ASSHQGL[ 1. Public Meetings Summary - Quayside · 2020. 5. 5. · Appendix 1. Public Meetings...

Appendix 1. Public Meetings Summary 1 / 13

A 1. Public Meetings Summary

This Appendix includes an integrated summary of the two Public Meetings held on February 29, 2020, during Round Two of the consultation. It also includes, as attachments, summaries of:

1. Breakout Room Discussionsa. Economic Development, Digital, and Partnershipb. Sustainabilityc. Complete Communitiesd. New Mobility

2. Feedback from the Closing Plenaries3. Transcribed Feedback Forms4. Clicker Data


Waterfront Toronto’s Round Two Public Consultation on the Draft MIDP

FEBRUARY 29, 2020 FEEDBACK SUMMARY

About this Feedback Summary On Saturday, February 29, 2020, Waterfront Toronto held two consecutive public meetings (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) to continue the process of reviewing and seeking feedback on the proposal for Quayside submitted by Sidewalk Labs and the outcomes of Waterfront Toronto’s technical evaluation. Over 500 people participated. This meeting report integrates and summarizes the feedback shared at both meetings. A video recording of this meeting is available on Waterfront Toronto’s YouTube channel and Quayside project website. The meetings had identical agendas. Each was 3 hours in length, including a 45 minute opening plenary for the welcome and overview briefing, 1.5 hours for two rotations of four concurrent breakout room discussions (with a 10 minute presentation delivered by Waterfront Toronto and 35 minutes of roundtable discussion in each breakout room), 15 minutes to move between rooms, and a 30 minute closing plenary that included reports from each breakout room and a full-room discussion. The breakout rooms were organized to align with Waterfront Toronto’s objectives for Quayside (Complete Communities, Sustainability, and Mobility), with the fourth room focusing on Economic Development, Digital and Partnership (topics that are closely linked). Each breakout room had between 5 and 25 smaller table discussions; the vast majority of tables had a representative from Waterfront Toronto and one facilitator. Given the significant interest in the Economic Development, Digital and Partnership discussion, there were some small tables early in the day that were self-facilitated. This summary was written by the facilitation team from Swerhun Inc., the firm retained by Waterfront Toronto to support its Quayside public consultation process. Swerhun works exclusively for governments, public agencies, and non-profits working to support public policy. The Swerhun team’s role is not to advocate for any particular project outcome, but rather to support the delivery of transparent, constructive, and meaningful consultation processes. The intent of the summary is to reflect the feedback shared at the meeting. There are references to “few”, “some”, and “many” participants expressing a certain point of view, but it’s important to note that not all participants were asked to confirm whether they did (or did not) agree with any particularly point raised by the other participants. NOTE: The intent of this summary is not to assess the merit or accuracy of the

feedback shared at this meeting, nor does the documentation of this feedback indicate an endorsement of any of these perspectives on the part of Waterfront Toronto.

A draft of this summary was distributed to all participants for review before it was finalized.


About the Round Two Public Consultation Process This second round of consultation focused on sharing and seeking feedback on the results of Waterfront Toronto’s technical evaluation of Sidewalk Labs’ Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP), as amended by the resolution of the threshold issues. The consultation built on the feedback received during Round One of the Public Consultation (held in July 2019). Resolution of the threshold issues resulted in (but was not limited to) agreement between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs that the Quayside proposal will: • focus on 12-acres only; • be overseen by democratically accountable legislative and regulatory bodies; • adhere to all current and future Canadian privacy and data protection laws, regulations, and

Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Principles; and • include an agreement that Sidewalk Labs would pay fair market value for the lands,

(estimated at approximately $590 million). There were many questions from participants at the November 2019 meeting that focused on wanting more information about what proposals from the Draft MIDP Waterfront Toronto is evaluating (given that resolution of the threshold issues took some proposals out of consideration, most notably the IDEA District); how it is being evaluated; how concerns related to data, privacy, and digital innovations are being addressed; implementation and financing; and the overall process. The February 29, 2020 public meetings, as well as the materials provided in advance of the meetings, were designed to answer many of these questions. The following were published in advance of the February 29th meetings to support the process of seeking public feedback:

• A Discussion Guide providing an overview of the technical evaluation results and key

considerations that will inform Waterfront Toronto’s May 20th Board decision on whether to move forward with this proposal and partner with Sidewalk Labs and, if so, how; and

• Waterfront Toronto’s Evaluation Committee Report.

All these materials and presentations are available at www.QuaysideTO.ca.

NOTE: In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, Waterfront Toronto’s Board of Directors passed a resolution on March 26, 2020 to extend the date for a decision on moving forward with the Quayside project with Sidewalk Labs to June 25, 2020. Waterfront Toronto has also extended the deadline for the Quayside online public consultation to April 9, 2020.


Who Participated There was a wide range of participants at the meetings. Automated clickers were distributed to participants, and help provide a quick snapshot of who attended: • about two-thirds of participants (65%) were attending their first ever Quayside

meeting, and about one-third (35%) had participated in a previous meeting;

• almost half of the participants (46%) said they live in Toronto / East York, just over 20% said they live on the waterfront, just under 20% said they live outside Toronto, and others indicated they were from North York (8%), Etobicoke (5%), and Scarborough (3%);

• about one-third of participants (35%) heard about the meeting from a friend or colleague, another one-third (34%) heard about it from Waterfront Toronto, and just over 20% heard about the meeting from another organization; and

• when asked at the beginning of the meeting which of the four topics offered were of most interest, “Economic Development, Digital, and Partnership” was identified by about 35% of participants, followed by “Sustainability” and “Complete communities” at 25% each, and New Mobility at 15%.

Beyond the clicker data, the facilitation team asked participants to introduce themselves during the breakout room discussions. Participants revealed a wide range of backgrounds, interests, experiences, and perspectives to the meeting, including (but not limited to): • local residents; • community associations; • members of unions in the building trades; • academics; • tech startups; • investors; • global smart cities think tank; • business improvement area; • students; and • participants in the Block Sidewalk campaign. Also attending the meeting were elected officials (MPP Chris Glover, Councillor Paula Fletcher, Councillor Michael Thompson), Waterfront Toronto staff and Board members, City of Toronto staff, and Sidewalk Labs staff (who attended as observers).


Overall Themes in Feedback from Participants Participants expressed a range of perspectives on the results of Waterfront Toronto’s technical evaluation of Sidewalk Labs’ proposal. The overall themes are reflected below, followed by more detail (see attachments) from each of the four breakout rooms and the closing plenaries. 1. Consistent with the July 2019 Round One public consultation, participants expressed

three positions on the project overall:

• Those that are supportive of the project, with a noticeable increase in the relative number of supportive participants (when compared to the July 2019 Round One public consultation or the November 2019 Public Briefing), because they think it addresses the challenges identified by Waterfront Toronto, will be a valuable learning opportunity, and represents an important economic opportunity.

• Those that hold a “cautious maybe” position because they see upsides and downsides that are difficult to reconcile related to economic development, data collection, and privacy, and because they’re unclear why Toronto needs Sidewalk Labs.

• Those that are against the project because distrust in Google, Alphabet, and by association Sidewalk Labs is too high to proceed, there is too much uncertainty, and some suggesting that the revenues from Quayside would be better spent on other things (like affordable housing).

2. There was a lot of support for the sustainability solutions and new mobility solutions

proposed. Many agreed that there are proposed solutions that can help address challenges facing cities identified by Waterfront Toronto, particularly related to climate change, active transportation, and mass transit.

