P Port City WatP Erfront_hoyle

8/9/2019 P Port City WatP Erfront_hoyle

1/16

Con fron ta tion, consu l tat ion, coop erat ion?Com m un i ty groups and urban change inCanadian po rt-ci ty w aterfro nts

BRIANHOYLEDepartment of Geography, University of Southampton, Southampton SO1 7 1BJ, UK e-mail: bsh l @soton.ac.uk)

The process of urban waterfron t change in port citiesis influenced by a wide range of fac tors, and the rolesof urban plan ners, port au thorities and property devel-opers are often m oderated by those of comm unitygroups. Using established methodology based on struc-tured tape-recorded nterviews with group representa-tives, this paper explores the attitudes and charac terof a range of such groups in a series of contrastedCanad ian port cities. The outcomes show substan tialbut varying influence and, although many activitiesand perceptions are p lace-specific, a widespreadawareness of globa l as well as local issues is revealed.

Key w ords: Canada , cityports, com mun ity groups,interviews, waterfront change

Dans les villes portua ires, le processus de changementdu front urbano-portuaire est influence par un largeeven tail de facteu rs, et les r6les des plan ificateursurbains , des autorites portua ires et des promoteursimmobiliers sont souvent temperes par les groupes decitoyens. A partir dune methodologie eprouvee(entrevues dirigees et enregistrees avec desrepresentants des ces differents groupes) I articleexplore les attitudes et particularites du n khan tillondes differents groupes duns une serie de villesportuaires canadiennes aux cara cteristiquescontrastees. L enquLte m et en evidence des influencessubstantielles mais variables et, quoique beaucoupd activites e t de perceptions soient specifiques au xdifferents lieu x, une prise de conscience generaliseedes enjeux aussi bien globaux que locaux a ete revelee.

Mots-clefs: Cana da, villes portuaire s, group es decitoyens, interviews, changement des fronts urban o-portuaires

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 44, n o 3 2000) 228-243/ Canadian Association of Geographers / CAssociation canadienne des geographes


2/16

Confrontation, consultation, cooperation? Community groups and urban change in Canadian port-city waterfronts 229Q

Within the broad and closely related fields of urbanand transport geography, port cities (or cityports)comprise significant sub-sets of city types and trans-port gateways. Changes in cityport functions andmorphology are derived both from urban processesand from maritime technology, and inner urbanareas, notably waterfront zones often closely associ-ated with traditional forms of port activity, often giverise to substantial controversy during redevelop-ment. Waterfront redevelopment is a stage, both in ametaphorical and a physical sense, on which ‘actors’(developers, planners, port authorities, governmentdepartments, and communities) all play their part.Such urban waterfronts are complex locales wherethese ‘actors’ engage in relationships of competition,conflict and cooperation. Particularly critical is thebalance between the public and private sectors: thedecisions and atti tudes of public officials and elect-ed bodies are normally influenced less by longer-term social goals than by short-term political moti-vations, while those of private developers largelyreflect commercial objectives. Into this matrix stepcommunity groups, seeking to redress the balance,to moderate inappropriate development proposalsand essentially to help to create urban waterfrontsthat are attractive and acceptable to all partiesinvolved. In short, to use a common Canadianphrase, ’getting all your ducks in a line’ is the nameof the game as far as community group objectives areconcerned.

Canada led the way in geographical research onwaterfront redevelopment in a North American con-text from the later 1960s (Forward 1969; Merrens1980); and , as the phenomenon became more wide-spread geographically, attempts were made in the1980s to elucidate spatial issues and trends asopposed to case-study experience (Hoyle e t a/ 1988).As a component phenomenon of deindustrializationand associated urban restructuring in port cities, andin coastal zone management, waterfront redevelop-ment has attracted the attention of numerous acade-mic disciplines, including geography, politics, sociol-ogy and planning (Bruttomesso 1993; Fainstein 1994;Georgison and Day 1995; Gordon 1996, 1997; Hoyle1996) as well as architecture, ecology and engineer-ing (White et a/ 1993; Hudson 1996; Malone 1996).Today, Canada retains a central place in relevantresearch and literature a s a source of experience,ideas and policies; and, although there is a pro-nounced focus on the complex case of Toronto(Merrens 1992; Royal Commission 1992; Goldrick

and Merrens 1996; Greenberg 1996), the Canadianurban system as a whole provides a remarkable lab-oratory for the wider study of this exciting phenom-enon.

Research Context, Aims and Methods

The role of community organizations as a factor inurban change is widely recognized and well docu-mented, not least within the sphere of port-citydevelopment and transformation with which thispaper is concerned. In the 1980s attention was drawnto the role of communities as an influence on changein port cities, both in terms of community resistanceto change (Pinder 1981) and in terms of the changingsocial structure of port-city communities (Hilling1988). In the 1990s the st udy of communities withincities has been extensively developed (Davies andHerbert 1993) and , in the specific context of portcities, it has become increasingly clear that commu-nity groups provide a significant influence on theprocesses of change in waterfront zones. The nowsubstantial literature in planning, geography andsociology on participation in decision making hasbecome a significant focus in Canadian social scienceresearch (e.g. Keating 1991; Hasson and Ley 1994a,1994b; Ashton e t a/ 1995). In Canada communitygroups of many kinds are numerous, varied andoften very active. They represent a wide range ofopinion and provide a significant source of ideas. Byencouraging and supporting the direction of change,or alternatively by seeking to modify or redirect thecharacter of redevelopment, community groups cansubstantially influence the pace and pattern ofchange and development. Community attitude thusbecomes a significant political factor in the overallprocess of cityport change, with implications fortransport and for urban planning.

