Finding Mutual Benefit in Urban Development

REFERENCES

• Adams, D., Croudace, R., & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Exploring the “notional property developer” as a policy construct. Urban Studies, 49(12), 2577–2596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011431283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/JOPART/MUM032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansenberg, U. (2021). Real-estate valuation and the organization of the city: A document-centred ethnography of Tel Aviv’s planning in action. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 11(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-10-2020-0038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthurson, K., Levin, I., & Ziersch, A. (2015). Social mix, “[A] very, very good idea in a vacuum but you have to do it properly!” Exploring social mix in a right to the city framework. International Journal of Housing Policy, 15(4), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2015.1093748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bain, A. L., & March, L. (2019). Urban redevelopment, cultural philanthropy and the commodification of artistic authenticity in Toronto. City and Community, 18(1), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: Models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1581–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggar, J. (2021). Approaching negotiations in urban redevelopment projects: A multiple case analysis of stakeholder involvement in community benefit agreements. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(5), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1972129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggar, J., & Friendly, A. (2022). Balancing equity-based goals with market-driven forces in land development: The case of density bonusing in Toronto. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221087243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggar, J., & Siemiatycki, M. (2020). Tracing discretion in planning and land-use outcomes: Perspectives from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X20904427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1068/b33129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catney, P., & Henneberry, J. (2019). Change in the political economy of land value capture in England. Town Planning Review, 90(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2019.24
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charney, I. (2007). Intra-metropolitan preferences of property developers in greater Toronto’s office market. Geoforum, 38(6), 1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2013). “Positive” gentrification, social control and the “right to the city” in mixed-income communities: uses and expectations of space and place. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 480–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01158.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, M. (2016). Section 37 and the creative city: How density bonuses have secured cultural benefits in the City of Toronto. Toronto Metropolitan University.
   Google Scholar
• Davy, B. (2020). Human dignity: Is there a place for it in planning? Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 4(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.24306/TrAESOP.2020.01.002
   Google Scholar
• Doberstein, C. (2016). Designing collaborative governance decision-making in search of a “collaborative advantage.” Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filion, P. (2010). Reorienting urban development? Structural obstruction to new urban forms. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00896.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filion, P., Kramer, A., & Sands, G. (2016). Recentralization as an alternative to urban dispersion: Transformative planning in a neoliberal societal context. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(3), 658–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filion, P., Leanage, N., & Harun, R. (2020). Residential intensification at the interface of market-driven development and planning: Uneven residential intensification outcomes in Toronto. Urban Policy and Research, 38(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2020.1824906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geva, Y., & Rosen, G. (2018). The regeneration deal: Developers, homeowners and new competencies in the development process. Geoforum, 96, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geva, Y., & Rosen, G. (2023). In search of social equity in entrepreneurialism: The case of Israel’s municipal regeneration agencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 30(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764221076343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, V. (2022, March 4). They’re in the same building, yet rent on these units is hundreds of dollars apart. Why some Toronto tenants are caught in the rent trap. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/03/04/a-tower-divided-soaring-toronto-rents-have-led-longtime-tenants-of-this-weston-building-to-hold-onto-too-small-homes-while-new-neighbours-barely-scrape-by.html
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J. L. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208977192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy, S., Henneberry, J., & Rowley, S. (2002). Development cultures and urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 39(7), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220135554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagbert, P., & Malmqvist, T. (2019). Actors in transition: Shifting roles in Swedish sustainable housing development. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(3), 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-019-09695-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, P. M., & Sorensen, A. (2015). Compact, concurrent, and contiguous: Smart growth and 50 years of residential planning in the Toronto region. Urban Geography, 36(1), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.947859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulchanski, D. (2010). The three cities within Toronto: Income polarization among Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970–2005.