3. On affordable housing, while some agreed that the proposed affordable housing solutions are “moving in the right direction”, many said that the proposal needs to do much more to address housing affordability. There was an interest in a higher percentage of affordable housing, more units, and a more diverse range of ownership and unit types.

4. Regardless of their position on the project overall, participants had a lot of common

ground on the following points:

• There is need for rigorous controls on data collection and use, led by the public sector, that makes clear what data will be collected and why, by who, whether data will be monetized, how consent will work, how privacy will be protected, what the penalties would be, what digitally enabled solutions can achieve, and how to ensure Waterfront Toronto has sufficient capacity related to digital.

• There is need for more information on the partnership, with a strong interest from participants in understanding the financial details of the deal, how much Sidewalk Labs would contribute, the potential implications on the public purse, how procurement would work, and how investment in and by local/Canadian interests would be supported. There were also varied perspectives on the ability of Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs to earn and maintain public trust.

• There is a need to make public reflection and feedback on this project more manageable. Many participants focused on the fact that there was too little information shared to support participants’ efforts to provide meaningful feedback, and at the same time too much information to discern what was the most important to pay attention to. In addition to the volume of information, participants shared suggestions on how to better organize the information to support evaluation.


Opening Plenary, Public Meeting 2, 2:00 pm

Opening Plenary, Public Meeting 1, 9:30 am


Snapshots from the four breakout room discussions

Economic Development, Digital, and Partnership (at least 300 people participated in this room over the course of both meetings)

Participants expressed three positions on the project overall:

• those that are supportive of the project, with a noticeable increase in the relative number of supportive participants (when compared to the July 2019 Round One public consultation or the November 2019 Public Briefing) because they think it addresses the challenges identified by Waterfront Toronto, will be a valuable learning opportunity, and represents an important economic opportunity;

• those that hold a “cautious maybe” position because they see upsides and downsides that are difficult to reconcile related to economic development, data collection, and privacy, and because they’re unclear why Toronto needs Sidewalk Labs;

• those that are against the project because distrust in Google, Alphabet, and by association Sidewalk Labs is too high to proceed, there is too much uncertainty, and some suggesting that the revenues from Quayside would be better spent on other things (like affordable housing).

Responses to the questions asked in the room are summarized below. Note that the vast majority of feedback focused on three areas, including: uncertainty around controls for data collection and use; uncertainty regarding the details of the partnership (including trust, roles and responsibilities, procurement, the financial deal, and the RFP process); and mixed feedback on the consultation process and information provided. 1. Do you think the innovations raise the bar on meeting the urban

challenges? Why or why not?

• Some said yes because they believe that the sum of innovations delivers a clear positive benefit and that the project leverages data for delivering better living conditions.

• Some said they were unsure because the information is too abstract to know whether the innovations raise the bar.

• Some said no because they feel Sidewalk Labs is holding back and the innovations don’t address the city’s social needs.

2. Do you think that Waterfront Toronto has identified sufficient

controls to manage risks? What other controls would you like to see considered? • Some participants said yes, encouraging Waterfront Toronto to

address project myths and misinformation, and to raise awareness of the ways data is currently collected from the public by governments, and private companies.

• Some were unsure, with the vast majority of discussion focused on questions, concerns, and the need for controls on data collection and use, as well as the need for more information to determine if appropriate controls are in place.

• Some participants said no, expressing concern that Waterfront Toronto itself is able to implement controls.


3. Do you think that Waterfront Toronto has appropriately prioritized

solutions for public investment? Why or why not? There was not much discussion on this question. A few participants said yes, a few were not definitive, and a few said no.

4. Are there some innovations you would like to see prioritized over

others? If so, which ones and why? Again, there was not much discussion on this question. Participants that did respond wanted to see transit prioritized, along with adequate connections between Quayside and the rest of the city, affordable housing, open source publication of code, pneumatic waste, mass timber, and Koala mounts.

5. What would you like to see in terms of commitments from Sidewalk

Labs to this project? The few comments in response to this question were looking to Sidewalk Labs to provide percentages instead of dollar values for their commitments, quantifying the benefits of the project to the city over time, and keeping innovation realistic and beneficial to the public and the environment.

6. Other comments, feedback, and advice?

6a. Economic Development: • Discussion focused on support for mass timber and job creation,

with a strong interest in seeing local/Canadian participation opportunities.

6b. The Partnership:

• Participants were interested in knowing more about many elements of the financial deal (including the financial implications for the public), better understanding Sidewalk Labs’ financial commitments, and how procurement would work. There was also a lot of discussion on the importance of trust and different perspectives on the ability of Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto to earn and maintain trust with the public.

6c. The Consultation Process:

• Some participants were supportive of the consultation and some expressed concerns. Many felt that there was both too much and not enough information shared, with many providing suggestions on exactly what information they require to provide meaningful feedback. The need to address misconceptions and misinformation about the project was also identified.


Sustainability (at least 120 people participated in this room over the course of both meetings)

A. Do you agree with Waterfront Toronto’s conclusion that Sidewalk Labs’ proposal sufficiently addresses the challenges we are trying to address? Why or why not?

• Many agreed, saying that the solutions will meaningfully impact urban

sustainability and resiliency. It’s an opportunity for Toronto to be a world leader, accelerate sustainable development and the green tech sector, spur economic development, and bring about social change.

• Some were unsure, and said they needed more information on the costs, benefits, metrics for success, and feasibility of the solutions.

• A few said no, because the solutions do not meet ambitious targets, they are not that innovative (they are already standard in many city-building projects), and the 12 acres is too small and isolated to achieve the desired impact.

B. Are there solutions you want to see Waterfront Toronto prioritize? If

so, which ones and why? • Some participants said they would like to see mass timber and

passive house solutions prioritized because they create jobs and sustainable development. There was also support for expanding the tree canopy, modular construction techniques, waste heat recovery, pneumatic waste, permeable pavement, and waste robots.

• There were mixed opinions about Waterfront Toronto’s decision to not support sewage waste heat recovery.

• Others said there was insufficient information to share an opinion (they were looking for the science behind the benefits and costs of proposed solutions, which solutions provide the biggest benefits with finite resources, who pays, and how critical regulatory reform is to realizing solutions).

C. Are there proposed solutions that you are concerned about? If so,

which ones and why? Solutions some participants were concerned about included: e-bike parking (they don’t help people exercise and conflict with other users); electric car charging and parking (only if they improve equity); civic assembly (should come from public or not-for-profit organizations); automated schedules (already exists so don’t reinvent the wheel); pneumatic waste (doesn’t encourage waste reduction); and mass timber (could deplete Canadian forests, undermine emerging timber industry employing Indigenous people).

D. Do you have any other thoughts or comments related to the proposals?

• Data and digital technologies: Some were supportive (real-time data

can help reduce environmental impacts); and some were concerned (unclear what value the digitally enabled solutions provide, prefer non-technological, more resilient solutions).

• Partnership and process: Some were supportive of a partnership with Sidewalk Labs (not a problem to expand solutions to a broader


geography if/when things go well); some were worried (company has very little experience with development, no compelling case that Sidewalk Labs’ brings something unique that others couldn’t bring); and some said they needed a better understanding of what Toronto, Canada, and Sidewalk Labs get out of the deal in order to have an informed opinion.

• Evaluation and decision-making process: Some agreed with Waterfront Toronto’s approach of prioritizing solutions that address more than one challenge; others were concerned that there’s no cohesive document to evaluate; and some said they were missing important details to have confidence in the evaluation process (e,g,. clear targets and metrics, how equity was considered, information about finances, etc.).