This paper reports on some of the results of aresearch project, developed in part with an eye toglobal trends as well as to Canadian preoccupations,concerned broadly with the interface between trans-port and the environment and more specifically withport development and urban renewal. Urban water-front redevelopment, in the context of the Canadiancityport system, illustrates a wide variety of linksbetween the complementary fields of coastal zonemanagement, urban planning and transport geogra-phy. Interpretations of these interlinkages involvenot only the analysis and interpretation of spatialchange but also the investigation of the opinions and

The Canadian Geographer / Le Ceographe canadien 44 no 3 (2000)


3/16

230 Brian HoyleQ

Figure 1Canada: interv iew locations

attitudes of organizations, groups and individuals

directly or indirectly involved in the decision-makingprocesses th at precipitate such change. During earli-er research (reported elsewhere) which sampled theviews of port authorities, urban planners, real estatedevelopers and government officials (Hoyle 1992,1994, 1995a, 1995b) it was apparent that an impor-tant element missing from the investigation was theinput of comm unity groups. This paper atte mp ts toredress the balance by shedding some light on therole of commun ity group s in this context using opin-ions expressed by group representatives. It must beconceded, however, at the outset, that herein lies apotential dichotomy in the sense that the responses

of interviewees reported here largely concern theviews of comm unity grou ps on the activities of urbanand port authorities, planners and developers. Thereis no parallel attem pt here to investigate or reflect indetail the views of officials or developers on com-munity gro ups, although there is a widespread beliefthat su ch opinions and attit udes a re largely negative.Many officials regard com mun ity grou ps, privatelyifnot openly, as an irritating thorn in the flesh ratherthan a s a source of well-informed and objective crit-icism.

The project set out, first, to sample the range ofcommunity group opinion in a variety of cityport

types in Canada, and the character and activities ofsuch groups; second, to assess the degree to whichcommunity views influence the processes and pat-tern of change, with special reference to tolerancelimits; and third, to discover whether there exists acommon pattern of reactive and proactive criticism

across a range of cityport types and community

groups in Canada, or whether opinions an d activitiesare essentially place-specific. Five locations wereused in the investigation: H alifax (Nova Scotia),Kingston (Ontario), St John’s (Newfoundland), andVancouver and Victoria (British Columbia) (Figure1).These port cities all have substantial links with mar-itime transport a nd waterborne trade in one form oranother and t o some degree represent the varietyofthe Canadian port-city system today. Vancouver istoday overwhelmingly Canada’s leading ocean port inthroughpu t term s (Wynn an d Oke 1992); Halifax(Figure 2) as a major east-side terminal usually rankssixth or seventh amon g Canadian po rts; St John’s and

Victoria (Figure 31, in contrast, are minor ports ofprovincial and local significance; and Kingston, for-merly a thriving inland lake port, now handles onlyrelatively small quantites of water-borne trade(Osborne and Swainson 198 8; Statistics Canada).Allthese po rt cities have experienced, in different ways,some of the processes of urban regeneration includ-ing waterfront redeve lopme nt derived at least in partfrom changing transport systems on a national andregional scale, from changing port functions at alocal scale, an d from related u rban econom ic restruc-turing. The ma ps of Halifax an d Victoria are includedhere to illustrate some characteristic elements in the

Canadian waterfront revitalization scenario.’The role of citizen participation in the formulationof urban waterfront plans and policies has been thefocus of a number of recent studies (Hudspeth 1986;Krause 1995 ; Cau 19961, an d the emerg ence of p ost-modernism on the urban waterfront (Norcliffeer al.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 44, no 3 2000)


4/16

Confrontation, consultation, cooperation? Community groups and urban change in Canadian port-city waterfronts 23 1Q

Waterfront walk----ort and industrial areas Parks

uilt-up urban areas pen space

FigureHalifax, Nov a Scotia: the c ity and the harbour A); the city centre and the waterfront 6)

1996) has also been reviewed. Regulatory frame-works provide a legal context within which percep-tions develop and attitudes are formulated (BritishColumbia 1995; Hull and Secter 1996). The numberof community groups in any Canadian port city is

usually substantial but varies over time with thestrength and diversity of the issues addressed.Similarly, the character and size of groups vary wide-ly between locations and over time, largely accordingto the interests and motivations of their members.The fluidity of the community group systems in anyport city makes it difficult if not impossible to selecta truly representative cross-section at any specificpoint in time, yet an attempt to do so must be madein order to avoid a sample of indeterminate compo-sition. The selection of groups whose representativeswere eventually involved in interviews during thisstudy was initially based on the broad divisionsbetween ‘area-based’ and ‘issue-based‘ groups, andbetween ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ groups, whileemphasising that these distinctions are essentiallyrelative. A quantitative analysis of all existing groupsin the selected port cities was not attempted norwould have been appropriate, as most groups are not

particularly or primarily concerned with waterfrontproblems. The underlying objective of the groupselection process was therefore to draw up in thecase of each port city a varied list of groups with astrong interest in waterfront issues, representing the

four categories identified (Table 1). The distinctionbetween ‘unofficial’ and ‘official’ groups largely rep-resents that between two very different types oforganization: citizen groups on the one hand andpro-business development groups on the other.Although it might be assumed that these categorieshave very different perceptions, in reality this is notalways the case and there is often much commonground between them. In practical terms, the discov-ery of groups was effected through a range ofsources and contacts in each location, and participa-tion in the interview programme depended ultimate-ly on the availability and willingness of appropriaterepresentatives. Despite these reservations, it isbelieved that a reasonably representative cross-sec-tion of community group opinion on the issuesraised was obtained.