   Google Scholar
• Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hyde, Z. (2018). Giving back to get ahead: Altruism as a developer strategy of accumulation through affordable housing policy in Toronto and Vancouver. Geoforum, 134, 7–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X05285119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidar, N., & Silver, D. (2022). The space of ideas: Public art policy and the concept of urban model spaces. Journal of Urban Affairs. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2022.2038033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, U., & Laidley, J. (2008). Old mega-projects newly packaged? Waterfront redevelopment in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), 786–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00830.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovell, D. (1984). Royal Ontario Museum and Queen’s Quay Terminal: Two Toronto landmarks renovating. Bulletin, 9(4), 7–9. https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/71773/vol9_4_7_9.pdf?sequence=1
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, H. (2023). Planning for the public benefit in the entrepreneurial city: Public land speculation and financialized regulation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 43(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x19847519
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mah, J. (2022). Evaluating affordable housing outcomes in Toronto: An analysis of density bonusing agreements. No. 58; IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance.
   Google Scholar
• Miraftab, F. (2004). Public-private partnerships: The trojan horse of neoliberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04267173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moos, M., Vinodrai, T., Revington, N., & Seasons, M. (2018). Planning for mixed use: Affordable for whom? Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1406315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosselson, A. (2020). Habitus, spatial capital and making place: Housing developers and the spatial praxis of Johannesburg’s inner-city regeneration. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(2), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19830970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mualam, N., Hendricks, A., Maliene, V., & Salinger, E. (2021). Value capture and vertical allocations of public amenities. Sustainability, 13(7), 3952. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mualam, N., Salinger, E., & Max, D. (2019). Increasing the urban mix through vertical allocations: Public floorspace in mixed use development. Cities, 87, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, S. (2013). Pioneers, pragmatists and sceptics: Speculative housebuilders and brownfield development in the early twenty-first century. Town Planning Review, 84(1), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2013.3
   Google Scholar
• QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo (Version 12) [Computer software]. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.
   Google Scholar
• Rabianski, J. S., Gibler, K. M., Tidwell, O. A., Sherwood, J., & Clements, J. S. (2009). Mixed-use development: A call for research. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 17(2), 205–230. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44105055%0A
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. J., & Siemiatycki, M. (2015). Fostering meaningful partnerships in public–private partnerships: Innovations in partnership design and process management to create value. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(4), 780–793. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen, G. (2017). Toronto’s condo-builders: Development approaches and spatial preferences. Urban Geography, 38(4), 606–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1179426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen, G., & Walks, A. (2015). Castles in Toronto’s sky: Condo-ism as urban transformation. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagalyn, L. B. (2007). Public/private development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708976133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipman, C., & Siemiatycki, M. (2022). Building in common: (Re)integrating social services and community space in church redevelopment projects. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2022.2054852
   Google Scholar
• Siemiatycki, M. (2015). Mixing public and private uses in the same building: Opportunities and barriers. Journal of Urban Design, 20(2), 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2015.1009012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siemiatycki, M. (2021). Developing homeless shelters through public–private partnerships: The case of the Red Door Family Shelter in Toronto. Journal of Urban Affairs, 43(2), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1368299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siemiatycki, M., & Farooqi, N. (2012). Value for money and risk in public-private partnerships. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2012.715525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starr, R. (2010, August 20). Aspen Ridge’s Studio on Richmond: An authentic artistic experience. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2010/08/20/aspen_ridges_studio_on_richmond_an_authentic_artistic_experience.html
   Google Scholar
• Steil, J., & Connolly, J. J. (2009). Can the Just City be built from below? Brownfields, planning, and power in the South Bronx. In P. Marcuse, J. Connolly, J. Novy, I. Olivo, C. Potter, & J. Steil (Eds.), Searching for the Just City: Debates in urban theory and practice (pp. 173–193). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878835
   Google Scholar
• Tomer, A., Fishbane, L. (2020). Big city downtowns are booming, but can their momentum outlast the coronavirus? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020.05.06_BrookingsMetro_DowntownPopBoom_Brief_Final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• van den Hurk, M., & Hueskes, M. (2017). Beyond the financial logic: Realizing valuable outcomes in public–private partnerships in Flanders and Ontario. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(5), 784–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16682237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Hurk, M., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2020). Contractual arrangements and entrepreneurial governance: Flexibility and leeway in urban regeneration projects. Urban Studies, 57(16), 3217–3235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019894277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, M. (2015, April 4). Drawing the line on cultural development in Toronto. Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/visualarts/2015/04/04/drawing-the-line-on-cultural-development-in-toronto.html
   Google Scholar