• Suggested controls: A few participants thought controls were sufficient, while others suggested that controls be in place as soon as possible; accountability mechanisms be identified; make sure developers are proven; and put protections in place so Sidewalk Labs cannot abandon infrastructure and leave the City responsible for costs.

• Engagement process: There were mixed opinions about the engagement process overall, with a few complimenting Waterfront Toronto on the process and others who felt that important details were still missing. Some shared concern and frustration with the amount of information and meeting structure.

Complete Communities (at least 200 people participated in this room over the course of both meetings)


Affordable Housing • Some agreed that the proposed affordable housing solutions are

“moving in the right direction”, with support for the integration of market and affordable units, and that building 20-24% affordable housing would be a good achievement.

• Many said that the proposal needs to do much more to address housing affordability, with interest in a higher percentage of affordable housing, more units, and a more diverse range of ownership and unit types.

Inclusive Community Development • There were mixed opinions on these solutions. Some were supportive

of the proposed community benefits and the focus on community well-being, long-term care, the proposed Civic Assembly. Others expressed concern that the inclusive community development solutions were too limited, with too much focus on attracting upper-income young professionals.


Public realm and other solutions • Some expressed support for the public realm solutions, with many

agreeing with the decision to not support awnings (“raincoats”) while at the same time addressing pedestrian comfort. There were mixed opinions about the Stoa.


so, which ones and why? • Some agreed with the prioritization of affordable housing, and

government funding of the Care Collective. • Some preferred to see committed space for community services,

collaboration with non-profits, and any solutions that improve transit, road safety, winter animation, and social interaction be prioritized.


which ones and why? Concerns were expressed about Innovative Retail Concepts, Indigenous commitments (not consistent with reconciliation); Collab (unclear who makes civic programming decisions); Seed Space (disproportionately favours private landlords); and Common Space (has potential to lead to personal data collection).


• Data and digital technologies: Some were supportive, others were

more tentative, and different perspectives on whether these technologies would provide any real benefits in terms of equity. Risks in adopting these technologies were identified (lack of consent, potential data collection about children, further marginalization, and no real equity benefits provided)

• Partnership and process: Some were willing to consider a partnership with Sidewalk Labs because they’ve offered a lot of money, proposed some interesting ideas, and starting over would be a lost opportunity. Some were very skeptical and critical, noting that partnering with an unproven developer and a technology company is not the right way to address our affordability and inclusivity challenges. Some said they needed a better understanding of what Sidewalk Labs and Toronto get out of the deal in order to have an informed opinion on the potential partnership.

• Evaluation and decision-making: A few said the evaluation appears well-organized; some were interested in understanding more about the process; and suggestions were made to strengthen decision-making.

• Engagement process: Some appreciated the opportunity to engage, but the format of the meeting meant it was more of a one-way briefing than a consultation (noting that 20 minutes to share thoughts was insufficient).


New Mobility (at least 80 people participated in this room over the course of both meetings)


• Many agreed that the proposals could help address Toronto’s

challenges because they emphasize active transportation and mass transit, include incremental moves that show promise, reflect careful consideration of the challenges Toronto faces, and help Toronto from falling behind.

• Some were unsure because they needed more information on how solutions would be implemented, the incentives that would ensure the solutions achieve their intended outcome, the value of dynamic curb pricing, how complete street objectives would be met, etc.

• A few said no, largely because of the lack of funded public transit (and Light Rail Transit specifically) or because the solutions are not ambitious or innovative enough.


so, which ones and why? • Many would like to see governments prioritize the funding of the

Waterfront East LRT. • Some said that all mobility proposals would be beneficial, with specific

mention of the discounted mobility package, pricing incentives for electric vehicle parking, e-scooter parking, curbless streets, off-site parking, flexible curbs, and others. Participants expected that these solutions could incentivize and support non-automobile transportation modes, help address congestion, improve safety, and demonstrate real improvements that, if successful, could work across the city.

• Suggestions to de-prioritize because they are only effective at a larger scale included: bicycle green wave, and electric self-driving dollies.


which ones and why? While participants were generally supportive of the mobility solutions, they did identify categories of solutions that generated concerns, including (but not limited to): • Ridesharing, car-supporting, and dynamic curb solutions because they

give the private sector too large a role in solving mobility challenges, require collaboration between competing mobility service providers, and depend too much on “soft” delineation of space.

• Solutions that could create safety/collision risks for different street users, including the modular hex pavement and the dynamic/moveable curb.



• Partnership, controls, and implementation: Some suggested

Waterfront Toronto explore other vendors (because of low trust in Sidewalk Labs), apply “digital restraint” (only use where absolutely necessary to achieve desired outcome, ensure digital/data protection from the public sector is in place before implementing, seek evidence from Sidewalk Labs that proposed solutions work and that infrastructure will be kept public, and ensure protections in place to ensure Toronto doesn’t get stuck with obsolete technology.

• Quayside as a testbed and scale: A few participants were happy to see the project reduced to 12 acres, and some supported using the site as a testbed where its ok if some solutions fail. The solutions should be designed to expand and scale, if successful.

• The importance of transit and the LRT: Many said the Quayside LRT should be a priority and funded by governments as soon as possible.

• Connections between Quayside and the rest of the city are critical: Some said Quayside should be designed to feel like it’s part of Toronto.

• Street design: Some suggested Waterfront Toronto learn from mistakes in the design of Queens Quay West, ensure good public education campaign, and reflect a complete streets approach.

• The engagement process: A few said that they didn’t feel like the February 29 meetings were well-connected to the November 2019 Public Briefing and updates have not been received.

Next Steps Waterfront Toronto thanked participants for their feedback and encouraged them to visit the Quayside website to share any additional thoughts. This feedback will be critical to informing the work that happens between this meeting and Waterfront Toronto’s Board decision regarding whether to move forward with the Quayside proposal from Sidewalk Labs, and if so, how. The Swerhun facilitation team shared a reminder that a draft summary of the feedback would be distributed for review to all participants who signed in at the meeting registration table with their email address. To receive updates on the Quayside project, sign up at www.QuaysideTO.ca. ATTACHMENTS (under separate cover) 2. Breakout Room Discussions

a. Economic Development, Digital, and Partnership b. Sustainability c. Complete Communities d. New Mobility

3. Feedback from the Closing Plenaries 4. Transcribed Feedback Forms 5. Clicker Data

Appendix 1. Attachments

Waterfront Toronto’s Round Two Public Consultation on the Draft MIDP

ATTACHMENTS to the February 29, 2020 Feedback Summary

These Attachments accompany the Feedback Summary report from the two public consultation

meetings held on Saturday, February 29, 2020 by Waterfront Toronto to continue the process of

reviewing and seeking feedback on the proposal for Quayside submitted by Sidewalk Labs and

the outcomes of Waterfront Toronto’s technical evaluation.

The Attachments include:

1. Breakout Room Discussions

2. Feedback from the Closing Plenaries

3. Transcribed Feedback Forms

4. Clicker Data

The Feedback Summary, along with these Attachments, were written by the facilitation team

from Swerhun Inc., the firm retained by Waterfront Toronto to support its Quayside public

consultation process. Swerhun works exclusively for governments, public agencies, and non-

profits working to support public policy. The Swerhun team’s role is not to advocate for any

particular project outcome, but rather to support the delivery of transparent, constructive, and

meaningful consultation processes.

NOTE: The intent of this summary is not to assess the merit or accuracy of the feedback shared at this meeting, nor does the documentation of this feedback indicate an endorsement of any of these perspectives on the part of Waterfront Toronto.