Some particular organizations were instrumentalin the group identification and selection process. In

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 44, n o 3 2000)


5/16

232 Brian HoyleQ

Table 1Examples of types of commu nity groups in Canadian port cities with a focuson wa t eh n t redevelopment ssues

Communi ty ‘official’ ‘Unofficial‘groups

~~~

Area-based Waterfron t Develo pm ent Down town Eastside Residentsgroups Corporation Halifax) Association Vancouver)

Harbour Advisoly James Bay Neighbourhoodcom mittee Victoria) Environment Association

Victoria)~~~

Issue-based Atlantic Coastal Action Action Environmentgroups Program St. John’s) St. John‘s)

Down town Business Vision Kingston Kingston)Commission Halifax)

St John’s (NF), for example, where waterfront rede-velopment has been relatively slow as a result ofeconomic difficulties and the continuing use ofmuch of the waterfront for port activities, the PortCorporation proposed contact with several commu-nity groups including the Downtown DevelopmentCommissionand the Grand Concourse Author ity. TheSt John’s City Planning Department facilitated con-tact with the Johnson Family Foundation and drewattention to the St John’s office of the Atlantic CoastAction Program (ACAP) (Canada 1990; EnvironmentCanada 1 993a and 1993b; Robinson 1997). InHalifax (NS) (Figure 2 , where extensive and success-ful waterfront redevelopment benefits greatly fromthe close geographical juxtaposition of the urbandowntown core and the redeveloping waterfrontzone, contact was established through the

Waterfront Development Corpo ration Ltd with theCommunity Planning Association and with theDowntown Halifax Business Commission .In Kingston(Ont), where there is substantial well-informedopposition to many elements of waterfront change,the Director of Planning and Urban Renewal provid-ed links with three influential community groupsthat have played a part in waterfront change: theSydenham Ward Tenants and Ratepayers Association,the Little Cataraqui Creek Environment Association,and Vision Kingston. For Vancouver, where water-front redevelopment takes diverse forms in con-trasted parts of the city’s complex geography of

land-water interfaces, the City of VancouverPlanning Department provided details of theDowntown Vancouver Association, theRedevelopment Impacts Committee, and theCarnegie Centre Association.For Victoria (BC) (Figure

Figure 3Victoria, British Columbia: the city and its harbours A); the city centre andthe inner harbour 6).

3), similarly, the City Manager and the Director ofPlanning jointly provided a helpful list of fifteencommunity associations, some of which are specifi-cally concerned with waterfront issues in a citywhere rapid change has effectively transformed aworking harbour and waterfront into a water-relatedresidential and leisure/tourism zone (Victoria 1995,

1996). From such sources emerged the concept of aspectrum of area-based and issues-based groups,cross-cutting with a range of ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’organizations.

The specific interview methods used were based

The Canadian Geographer / Le teograp he canadien 44, no 3 2000)


6/16


mble 2Five open-ended questions

Communitygroups in generalW h a t do you understand by the idea of a community group i ntoday’s society? Can you offer a d efinition?

Communitygroups in CanadaDo community groups play an ~Canadian society? If so, why?

The role of community groups in ur ban waterfront redevelopmentin CanadaIs urban w aterfront change zi l ni fi unl l v nfluenced bycommunity gr oups in Canada as a whole?

Community groups here, in this pot7 cityHere in thi s port city, what IYJ ?S f community group exist?

The comm unity group: leve//range of activitiesWhat are th e aims and achievements of is communitygroup?

part in modern

on a highly successful ‘proposition-set’ techniqueemployed on previous occasions and on a moreopen-ended range of questions. In broad terms, all 25interviews were structurally identical so as to facili-tate later analysis. The emphasis throughout was onissues and policies rather than on case-study detail.Interviews were tape-recorded, and intervieweeswere assured of anonymity in published reports orpapers. The interviews consisted of, firstly, a seriesof open-ended, general questions designed to leadthe interviewee gently into the more complex issuesto follow; and secondly, a series of proposition setswhich raised a series of issues to do with communi-ty groups in general and with the character and activ-

ities of the group represented in particular.Responses to some of the general questions andproposition sets are discussed elsewhere. This paperreports selectively on responses to three of the ques-tions and two of the proposition sets, selected inorder to reflect the variety and importance of com-munity groups in this context and to illustrate theapplication of the selected methodology (Bird e f a/1983; Valentine 1997).

Five Open-Ended Quest ions

The five questions (Table 2) began with two about

community groups in general he idea of a commu-nity group in today’s society, and the importance ofcommunity groups in modern Canada. A third ques-tion attempted to relate community groups withurban waterfront redevelopment in Canada. The final

two questions then focussed upon the local scene, interms of the types of community group in existenceand the aims and achievements of the communitygroup represented by the interviewee.

The idea of a community group

Responses to questions 1 and 2 - of special relevancein a general and methodological context - are select-ed for discussion in this paper.z Responses to thefirst and most general question - what do you under-stand by the idea of a community group in today’ssociety? -were very varied. To begin with, a commu-nity can clearly mean many different things - a com-munity at large, people who live in an area, a groupinvolved in particular areas of activity or with aninterest in a range of issues or in a specific problem(Davies and Herbert 1993). Most respondents quick-ly identified a community group as being composedof like-minded individuals who share a commoninterest, purpose or cause, promoting or forwardingideas or aspirations. Some saw the community groupas “a shared concern about what’s going on in theirneighbourhood and who want both to get together totalk about what it means to them as communitymembers, and also to use the group as a vehicle tolobby for change” (Van).’ Others drew a distinctionbetween individual and group activity, claiming forexample that “an association or community groupexists to do for the individual what the individualcannot do for himself or herself and therefore thereare programmes and ideas and battles that can onlybe fought as a group and can’t successfully be tack-led by an individual” (Vic).

