, Planning Toronto, 311–312.
53 CUI, Strategic Regional Research.
54 Hume, “Big Ideas.”
55 White, Planning Toronto, 358–361.
56 McArthur, “Real Estate Has Long Way to Climb Back Up.”
57 Metro Toronto, Official Plan for the Urban Structure; Ontario, Growth Plan.
58 Boudreau, Keil and Young, Changing Toronto.
59 Data Management Group, 2011, 2006, 1996 and 1986 Travel Survey.
60 Desfor and Laidley, Reshaping Toronto’s Waterfront; Filion and Sanderson, “Institutional Arrangements”; White, Planning Toronto, 336.
61 Jenkins, “Toronto’s Cultural Renaissance.”
62 CBRE Ltd, New Office Development; Walks, “Canada’s Housing Bubble Story”; Wintrob, “City of Mass Construction.”
63 Bounce, “The Emergence of ‘Smart Growth’”; Darchen, “The Creative City.”
64 Boudreau, Keil and Young, Changing Toronto; Toronto, Toronto Official Plan, 2.7, 3.9.; Urban Strategies et al, Tall Buildings.
65 CUI, The New Geography of Office Location; Ostler, Downtown Toronto, 42; Perkins, “Why Corporations are Flocking Back”; Pigg, “Why Toronto Businesses Are Moving Downtown.”
66 Toronto, Toronto Official Plan, 2.7, 2.12.
67 Winsa, “Room in the Sky.”
68 Ontario, Growth Plan.
69 Bozikovic, “Google Sidewalk Labs”; Sidewalk Labs, Vision.
70 Brownell, “Google’s Sidewalk Labs”; Crawford, “Beware of Google’s Intentions.”
71 Lorinc, “Sidewalk Labs Launches Its Dog and Pony Show.”
72 Or two parts, depending on the range of the covered period: Alexander, Approaches to Planning; Allmendinger, Planning Theory; White, Planning Toronto; Sewell, The Shape of the City; Ward, Planning the Twentieth-Century City; Wolfe, “Our Common Past.”
73 On the social mix objective of planning in these neighbourhoods, see Filion, “The Neighbourhood Improvement Plan,” 18–20, and City of Toronto, Criteria and Priorities for the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, and City of Toronto, Neighbourhood Improvement Program.
74 Campbell, Tait and Watkins, “Is There Space for Better Planning.”
75 Polanyi, The Great Transformation; Alvater and Hoffmann, “The West German State Derivation Debate.”
76 Sorensen, “Institutions and Urban Space.”
77 Moos, “‘Generationed’ Space”; Moos, “From Gentrification to Youthification?”; Polèse and Shearmur, “Culture, Language and the Location”; Schettkat and Yocarini, “The Shift to Service Employment.”