A draft of the Feedback Summary, along with these Attachments, was distributed to participants

for review before it was finalized.

NOTE: In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, Waterfront Toronto’s Board of Directors passed a resolution on March 26, 2020 to extend the date for a decision on moving forward with the

Quayside project with Sidewalk Labs to June 25, 2020. Waterfront Toronto has also extended the deadline for the Quayside online public consultation to April 9, 2020.

Appendix 1, Attachment 1. Breakout Room Discussions

Attachment 1. Breakout Room Discussions

Appendix 1, Attachment 1a. BREAKOUT ROOM SUMMARY: Economic Development, Digital, Partnership 1 / 30

BREAKOUT ROOM: Economic Development, Digital, and Partnership

Over the course of both public meetings, at least 300 people participated in the Economic

Development, Digital, and Partnership room, participating in at least one of over 40 small group

discussions (spread over 4 rotations of 45 min each) and/or by submitting written feedback (11

participants submitted completed feedback forms).

This breakout room summary organizes participant feedback as follows:

• it starts with a summary of participants’ overall perspectives on the project because the vast majority of small table discussions reported on the level of support, uncertainty, and/or

concern participants had on the proposal overall; and

• the summary continues with the answers to the questions below that were asked in the room. Note that the vast majority of comments in this breakout room focused on the digital

aspects of the proposal, the details of the “deal”, and perspectives on the consultation

process, including the challenges people had with the type, volume, and lack of sufficient

detail in the information shared as part of the consultation.

The questions asked in this breakout room included:

1. Do you think the innovations raise the bar on meeting the urban challenges? Why or why

not?

2. Do you think that Waterfront Toronto has identified sufficient controls to manage risks?

What other controls would you like to see considered?

3. Do you think that Waterfront Toronto has appropriately prioritized solutions for public

investment? Why or why not?

4. Are there some innovations you would like to see prioritized over others? If so, which

ones and why?

5. What would you like to see in terms of commitments from Sidewalk Labs to this project?

6. Other comments, feedback, and advice, including subsections that include feedback related Economic Development (6a), Partnership (6b, note that feedback related to the “deal” is included here), the Consultation Process (6c), and other comments (6d).

This report is a qualitative summary of feedback received, reflecting the range of perspectives

shared verbally and in writing at the meeting. Some perspectives and ideas were shared

repeatedly, others were less frequently raised. As a result, this report occasionally refers to

“many,” “some,” or “few” participants to provide a rough idea of how frequently different

participants raised similar comments. These references are not intended to assess or assign

merit to these different perspectives, but rather to identify areas where participants’ feedback

reflected common ground and areas it reflected differences of opinion.


Feedback on the Quayside project as a whole Participants’ feedback reflected a range of positions on the Quayside project overall, including:

1. Many participants expressed general support for the project. They provided many reasons for this support, but many also asked for additional details. The supportive

comments focused on the fact that:

• The project is exciting, innovative, and it will be good for Toronto. These participants are interested in smart cities models, excited that Toronto could be a testing ground, and

see the project as a valuable experiment in urban innovation that should proceed with

the right safeguards in place. The 12-acre development will be a pilot project for other

neighbourhoods and other cities around the world. Some see the project as a “net plus”

in addressing the challenges that Waterfront Toronto identified. Others expressed

excitement about a new project that introduces innovative technologies from a fresh

perspective compared to what would be delivered by other developers. Participants also

said that the proposal for Quayside can help position Toronto globally.

• The project is an important economic opportunity. Many participants said they believe Toronto and Canada needs to move forward with this project because it will create jobs,

support training and apprenticeship pathway opportunities (especially related to mass

timber and modular installation), attract investment, and attract and keep talent in

Toronto.

• We need to be thinking about the future, and this project is the future. A few participants

felt that Toronto is “behind the times” because we don’t invest in things like this, with

some feeling that Toronto’s waterfront is far behind and underdeveloped compared to

any other city in North America that also has a waterfront. They said that this project will

help Toronto catch up. There was a concern from a few participants that if the project

doesn’t move forward, Toronto will be losing the ability to set a precedent for smart cities

around the world; however, other participants noted the opposite concern which is that

Toronto would become the city that normalizes invasive data collection.

• There are important benefits that come after the Quayside project. The project will generate learnings for the city. Many of the innovations are reasonable and basic. It will

be an important project for future generations and create opportunities for young people.

It will also provide more housing options - and affordability.

• Waterfront Toronto has addressed the main concerns. The 12-acre size of the project addresses a major concern previously raised. The intellectual property agreements and

accessibility commitments also address priorities raised previously. A few of these

participants said, “we have a lot of work left to do, but we’re getting there, and every new

distillation of this project has shown huge improvement”.

There were those supportive of the project who at the same time expressed interest in

additional information, including:

• understanding what the disadvantages are of this project and why the public had/has distrust, with a few suggestions that this type of project on 12-acres of land should not

be so contentious;


• learning more about who Sidewalk Labs will partner with and who will choose those partners, Sidewalk Labs or Waterfront Toronto;

• wanting more information communicated to local residents about the economic opportunities and community benefits of the project for those living in the immediate

surrounding areas (with the strong feeling that this information needs to come from

Waterfront Toronto and not anyone else, and Waterfront Toronto needs to present a

clearer outline of direct benefits to, as well as current and future opportunities for local

residents); and

• greater transparency about what data was being collected (often privacy was not highly contentious as they believed current laws and regulations would be upheld but they

wanted to know what data would be collected and how it would be used).

2. Many participants were not firmly set on one side or the other but instead identified as “optimistic maybes” and “cautious maybes”. They provided the following reasons for not

having a strong position one way or the other:

• There are some upsides but also some downsides that are difficult to reconcile

particularly related to economic development, data collection, and privacy. For example, participants said:

- they see the benefits of innovation but express concern about privacy; - they see the potential benefits of collecting aggregate information but are not

comfortable with the collection of personal information;

- they see the benefits of job creation, but uncertainty about the extent to which the jobs and economic benefits will be local; and

- they see an opportunity for this project to right the wrongs of past mistakes such as algorithmic discrimination by focusing on equality (e.g. improve safety for women),

but at the same time expressed concern about the amount of data collected and the

potential for surveillance.

• There is uncertainty driven by an interest in having more details about what information will be collected and how it will be used. Many expressed some frustration with the process and materials, which led to many questions and uncertainties about the project.

For example, people wanted to know:

- How will the proposed innovations impact “day to day life”; - What it will mean to walk around Queens Quay with a smartphone once this project

is implemented (Will people need to leave their phones at home?); and

- What limitations and controls will be put in place to ensure privacy (What will Sidewalk Labs be allowed to do and not allowed to do? Will the data/information

collected be used to improve Quayside or will it be monetized? Will the posted

signage fully disclose this information?).

• Lack of clarity on why Toronto needs Sidewalk Labs. These participants want to ensure that the project stays strongly Canadian and reflects Canadian values. Some suggested

that the government do this without Sidewalk Labs, while other participants noted that

it’s not the City of Toronto’s job to be an inventor or innovator.

• Waterfront Toronto and governments need to take a stronger role in the project. While some participants felt that Waterfront Toronto had done a lot of work to build trust with


the public through this consultation process, others felt that the role of public actors still

needed to be strengthened.

• Lack of clarity on how Quayside fits into the surrounding context. Participants wondered how Quayside would fit into the rest of Toronto.