Some respondents offered a rather unstructureddefinition of community groups “somewhere inthere between the market and the state ... j ust prettymuch any group that’s not a government organiza-tion or a business organization” (Van) but mostemphasised a distinction between groups based on aparticular geographical area and those based on aspecific issue or range of problems. “We have verystrong communities of interest around particularkinds of concerns - a concern for the waterfront inparticular and we have a geographical communityin the sense that this is a city with a strong water-ori-ented natural resource base, and we come aroundthis in a very geographical sense” (Kgn).

Community groups often comprise quite smallgroups of people representing a much broader groupand working together to achieve certain objectives.Such groups can be very broadly-based or very nar-



7/16

234 Brian HoyleQ

row. An essential characteristic is detatchm ent from ,but involvement with, officialdom. Co-operationrather than confrontation is, at least to begin with,the name of the game. A community group of thiskind is an unofficial gathering of people with a par-ticular perspective or opinion thatis not necessarilyrepresented by their government, either at munici-pal, provincial or federal levels. Such groups,whether or not closely identified with an area, arebasically political pressure groups but range fromthe virtually apolitical to the highly politicised,depending on the nature of the interest and themembership. All share a member-driven, bottom-up,community-development focus (as opposed to a top-down, ‘I’m here from the city council to help you’approach).

Although most responde nts perceived com munitygroups a s proactively seeking to achieve their share dobjectives, by working together and wherever possi-ble by participating in decisions, m ost were q uick todistinguish between the community of interest andthe geographical community. These categories arenot, of course, m utually exclusive: a grou p located ina particular geographical area (an urban administra-tive ward or zone, for example) might well be con-cerned largely with one specific issue or range ofissues; while an issu e-based group in a particular citywould largely focus upon the relevance of the issueor issues concerne d within a recognised geographicalframework an urban adm inistrative area, a water-front zone, the city as a whole - with larger-scaleprovincial, national or international resonances.There is thus a flexible spectrum between issue andarea, rather than two watertight categories. Groups ineither category may be quite large and well-support-ed, or relatively small but still able to b e a voice forthe com munity, trying to achieve or protect its inter-ests. Whether a group is concerned primarily withthe protection of a neighbourhood or with the reso-lution of an issue, the fundamental objective is theenhancement of the quality of life.

For som e respon dents, the ‘issue’ group s came tomind m ore readily than th e ‘area’ groups: s uchgroups “cross all kinds of boundaries in respect ofgeography and in respect of the nature of the busi-ness” (Vic) but share a com mon b ond in term s of aninterest, and I think of that first before I think ofgeography” (Vic). Some interviewees distinguishedbetween single-issue groups and groups with abroader perspective, or between project-specificcoalitions that arise to oppose something and the

rather less common project-specific organizations infavour of something, the latter described as muchharder to organise.

Another group of respondents saw communitygroups as being essentially n eighbourh ood-based . Inthis category, more specifically, some groups of the‘Citizens for a Better Ward Nine’ variety are definedessentially by electoral boundaries. Non-partisan,reform-oriented organisations have sometimesbecome coalitions to elect local government repre-sentatives for a specific neighbourhood programme.In Toronto, for example, there have been some pow-erful community organizations including waterfrontresidents’ groups which have elected councillors,and have had semi-official statu s on w aterfront plan-ning bodies, so becoming a kind of fifth layer of gov-ernment.

All such groups originate from a perceptionofneed, from an awareness that their perspective is notbeing represented or not being given an adequatehearing in a society, of so mething lacking and, m oti-vated by a desire to improve a situation, they oftenalso share a vision of preferred pathways o r desirableoutcomes. This is not always easy. “A communitygroup often has to learn right from the start how tofunction and make decisions and keep notes andlobby and all those things”(Hfx), but may ultimatelyprovide a clear demonstration of consensus andbecome mo re effective than individuals in comm uni-cating with politicians and th e rest of society. Thus,community groups are seen a s “one of the few waysthat we have now of getting local issue s and conc ernsonto a gov ernme nt ag enda” (Vic).

The role o f community groups in modernCanadian society

In a second open-ended question, interviewees wereasked whether community groups play animportantpart in modern Canadian society and,if so, why? Afew respondents were reluctant to express a nationalview but, almost without exception, respondentstook the view that community groups do play animportant part in modern Canadian society. It wasclaimed that Canada has the highest rateof commu-nity associations per capita of any country in theworld (Kgn); that comm unity groups are a n integralpart of C anadian society, “more vital now tha n everbefore” StJ); that there is a growing awareness ofproblems; that people are becoming more proactive;and that “we’re seeing a greater desire t o worktoge ther” (Vic).



8/16


There is a worldwide trend in democratic societiesfor a greater degree of neighbourhood control overdecision-making - “that’s really rampant inVancouver” (Van) - and Canada is in the forefront ofthis trend (Economic Council of Canada 1990).“Canada is a very open society, very democratic, indi-viduals have substantial rights, and politicians sensethe feelings of well-organised community groupswhich are effective in creating change much biggerthan numbers would suggest” (Hfx). “We are a smallenough country that a determined group of peoplecan still make a difference” (Hfx). “We have a verydemocratic society here that is based on the premiseof people living in a community being able to have asay as to how their community should develop ...Oftentimes there are issues that don’t immediatelycome to the forefront unless there is input from thecommunity who are going to be most directly affect-ed ... It can highlight a problem or concern ... (and) itcan make for better development ... in a way thatenhances the neighbourhood” (Kgn). “The idea ofcommunity development permeates many of thekinds of things that we do in Canada ... rather thanhaving government do things for people it’s aprocess of having government help people to dothings better for themselves.” (Kgn).

A reduction in government spending was oftenproposed by respondents as an essential explana-tion for the growth, activities and effectiveness ofcommunity groups. “Volunteer groups have risen toaddr ess the challenges” (StJ). Such groups are seenin some quart ers as “the only way of effectively get-ting issues on to the national or provincial agenda ...our system is incredibly responsive to that ” (Vic). Ina related sense, groups are perceived as filling avacuum created by the shortcomings or inabilitiesof governments. “Community groups tend to takeon projects and sometimes use up energy that maynot be available at government levels. They may beable to do things that government is not able to do,for financial or staff reasons. They bring an interestand often an expertise that may not easily be avail-able elsewhere.” (StJ). “The effect ... is to make com-munity groups substitutes for political parties”(Kgn).

The relationship between community groups andgovernment agencies clearly involves a multidirec-tional process of interaction and understanding.Sometimes this appears to work well, and to be gen-erally positive, while at other times there is an air ofuncertainty and perhaps mistrust. Occasionally there

may be an air of confrontation. “In most cities inCanada the community group plays a role in threat-ening the political establishment” (Kgn). There is nodoubt, however, that the chief impetus involved isfrom the bottom up. “Canadian society operates ...from the ground up ... there’s a lot of input from theaverage person in the street to put pressure on thepowers that be, whether it be just the municipal gov-ernment or whether it be right up to the federal gov-ernment ... they bring to light the feelings of the aver-age person at the ground level and they’re seeingwhat effects a certain government policy may have ...and it’s their opportuni ty to let the government knowthat things are not going the way they would like tosee ...” (StJ).

This opportunity to provide input in this wayyields “a relationship that folks can understand at atime when they’re feeling increasingly alienated fromthe political structures ... people see their communi-ty group as something they own ... You do have trustin it, and people see it as an antidote to the munici-pal political scene” (Vic). There is inevitably somevariation by province and community based on thepolitical realities of the day, but a t the local levelthere is some evidence that cooperation betweencommunity groups is increasing: “We’re seeing a littlebit more co-operation between different groups forthe greater good ... (and) the debate has becomemore logical” (Vic).

In a top-down context, there is a widespread viewthat if it were not for community groups that havesome influence, politicians would simply “tend to dowhat they think is necessary to get themselves re-elected ... So the role of community groups, then, isto keep their feet to the fire ... (Vic). Governments inCanada (municipal, provincial, federal) have longrecognised the need for development to be commu-nity based, and “Governments, at most levels, arerequired to provide opportunities for public input,and one of the most effective ways of doing that isfor community groups to participate. They influencedecision-making, and can promote positive change”(Kgn). “We have a pluralistic society with pluralisticgovernments who, to a degree, have to respond towhat they’re hearing if they want to get re-elected;and community groups know that” (Van).

Several respondents shared a somewhat scepticalview of the attitudes of politicians and plannerstowards community groups. On the one hand,“Politicians seem to need to have people t o reflecthow well they’re doing, or how well they’re not

The Canadian Geographer/ Le Geographe canadien 44, no 3 2000)


9/16

236 Brian HoyleQ

doing” (Kgn). The a ttitud e of plan ners tow ards com -munity gro up participation was interprete d as beingsometimes welcoming and positive, although some-times tinged with irritation or amused tolerance.“ Alot of planners never felt comfortable with the par-ticipation process, to the extent that they didn’t seecitizens and their ideasas a resource that was goingto lead to a better plan that would be easier to sell toCouncil members because they’d been part of theprocess; instead it was som ething they did because itwas required (in som e case s) by provincial legisla-tion” (Hfx).

Some respon den ts cited instanc es to illustrate thepower of comm unity groups as a m echanism for theprevent ion of undes i rab le deve lopments .“Com munity grou ps have been very successful inchanging political proposals for waterfront devel-opm ent in Kingston...A proposal som e years ago tobuild a floating motel was sup porte d by th e Mayorand the Parks and Recreation Director... but ourcomm unity group opposed i t very s t rongly and wewon. We turned that o ne around” (Kgn). The aban -donment of a p roposed fou r-lane expressway alongthe Halifax waterfront a nd related high-rise devel-opments in the Toronto mode, together with theconservation of waterfront historic properties,iswidely regarded a s a triumph for citizen-basedcom mon sens e. “We had a v ictory here... and it wasreally the citizens group s that m ade the difference”(Hfx).

Com munity groups are, however, not always suc-cessful or effective in what they try to do. Somerespond ents took the view that th e invo lvement ofcommunity groups may ultimately have little effecton decision-making processes.If ideas a re well pre-sented a nd represen ted, however, there’s “a tenden -cy for those ideas to filter their way into the politi-cal mind, usually through the more or less fringepolitical gro ups ” (Kgn). Yet, quite com mo nly, “com-munity gro ups participate all the way dow n the line,do all the right things an d then a re effectively out-voted . Whether they’ve actually influenced the deci-sion a little bitis difficult to judge ...but I don’t thinkthat jumping up and down about a working water-front h as mad e any difference” (Hfx).A particularlydissentin g voice claimed that “In thelong term theyplay an extremely important part but in theshortterm, not a t all... in many community groups, essen-tially, one is simply crying out in the wilderness”(Kgn).