3. Many other participants were opposed to the project and raised several concerns.

The reasons for their opposition focused on:

• Distrust in Google and Alphabet, and by association Sidewalk Labs, is too high to proceed. These participants were skeptical that Sidewalk Labs’ interest in Quayside was to improve Torontonian’s lives. There was also lack of trust and discomfort surrounding

data collection. Participants wanted more disclosure as the information provided was

viewed as high level, abstract and vague. Some people with this point of view said that

there were no conditions under which they would be comfortable with the project

proceeding. Concerns about Google and Alphabet’s track record with lawsuits were also

raised, including concern about how that track record will carry over to Sidewalk Labs.

• There is too much uncertainty for the project to proceed. There were many different types of uncertainties troubling participants, including:

- Lack of clarity on why we need Sidewalk Labs when its sister company (Google) has demonstrated questionable ethics, the innovations are not super innovative (they’re

better characterized as “best practices”), and we have a strong local tech sector;

- Lack of clarity about business models (i.e. unclear on Sidewalk Labs’ “long game”) and potential impacts on local tech businesses by handing this opportunity to an

Alphabet Company; and

- Lack of clarity on the problems that Waterfront Toronto is looking to solve with this project.

• Gains from the sale of the public land at Quayside would be better spent on other things, for example, affordable housing. This would better align with Toronto’s priorities and deliver much more “bang for buck”. Other participants acknowledged the importance of

affordable housing but said that they would not want to see all resources dedicated to

affordable housing alone.

1. Do you think the innovations raise the bar on meeting the urban challenges? Why or why not?

Feedback from participants included a range of positions on the proposed innovations, with

some who thought that the innovations do raise the bar, some who were uncertain, and some

who said no, they do not think the innovations raise the bar. Responses from participants who

did not reply with a “yes”, “not sure”, or “no” to this question are also summarized.

1. Yes, innovations do raise the bar and meet the challenges. Many participants said they

think the innovations are well articulated and do raise the bar. Discussion amongst those

who answered “yes” focused particularly on:


• The sum of the innovations delivers a clear positive benefit. These participants said that the innovations are all incremental solutions, however it is the integration of the range of

innovations that creates the potential for a big impact.

One supporter affirmed that they think the innovations do meet the challenge but

wondered whether the public can actually digest what is encompassed in the 160

solutions.

• The opportunity this could bring to Toronto. These participants shared their excitement about the innovations presented and the feeling that they will create a stronger

international reputation for Toronto. They believe the project raises the bar – it is

comprehensive and integrated at multiple levels. Many also support the potential

investment that the project will bring to Toronto and Canada.

• Their position as pro-development, when it is done responsibly. Some support the use of vacant land (the waterfront needs to be developed) and their belief that this will be a

“different type of development” with more innovation.

• Sustainability and climate change. These participants support using data for a positive

purpose to change patterns and help slow down climate change and its impact. They

said that the project raises the bar in terms of leveraging data for better living conditions,

noting that other cities are doing this already and Toronto is going through rapid

urbanization.

• Data collection. These participants said yes because of their comfort with data collection

and how collected data would be used (with some participants reminding others that

data is already collected and shared widely today as a result of people using

smartphones and shopping online).

• Specific innovations participants thought raised the bar are listed below (note that other participants referred to some of these same solutions as examples of why they do not

feel the innovations raise the bar – see point #3 below):

- mass timber; - job creation; - the patent pledge; - global licensing (creates sandbox for urban tech and urban innovations will spread); - construction innovations (today there is very little innovation in construction – this

could change the industry);

- the Venture Capital Fund (seed investment is a good idea, Sidewalk Labs will bring other investors);

- affordable housing (since it is above the usual threshold for affordable housing); - carbon neutral solutions; and - mobility innovations (because they will improve the transportation system in the city).

2. Uncertain whether the innovations raise the bar. Some participants were not sure whether the innovations raise the bar on meeting the urban challenges. They provided the

following reasons behind their perspectives:

• Not enough information was presented to answer the questions raised in the consultation. There are not enough details to determine if the innovations raise the bar.


The question is too complex to answer without more information (also recognize that

there are competing sources of information). The information provided is high level and

very abstract. There needs to be more clarity around data collection. We need to learn

more about innovations to know if they raise the bar.

• It is not clear what we are trying to achieve through the innovations. There were process suggestions shared by participants, including suggestions for Waterfront Toronto to:

- describe and articulate the impacts for each solution, also the intended and unintended consequences should be articulated);

- identify and rank the urgent problems, then more explicitly define the urban challenges– then, and only then, can there be an evaluation of the proposed

solutions (because one cannot evaluate solutions independently of the context and

the seriousness of the problems);

- share a framework that assesses the digital solutions, describes contingency plans, and explains how these will affect citizens;

• The information presented is very specific, but the problems will change with time. The

fact that we can’t predict all our future challenges means that we must consider whether

the right things are being addressed.

3. No, innovations are not raising the bar. Some participants said that they do not think the innovations raise the bar. They provided the following reasons to support this perspective: • Sidewalk Labs is holding back. These participants said that it appears that Sidewalk is

capable of much more technologically and is holding back on the biggest innovations

(“Sidewalk labs is being quite conservative”).

• The innovations don’t address the city’s social needs. These participants were critical as

to whether Toronto has the ability to imagine beyond the economic value of an

innovation – instead encouraging Waterfront Toronto, participants, and other levels of

government to prioritize solutions that address the City’s social issues.

• Specific innovations that participants thought did not raise the bar are listed here (note that other participants referred to some of these same solutions as examples of why they

do feel the innovations raise the bar – see point #1 above):

- using mass timber is not new, Netherlands has been using it for many years, we should learn from others around the world;

- affordable housing needs to be better addressed (i.e. need longer-term commitments for these affordable units);

- the current proposal doesn’t meet the “climate positive” definition that Waterfront Toronto set out (as per the C40 definition of negative emissions) in its RFP, and if

the subsidiary of a trillion-dollar valuation company can’t meet the criteria in the RFP,

their proposal should be refused; and

- what is being offered in terms of mobility innovations is basically conventional, without some of the innovative ideas that are on the ground right now in China (e.g.

Autonomous Rapid Transit).


4. Other thoughts in response to this question. Some participants provided other comments in response to this question, including:

• This is the wrong question to ask. Some participants suggested that it is more important for Waterfront Toronto to provide information (and seek public feedback) that would

enable the public to understand how these innovations will impact public access and

public service, and the commodification of public space/services.

• It’s important to be explicit about whether Toronto will see a benefit from the innovations at the 12-acres. This includes describing how innovations will branch out further into the city after that.

• There are several innovations that participants said they would like to learn more about, including:

- using materials like wood seems exciting, however participants would like to learn more about the benefits of the technology; and

- energy-efficient solutions.

• For solutions to achieve the low-carbon target, we should use this project to try and implement new solutions that are local and generic so they can be scaled and

implemented in other parts of the world.

• “The technology is not the actual innovation here, it’s the governance.” Who actually

owns the land, who governs, etc. is important to assess.

• Waterfront Toronto needs to make sure they are digitally educated or have experts who are aware of international context who will be able to push for more innovation.

2. Do you think that Waterfront Toronto has identified sufficient controls to manage risks? What other control would you like to see considered?