Proposit ion Sets

The secon d part of the interviews com prised a seriesof seve n propo sitions which raised, progressively, aseries of issues to d o with comm unity groups in gen-eral and w ith the charac ter an d activities of th e grouprepresented in particular. Th e topic s covered broad-ly concerned the general and local contexts, theactivities of th e grou p concerne d, the effects of thoseactivities, comparisons with other places and withthe p ast, and a theoretical overview. Each propo sitionwas p resented within a ‘set’ of three parts: (a)Anintroductory statem ent, to establish the scene; (b) aproposition, with which the respondent might ormight n ot agree , wholly or partly; and (c) on e or m oresupplementary questions, to guide the repondent’sthinking. Responses to two of the proposition setsare reviewed here in order to d emo nstrate the char-acter of the outcomes from the application of thismethodology in the context of the literature on par-ticipation in decision making notedear lie^.^

Are community groups a positive factor?There was almost unanimous agreement, as mightperhaps have been expected, to the first of the twoproposition sets discussed here, based on the viewthat com mu nity gro ups have a role to play in water-front redevelopment in Canada, alongside adminis-trative, political and commercial organizations ofvarious types and at different levels (Table3 . Thequestion at issue in this proposition set is whethersuch groups are a positive factor in the process ofwaterfront change, actively promoting ‘successful’

outcomes, or whether, by implication, such grou pscan fulfill a negative or a neutral role.

Most respondents felt able to comment positivelyabout the role of com munity groups in this contextin Canada as a whole. “One of the th ings ab outCanada that sets us apart from some othe r countriesthat may move a little faster in terms of m aking deci-sions and biting bullets and things of that natureisthat we do like to consult We always have a commis-sion or a committee or a community hearing, andwhen you’re a vast country with a small populationlike we are it’s very easyif you a re interested to haveyour voice heard, and we like to take advantage of

tha t” (Hfx).While recognizing that influences may be positive

or negative and that o pen-mindedness, “not undulyswayed by particular activists or political perspec-tives” (Hfx),is a highly desirable component, many

The C anadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 44, no 3 2000)


10/16


respondents were inclined to the view that commu-nity groups involved in waterfront redevelopment inCanada constitute “a positive force ... and a very nec-essary force” (Vic); and most stressed the need for abalanced view involving business interests, environ-mental concerns and tourism perspectives alongsideplanning procedures. “I don’t think anyone has amonopoly on what the best idea is ... and the finaloutcome will entail compromise” (Van). In this searchfor acceptable solutions to waterfront developmentissues, “community groups can be very irritating ...but the long-term effects are that we change the waypeople look at doing development” (Van). ... Groupscan nip at the heels of the situation and lob ideas intothe debate and hopefully educate people ... one ofour major roles is educating people who don’t under-stand the community context, or sometimes evenjust what people find important in their lives” (Van).

Many stressed the importance of consultation andcooperation rather than confrontation and under-lined that, contrary to popular perception, “we’re notalways in an adversarial position with the City” (Kgn).But “it depends ... in very large degree on the way inwhich the citizens are involved ... If citizens can beinvolved in the early stages of proposals the chancesI think are far greater to have them play a positiverole, provided that they approach it with a mind setthat is open enough to listen ..., avoiding confronta-tion” (Kgn). Community groups do not usually haveone voice, although they may be working towardsone larger vision: greater use of focus groups t o ven-tilate problems sometimes helps “sure, a lot of thetime you don’t hear anything new but, once in awhile, bingo ” (Kgn). Ultimately, the objective of coop-erative development is to see waterfront redevelop-ment on a scale and of a kind that is beneficial to thecommunity as a whole.

Respondents were very conscious of the impact oftime on changing spatial patterns. In local, detailedterms, a Kingston participant observed that “plan-ning permission is granted ... and then remains withthe land ad infiniturn ... that’s a major problem withdevelopment of any kind but particularly on thewaterfront ... other things happen in the meantime,and then the original proposal may become com-pletely out of sync with what’s gone on since it wasgranted ... So time limits on these things would bewonderful ...” (Kgn).

In another sense, citizen participation varies withthe stage of implementation of a scheme. Groupsmay have relatively minor impact at the beginning,

lhb le 3The significance of community groups

Introductory statement

Canadian waterfront redevelopment involves governments, planners, portauthorities, developers and comm unities.

PropositionThe involvement of community groups i s a p(Esitiye actor helping to prom ote successful waterfro nt redevelo pment schemes.

Do you agree or disagree with this proposition, in general, in the contextof Canada as a whole?

Supplementary questions

Here in this port city, do commu nity groups play a pa n in waterfrontredevelopment policy formulation and implementation?

If so, would you describe their role as domina ntvery significantsignificantrelatively mino rnegligible?

when decisions are made to redevelop a waterfrontzone. Business groups, chambers of commerce,urban authorities and landowners have a biggerstake in the process at that initial stage, while citi-zens observe from the sidelines. During the moredetailed planning of a project, however, “citizens areconsulted fairly routinely and systematically, and ...their significance increases as you get further intothe implementation of a project” (Kgn).

Looking at the problem in a longer-term time per-spective, over a sequence of decades, some partici-pants made the point that “in an historical sense, it’sall relative ... Community opinion thought at onetime that it was quite alright to build large uglyhotels or apartment blocks along the urban water-front, or tanneries, or ... other environmentallyunfriendly industries” (Kgn). It is now widely appre-ciated that urban waterfront change in Canada wassignificantly influenced by community groups in the1970s at a time when a culture of citizen participa-tion was strongly developed. Prior to the 1970% ear-lier waterfront projects did not have this level of cit-izen input. It is not entirely clear that this culture ofcitizen participation is as flourishing in the 1990s asit was twenty years ago. It can be argued that citizenparticipation peaked in Canada in the late 1970% andthat the 1980s saw a move away from that level ofinvolvement and partnership. In the late 1990% how-ever, the need f or such participation clearlyremained.