Participants’ feedback reflected a range of positions on whether Waterfront Toronto has

identified sufficient controls to manage risks, including:

1. Yes, Waterfront Toronto has identified sufficient controls. Some participants said they think Waterfront Toronto is doing a good job putting controls in place. They think Waterfront

Toronto is being very thorough in their evaluation of the proposal from Sidewalk Labs, and

they expressed confidence that this approach will continue throughout the project. Specific

comments included:

• it’s good that the data collected is going to be kept in Canada, it seems like Sidewalk

Labs is listening to our concerns;

• comfort with the collection of non-personal data; • support for the deidentification of data; and • by acknowledging that there are concerns and identifying controls that will remedy these

concerns, it appears that Waterfront Toronto has covered all avenues and delivered a

transparent process so far.


Support for ensuring Waterfront Toronto has expertise to implement

There were a few participants who said that Waterfront Toronto has identified the right

controls, but they were not confident in Waterfront Toronto’s ability to deliver/execute. They

said they felt that Waterfront Toronto lacks the right digital expertise to put proper policies in

place and added that it’s not enough to declare that “Sidewalk Labs won’t break the law”

because that is a low bar.

Comments about project myths and misinformation

Some people supportive of the project identified a need to increase awareness because

myths, misconceptions and misinformation about the project are prevalent.

They commented that:

• the project should be farther along than it is, but there is a lot of skepticism because of myths/misinformation circulating;

• Waterfront Toronto needs to both educate and engage with the public, and be more proactive in doing so (more communication channels are necessary, including social

media, not just traditional forms); and

• there are meetings led by organizations against the project which contributes to misinformation.

Counter-points consistently raised by participants in response to other participants’ concerns

about data collection, use, and digital governance

During the small table discussions, there were participants who encouraged others to

consider data-related concerns in context with current practices. These participants

challenged the notion that people’s data is really private and noted that data is already being

collected by governments (e.g. City of Toronto King Street Pilot Project) and companies

(e.g. postal code and phone information) in ways consistent with what is being proposed by

Sidewalk Labs, however Google is currently getting all the blame. They noted that:

• data is currently being collected throughout the city during our daily lives, and people ignore it, however, at the same time get upset about this project;

• it would be useful to raise people’s awareness of the current ways data is collected from the public, for example putting signs everywhere that data is currently collected if data

collection is such a contentious issue, and requiring companies that collect data, such as

postal codes and phone numbers when shopping, to disclose this activity to the public;

• this project is being much better regulated than many other developments in the city, including those with data collection elements;

• this project will upgrade/spur better regulation in future developments; and • data has already been collected for so many years with our computers and cell phones.

2. Unsure whether Waterfront Toronto has identified sufficient controls for data collection and use, privacy, and digital governance. Considerable discussion in this breakout room focused on controls related to data collection and use, privacy, and digital

governance. This feedback came both from participants who are supportive of the project as

well as from those with concerns. Many of these participants did not take a hard position on

whether Waterfront Toronto does or does not have sufficient controls in place related to

data, nor did the vast majority disagree with the implementation of new technologies in the


city – but they did want to know more. As a result, the bulk of discussion focused on

questions related to data collection and use, suggestions, observations, and concerns.

Data-related suggestions

• Ensure appropriate controls are in place. Suggestions related to data controls included:

- take the time required to ensure regulation is in place (particularly since technology

is always changing, and we don’t want to rush the process); - privacy and encryption need to be there every step of the way. - use this project as an opportunity to test ethics and accountability measures related

to data; - explain what Sidewalk Labs can and cannot do, as well as what the existing laws

mean;

- ensure there are more regulations from government on data privacy; - put in place more controls around data integrity and sovereignty; - ensure the immediate and secure anonymization of data; - provide confirmation that basic privacy concerns will be addressed; - ensure data collection will comply with current regulations (taking into consideration

that Google is currently being sued for unfair competition and data privacy concerns

surrounding children); - provide more clarity around controls that would require an organization to adhere to

future laws, and an explanation of how Waterfront Toronto would ensure this; - simplify the process of data governance (start small, such as with issues of data

around one solution, and increase transparency);

- involve a wider mix of residents in the Waterfront Toronto evaluation process to provide a proper assessment of the risks and benefits of the proposal; and,

- ensure specific accountability stipulations are in place for Sidewalk Labs / Google.

• Ensure public sector leadership. Suggestions included: - data should be collected by the government and not by the private sector, along with

a duty to disclose;

- assert a stronger role of the government in deciding how the data can be used; - there should be a public/public-controlled data trust that allows citizens to choose

who has their data (with data that is not stored in one place, in the same way that, for

example, we don’t only have one bank);

- ensure work involving data is an iterative process (it must be tested); - ensure the data that is collected and used is for the public good; - ensure that data is open access; and - have a public cloud to share the data.

• Ensure informed consent. This applies to residents, their guests, and visitors to Quayside. Suggestions included:

- more clarity on how far de-identification efforts will go; - make very clear to the public whether there are data collection opt-out procedures in

place for Quayside and, if there are, explain whether opting out will negatively impact

anyone living there or using the space;

- for smart homes in particular, the public needs to know if opting-out is an option or if there are different levels of opting-in (for example, would it still be possible to benefit


from off-peak utility use without sharing personal data, as would be the case if

someone chose to use a manually controlled washing machine);

- explain how data would be shared with utility providers and how monitoring would happen to ensure there are no privacy breaches; and

- provide more information on how to implement consent, especially for visitors versus residents (with participants noting that consent is an outdated approach and that

instead people should have complete control over their data collected as a result of

this project – with the ability to access it, see it, and alter it).

• Increase Waterfront Toronto’s capacity. This included suggestions that Waterfront Toronto hire more digital subject matter experts. A few participants went into detail

explaining their perspectives on the importance of this, including:

- Waterfront Toronto’s team needs to be experts on data collection and sovereignty and needs to clearly convey the terms of data collection and sovereignty to the

public.

- “This project singles out the issue of data collection and as a result Waterfront Toronto needs to get it right. Currently, between Cisco and Siemens, smart buildings

are already collecting data on people in Toronto but it’s not receiving the same

attention. The attention on this project makes it vital that Waterfront Toronto gets it

right.”

• Be clear about roles and responsibilities, as well as the process. Suggestions included: - identify who-is-putting-what legislation in place; - prioritize the solutions that are more important and consult on them; - make the current abstract information more concrete; and - provide more rationale and explanation behind each decision to approve/reject each

solution (the summary provided is not enough), including a public explanation of why

a digital solution had to be pursued, rather than an analog one.

• Address health concerns. A few participants suggested that Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto address the fact that there is increasing data available that speaks to

the risks of 5G on human health. Consider using lower tech options until the science is

clear.

• Complete an ongoing evaluation related to data collection. This suggestion focused on implementing ongoing evaluations of data collection activities and the technologies being

used throughout occupancy so that the public has confidence that it was being

monitored and evaluated by Waterfront Toronto.

Data-related observations

• Related to the benefits of data, observations included:

- data gathering can be helpful (for example, tracking users’ movement to inform transportation planning);

- the faster we build these “smart” communities the sooner the technology can be transferred to others so more people benefit from the knowledge;

- de-identifying data it takes away some of the important aspects of data collection (for example, if data analytics could understand transit and commute routes and timing to


make the system more efficient, then there are members of the public that wouldn’t

mind if that data was tied back to them);

- by treating Quayside as a test, we gain back some of our autonomy over data (and there can be improvements made to data governance when it is an iterative

process); and

- there is too much of an assumption being made that there is a marginal benefit to data usage, and we need to know the granularity of the data that will be collected

before we can plan it.

• Related to the monetization of data, observations included:

- data is money (for example, if data had been collected on the food preferences of the public meeting participants, a cart could have been set up with just that food to

monetize on that data – it's like insider information; another example is electronic

signage that can change based on users in the vicinity and their wants).

• Related to public oversight and serving the public interest, observations included:

- data is currently the “wild west” and it’s not clear how organizations, including Waterfront Toronto, navigate it successfully to operate in the public’s best interest;

and

- Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs have been disadvantaged by the fact that governments (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) have been far behind in setting the rules.

• Related to citizen data that is de-identified or has higher levels of encryption, observations included:

- de-identification and encryption of data is a positive, this will protect citizens; - this is great for citizens, however there is a concern that, even with de-identification,

somewhere along the pipeline the data will be “up for grabs” and there are inherent

risks in the process (for example, there is already implied consent in condos,

Yorkdale Mall, etc.); and

- suggest that third-party verification is required to address risks (because of uncertainty about how Sidewalk Labs will use this data).

Data-related questions

• Related to data collection and use, questions included:

- Can we have a clearer articulation of how the data collected will be used and the actual risks?

- What is the public use and ownership of the data? - To what extent will people be tracked? - Exactly what data will be collected and what role will government have in regulation? - Which data will be public versus private? - Who will be controlling the data?


• Related to consent, questions included:

- Do people have a right to say no to data collection? To what degree can people opt-out?

- What does “informed consent” mean? What does that look like? Will there be multiple options for providing consent?

- Will workers, residents, and tourists have the right to say no and 'opt out' of data collection?

- Will people in the area know when their data is being collected ? - Is there an opt-in/opt-out option for data collection for those who will live or frequent

project site?

• Related to monetization of data, questions included:

- Will data be monetized or used for the "private good"? - If Alphabet gets money from the personal data collected at Quayside, is Waterfront

Toronto a partner in that effort?

- Will we lose control of our data? Who would access the data? Will it be used by a private company for advertising?

- What data will Google get?

• Related to data storage, questions included:

- How can we be guaranteed that no one else will gain access to data, even if it is stored in Canada?

- How will Waterfront Toronto know if personal information is stored in Canada? - What does “data to be stored in Canada” mean? Who will be sharing the data

collected?

• Related to data security and control, questions included:

- How can we be guaranteed that no one else will gain access to data? - What will the penalties be?

- Who will be able to access the data collected and what are the possible risks? - What level of transparency will there be as the data conversation advances? For

example, who will oversee and enforce sufficient controls? Will it be a third-party

external entity?

- What information is available on the algorithms that will be used in some of the innovations? How are they made, what are their goals, are they biased, etc. What

are the social consequences of this tech? This needs to be considered.

Data-related concerns

• Privacy concerns included:

- a recent New York Times series (the “Privacy Project”) shows the difficulties of actually “anonymizing” user data;

- lack of trust, with questions about how the public can be confident that privacy will be protected;


- concerns about privacy by design because it has been around for over a decade and it shouldn’t be the starting point (others disagreed, and said privacy by design is a

good thing because it helps frame decision-making in a privacy protecting way); and

- personally identifiable data can be contentious (for example, if aggregate bike ridership is collected using cellphone data/signals at a given point, then that data can

also be personally identifiable, compared to using benign motion sensors).

• Concerns about controls included:

- encrypted solutions are not necessarily secure; - Canada is already behind the European Union in protecting data privacy (in the EU

they have the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR) so the statement from

Waterfront Toronto that Sidewalk Labs will be “complying with current laws” isn’t as

satisfying;

- the regulations identified in the Discussion Guide are high-level and vague; and - do not trust that the public sector/government is strong enough to prohibit data

sharing.

• Concerns about the role of private companies included:

- this project would pool too much data in the hands of one company; - not enough is being done to prioritize public control over the data; and, - giving data to private actors (especially when already concerned about Google).

• Concerns about ethics included:

- if data is going to be free and available, it’s necessary to consider how that data will be used and who will be affected;

- facial recognition is a concern and it needs to be explained to people; - there’s a risk of police using the data for racial profiling (i.e. technologies like facial

recognition that can bias towards targeting people with dark skin);

• Concerns about Waterfront Toronto related to data included:

- there’s not enough expertise within Waterfront Toronto; and - Waterfront Toronto was dismissive of the recommendations from the Digital Strategy

Advisory Panel (DSAP).

3. No, Waterfront Toronto has not identified sufficient controls. Some participants said they do not think that Waterfront Toronto has identified sufficient controls. They expressed

the following concerns:

• Concerns related to lack of sufficient controls on the collection of personal data. Many participants at the meeting raised questions and concerns related to the collection and

use of data. They expressed concerns about:

- the impact of data collection on those visiting the neighbourhood as well as those living in it;

- difficulty in giving consent when technology collects data in the public realm;


- the collection of people’s personal data without their understanding and consent, in order for Sidewalk/Google to earn profit; and

- the risk to the global social fabric that arises from being Alphabet’s foundation for smart city development, including concern that Toronto will be known as the city that

normalized pervasive data surveillance.

4. There are several other controls participants would like to see considered. A stronger role for governments and public actors in the future of this project was raised by participants,

• A stronger role taken on by government. There were participants who said that the

private voice on this project and in consultation is too loud. They expressed concern

about the ability for public policy and legislation to keep up with the ambitions of

Sidewalk Labs. They would like to see: - a stronger voice from the government and from Waterfront Toronto doing more to

ensure that the public understands this project; - the various levels of government catch up and keep up in terms of regulating data

privacy; - controls placed on Sidewalk Labs (noting that there is a conflict with self-regulation,

and a third party that is not Sidewalk Labs should be responsible for regulation)

• If the project goes ahead, there were participants who said that they would like to see the regulation process move forward with involvement from the community.

5. There were many participants who said that they would need more information in

order to understand whether the appropriate controls are in place. There were a number of requests for more information related to:

• The deal between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs. They raised questions,

identified concerns, and expressed expectations and suggestions for Waterfront Toronto

to consider, including:

- What does financing look like? - Are there preferred partners for both Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto to

advance and implement the project, such as suppliers, labourer’s, etc.; whether they

will be union positions/labour; local labour, etc.

- Questions around how many partnerships will exist today and in the future to deliver Quayside.

• Need clarity on land ownership in order to assess risk because the two are directly

connected. Participants raised questions about who owns the public/private spaces and identified a lack of clarity around power and responsibility. They would like to understand

if Google/Alphabet qualifies as a developer? Will Sidewalk Labs resell the land? And if

so, what happens if they do – then who will control the land?

6. Other advice related to controls. Participants provided a number of suggestions related to

controls, leaving Waterfront Toronto with the following advice:


• Ensure controls will continue into the future. For example, ensure there is a contingency plan for the mass timber factory once this project is finished if it doesn’t have enough

customers. Also, digital elements of the project should be evaluated throughout project

lifecycle. There were also questions around how engaged Waterfront Toronto will be

throughout the project lifecycle.

• Need to manage risks of losing this opportunity. Question about what would happen if Sidewalk Labs pulls out because of too much red tape – what would happen with all the

work completed to date as well next steps?

• Need to accurately assess sustainability elements of the project. This includes the carbon footprint associated with implementing “sustainable” solutions.

• More information needs to be communicated about the use of technology, specifically so that the public can better evaluate the sufficiency of controls.

• Control risks related to implementation, including:

- the risks if the city is tasked with being responsible for the project;

- determining what happens if there are unforeseen changes to the plan and we need

a plan B (including what happens to insurance costs, building costs, technology,

etc.);

- determining what happens if Sidewalk Labs scales the project up and Waterfront

Toronto and/or government is unprepared to deal with it because they lack

resources; and

- supporting a more agile government in order to keep up with technology (and

associated business models) to ensure a deal that is good for Toronto).