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 44, no 3 (2000)


11/16

238 Brian Hoyle@

A St John’s responden t drew a distinction betweenredevelopm ent with an ’outward’ focus on overallachievement rather than an ‘inward‘ focus on com-munity impact and involvement without which noredevelopment can be wholly successful. More gen-erally, although much d iscussion ce ntres on th e atti-tudes of community groups towards urban authori-ties and developers, it is recognised that the atti-tudes of municipalities towards communities alsoneed to be taken into account. “When he reis failure”,a Kingston respondent claimed, “itis because of alack of policy on public involvementon he part ofmunicipalities ... there’s very little experience o n thepart of m any m unicipal officials in the p ublic partic-ipation process, so there is no thorough unde rstand-ing of what public participation really me ans an d noclear recognition of the public as a significant partnerin the process” (Kgn).

Cooperation between community groups, some-times perceived as facing a common enemy, some-times in the interests of policy rationalization, iswidely accepted as sensible... “I think it’s importan t... that people get all their ducks in a line and makesure they’re all headed in the same direction... tomake sur e we look like we’re working as a team andnot as a bunch of individuals” StJ). Collaborationbetween groups specifically concerned with waterquality, tourism and commercial development, inrefining planning objectives in conjunction w ith portand city officials, was widely seen as an effectivemodus operandi “that would have a lot more cloutthat if we just do our own things”StJ).

In every port city involved in this investigation,participants gave examples of ways in which com-munity group involvement in processes of water-front change has, despite problems, yielded manybenefits. A Victoria respon dent, w ho might have beenspeaking for the revitalizing waterfronts of allCanadian port cities, claimed that “there is no doubtin my mind th at we are where we are today a s a resultof the involvement of com munity grou ps” (Vic). Theend result of this involvement ha s been “th at build-ings are more com patible with their surroundings...and som e major projects have been subjected t o verylong, detailed public scrutiny and as a result planshave been substantially ch an ge d (Kgn).

When in the 1970s a huge building was erected onthe Halifax waterfront, “people suddenly realisedwhat it meant to have the harbour view taken fromus ... so the preservation of view-planes became anissue and key views are now retained for all time... It

was public pressure that caused this to happen”(Hfx). The Historic Properties “probably the thingthat makes Halifax more significant than any otherfactor from a tourist viewpoint” (Hfx)- now providethe core of an attractive, lively downtown area thatcould so easily have been bulldozed down, had citi-zens’ grou ps n ot interven ed. “Most thinking citizensof Halifax would agree that community groups(although developers and others may regard them asirritants) are regarded positively... we are indebtedto the dedicated people who spend their time andenergy and talents, usually with little reward ...”(Hfx).

In specific port cities, the role of communitygroups was sometimes criticised. In St John’s, forexample, a respondent noted that “the DowntownDevelopment Corporation, which should in fact bedevoting more attention to the benefits that can begained from developing a focus around the harbour,essentially turn their backs on the waterfront andlook more towards the main commercial streets ofthe downtown area ...” StJ). In the larger urban envi-ronments it is more difficult to develop and sustainan effective community group, w hereas it m ight bedesirable for them to play a large role, I have nosense that this is happening... it strikes me a s a func-tion of geography and demog raphy” (Vic). InVancouver there are problems of scale between thecity authorities, the port corporation and the rela-tively minor but very numerous community groups,quite different from St John’s or Kingston.Traditionally the port has tend ed to avoid direct rela-tionships with communities and groups, regardingthe City Council as its n atural partner in local devel-opment.

In response to the request to describe the role ofcommunity groups in the specific port cities underconsideration on a scale ranging from ‘dom inant’ to‘negligible’, most respo nden ts chose th e m iddleoption - ‘significant’- although in a few cases therewas a n inclination t o move towards ‘very significant’or even ‘dominant’. Understandably, no-o ne was pre-pared to describe the role of community groups as‘relatively minor’ or ‘negligible’, except in the shortterm. “Yes, they c an have a positive influence, it m aynot always be significant or dominant... (and) cer-tainly not negligible; they’re definitelythere ... andthe degree of significance depends on what thedevelopment entails” SU). At the beginning of theplanning process, citizens were very significant, butthey got marginalised ... by the professional plan-

The Canadian Geographer / Ceographe canadien 44, no 3 2000)


12/16


ners” (Hfx). “It is hard to say whether they play a sig-nificant role in policy formulation ... but they cer-tainly do in gett ing views heard” (Hfx).

A common view was that community groups, inthe short term, have relatively little direct influence,but can become very positive in the longer term.Partly this is a result of the interaction of comple-mentary organizations and their differing ideas andperspectives. “Eventually the bureaucrats steal thegood ideas that unofficial groups present, and oncethey feel they can call them their own they prettymuch adopt the best ideas that are around” (Kgn). “Soit’s only indirectly that community groups play a partin policy formulation and implementation” (Kgn).

Inevitably, perhaps, relationships between groupsand urban authorities change according to the degreeof convergence of opinion on development issues.“Sometimes the community organization weakensand the Council tries to take more power back toitself ... the eb b and flow of power depends on howclose to the community view of what’s going on theresults being achieved actually are ... If councils getoff-track, community groups will form to bring themback on-track, and then the community groups mayback off and even die. So, it’s a fluid process, that’swhat I’m saying” (Vic).