3. Do you think that Waterfront Toronto has appropriately prioritized solutions for public investment? Why or why not?

Compared to the other questions and topics discussed in this breakout room, there was much

less discussion about whether Waterfront Toronto has appropriately prioritized solutions for

public investment.

1. A few participants said yes, they thought Waterfront Toronto has appropriately prioritized solutions for public investment because the prioritized solutions are public-centric and align

with Waterfront Toronto’s objectives.

2. A few participants were not definitive with a response that was either positive or negative in response to this question, but instead shared that there is a lack of mention around public transit as a priority and investment regarding this project.

3. A few participants said no, they don’t think that Waterfront Toronto has appropriately prioritized solutions for public investment because they feel it would be better to prioritize

public investment in solutions for safer streets to help better operate the city than prioritizing

mass-timber.

4. There were other participants who had comments about how public investment was being considered in relation to Quayside. Their feedback focused on:


• wanting more information about how wealth will be distributed from Quayside, including

an understanding if it will be shared back to the community or go only into a few hands;

• wanting more information about who the affordable housing will be for, with worries that the area will be for privileged people only (and questions about whether people who

work in Quayside will be able to afford to live there);

• wanting to ensure that the Quayside development will not cause taxes to go up or create a burden on other residents;

• seeking clarity and transparency from Waterfront Toronto on how public money has been spent already;

• supporting the Quayside development because it will enable Toronto to support a larger population which they believe will lower taxes (address tax concerns);

• wanting a better understanding of how aspects of the project will be prioritized and what will impact their prioritization (for example, are heated sidewalks being prioritized? If so,

how does this impact or compromise overall sustainability objectives and will

assessments around sustainability affect its prioritization later on?); and

• wanting the project to identify meaningful and innovative ways to reduce traffic without changing the existing transportation infrastructure.

4. Are there some innovations you would like to see prioritized

over others? If so, which one and why? As with the previous question, when compared to the other questions and topics discussed in

this breakout room, there was much less discussion about the innovations that participants

would like to see prioritized over others. The discussion that unfolded focused on the following

priorities participants said they would like to see (these comments came from a small number of

participants):

• transit, participants said transit is paramount, needs to be connected to existing routes, and interest in cheaper TTC;

• adequate connections between Quayside and the rest of the city (so it is accessible from other parts of the city);

• affordable housing, and more of it (and not in tiny dorms) mixed with market rate housing units, with consideration given to lease-to-own options;

• open source publication of code used to access public data; • pneumatic waste; • mass timber and prefabricated construction (both sustainable and efficient), with strong

support for the local mass timber plant - because it will make the project and Waterfront

Toronto “trend setters” and may cause a ripple effect encouraging similar developments or

even more cutting edge developments; and

• Koala mounts because they are smart and efficient. Other comments in response to this question included:

• it’s hard to know which innovations to prioritize without knowing the long-term financial impacts of the innovations;

• prioritize Canadian businesses to work on this project and be in this neighbourhood (not only big ones, but smaller ones too);

• make sure labour is locally sourced and equal for everyone; and


• focus on risk mitigations. 5. What would you like to see in terms of commitments from

Sidewalk Labs to this project?

A few participants answered this question and identified commitments that they would like to

see from Sidewalk Labs, including:

• providing percentages instead of dollar values for many of the commitments because dollar values will change over time whereas percentages will reflect the commitment more

accurately; • quantifying the benefits of the project to the city over time; and • keeping innovation realistic and beneficial to the public and the environment. 6. Other Comments, Feedback, and Advice

6a. Economic Development Feedback on the proposed Economic Development solutions focused primarily on mass

timber, the Urban Innovation Institute, Koala mounts, and the patent pledge. Support,

concerns, and interest in more information are organized here by solution.

1. Mass timber. There was a lot of support for mass timber and it was one of the innovations that participants were most familiar with. There was interest in learning more

about:

• The tall timber factory, including who will own the company and whether it will be a local business in the Greater Toronto Area. There was interest in understanding

more about:

- the procurement process;

- how companies would be chosen to participate in the project;

- whether there was a local procurement agreement (noting that local community

employment can prevent crime and negative community outcomes);

- how investment can keep the money in the community;

- whether local or foreign labour will be used (with some identifying a need to

ensure that contractors use local talent and don’t displace construction workers);

- how will local benefits and jobs be experienced if the timber factory and prefab

construction of building materials is located outside the GTA;

- how to ensure social procurement is considered, including community benefit

agreements, apprenticeship requirements, and ensuring skills training for the

workforce to build wood frame;

- will there be building code and regulation / planning amendments to enable

timber construction; and

- how Waterfront Toronto knows there’s a market/suppliers for these types of new

buildings.


• How Waterfront Toronto will ensure the quality of work as it relates to construction. There was also interest in understanding who would be responsible for quality

control of mass timber construction projects.

• Regulatory requirements and contingency planning. Participants noted that mass timber at scale proposed for Quayside is not consistent with current building codes.

There was interest in learning more about the safety and sustainability of mass

timber. There was also interest in understanding the path forward if Waterfront

Toronto’s interest in regulatory change don’t materialize.

2. The Urban Innovation Institute and the Venture Fund. A few participants focused a lot of discussion on the institute, providing the following feedback:

• The Urban Institute is exciting and provides a great opportunity to be connected to key entities across the city, including MaRS, Ontario Place, similar institutes in

Scarborough and others. The Institute should serve as an intermediary between

academic innovation and the community. A few participants said that they would

accept the Institute if it were clear that it would support the scaling of business that

support climate work.

• Questions as to why a new organization is being created to do this work, with an interest in understanding why this work can’t be done with existing organizations that

do the same things and are more established in the industry, have better

connections etc (e.g. MaRS, Ryerson DMZ).

• Interest in seeing the Urban Innovation Institute be connected directly to the local community, so it is connected to the community as it grows and evolves. There is an example in Lyon, France that provides a model for this approach (Le quartier de la

Confluence).

• A need for more information on who will own the intellectual property coming out of the Urban Innovation Institute and the Venture Fund, and more broadly, who actually benefits from economic creation. It was unclear to a few participants that

Sidewalk/Google would be a good steward of the Urban Institute with questions as to

what would happen if their economic objectives and profit driven decision-making

does not align with the Institute.

• Concern that the $10 million investment by Sidewalk Labs in the Venture Fund is not enough, considering how much money will be going into the project as a whole. It was suggested that a $100 million investment would be more appropriate.

3. Koala Mounts. There was interest from participants in learning more about: who has access to the mounts and who controls access (i.e. will there be a permit system); how

Waterfront Toronto will respond if there is huge demand for the mounts (i.e. who will

make the decision about who uses them and who will miss out), and what type of

sustainable maintenance requirements/lifetime standards will there be?

4. Intellectual Property (IP). A few participants said that the IP strategy is impressive and that Toronto is lucky to have this opportunity. There was interest in seeing the business

model.


5. Jobs. There were many participants who expressed support for the additional jobs this

project will bring, which many said was directly connected to their support for the

proposal. Other comments or questions related to jobs included:

• where will the

ASSHQGL[ 1. Public Meetings Summary - Quayside · 2020. 5. 5. · Appendix 1. Public Meetings...

Documents

Transcript of ASSHQGL[ 1. Public Meetings Summary - Quayside · 2020. 5. 5. · Appendix 1. Public Meetings...