The necessity of community group support

A subsequent Proposition Set (Table 4) questioningthe influence of community groups on waterfrontredevelopment schemes produced strong disagree-ment between participants, not only in respect ofvarious components of the proposition itself but alsoin relation to the introductory statement to whichsome respondents took exception. Additionally,some interviewees had difficulty with the supple-mentary question, while others provided contrastedperspectives on useful examples. As one respondentput it, “I think this proposition could take a day todiscuss” (Hfx).

Overall, the reactions to a proposition set that hadbeen deliberately designed so as to accommodate avariety of opinion supported the arguments in favourof the effectiveness of this methodology. Evidencefrom the transcripts is grouped here under three sub-headings derived from the introductory statementand from the the key points of the proposition andthe supplementary question.

Whether there is normally an increasing level ofcommunity involvement as waterfront redevelop-ment schemes evolve, as the introductory statement

m b l e 4The influence of community groups

lntroducrory ztutement

As waterf ront redevelopment schemes evolve, there is normally anincreasing level of community involvement

PropositionCommunity groups h ave become a pow erful influ ence on theprocess of strategy formulation , and waterfront redevelopmentschemes do not reach ’takeoff p o i d without community groupsupport.

Do you agree or disagree with this proposition?

Supplemenfury question

Can you identify and charaaerise a critical takeoff point or period interms of your own scheme or location, and the role of community groupsat tha t stage?

assumed t o be the case, was accepted by some inter-viewees but questioned or contradicted by others. ASt John’s respondent distinguished between activeinvolvement and general awareness: “As redevelop-ment on the waterfront takes place there is anincreasing level of community awareness, not neces-sarily involvement“ SU). A Kingston interviewee dif-ferentiated the pre-decision and post-decision situa-tions: “There tends to be an increasing level of com-munity involvement during the conceptual stagesand the development of drawings up to the point ofdecision. Thereafter, in the implementation stage, it’squite rare. We tend to trust our public officials to dowhat they say they’re going to do” (Kgn).

However, as another participant from St John’s putit, “There is every reason for community groups tokeep pushing, to keep their profile up ... Once theyfeel they’ve had some impact there’s no reason tostop, because when the next door is opened there’sanother reason to make sure that policy-makers areaware that groups are out there, constantly interest-ed” SU). And from a developer’s point of view it isnormally, but not invariably, important to have com-munity group su pport when a proposal goes to a CityCouncil.

Similarly, respondents presented a wide range ofopinion on the question of whether communitygroups have become a powerful influence on theprocess of strategy formulation in the context ofurban waterfront redevelopment. There was wide-spread agreement that, in some circumstances, com-munity groups constitute a significant, sometimesquite influential, entity; and that, broadly speaking,

The Canadian Geographer / Le Ceographe canadien 44 no 3 (2000)


13/16

240 Brian HoyleQ

such groups have become relatively more importantin recent dec ades. “W hat we find over time is thatgovernments have become much more sensitive tothe role of public participation and public consulta-tion in their decision-making... compared w ith20 or30 years ago” StJ). Nevertheless, this is clearly a verydifficult subject on which t o generalise.

Some basic aspects of the relationships betweenvarious actors in urban waterfront redevelopmentsituations were outlined by a Kingston respondent:“Iquestion whether there’s a perception on the part ofdecision makers or on the part of those who proposedevelopment that before they initiate much they’regoing to seek support from community groups...Developers propose something, the City Hall deci-sion makers tend to be receptive initially, and thenthe community groups come into action ... Then,depending on the strength of the community groups’argumen ts, the developer may modify his proposals,the City may approve these changes, or the City mayinfluence the develo per because politicians don’t liketo have angry groups parading in front of them”(Kgn).

The ability of a community group to have a pow-erful influence on the process of strategy formula-tion is severely reduced in situations where water-front redevelopment strategies are designed for pur-poses of political expediency, where a governmentestablishes an executive organization with regionaldevelopment funding. Com munity groups formed ina reactive context can have some influence, especial-ly if the consultation process is ongoing through thestrategy development stage. But where communitygroups are initially proactive, where redevelopmentis based at the community level, certainly it can’ttake off without continuous and ongoing communitygroup support.

There are also contrasts in a financial context.From Newfoundland, there came the view that “Interm s of influence thereis a difference between non -funded, close-to-the-heart groups and funded groupswho have backing and may be able to shake the treea lot quicker than the ones without ... Money talks,especially in a city that’s fairly poor right now and ina Province that’s struggling a bit” StJ). A Kingstonparticipant drew a financial contrast between past

and present: “T here are examples of urb an water-front redevelopment projects launched without com-munity support in previous decades, if there wasmoney available. In the 1990s where there’s nomoney, the com munity drives the process” (Kgn). But

redevelopment sometimes takes place with or with-out community group support. This is not alwaysnecessarily a negative aspect, as community groupinfluence may be a little misguided, perhaps “toofinely focussed to be good for the redevelopment asa whole” StJ). “Community groups are sometimesseen as special interest groups that may not neces-sarily reflect the views of the wider community, butif the wider community is silent, who are you gonnatalk to?” StJ).

In Halifax, where the outcome of waterfront rede-velopment schemes is regarded as broadly success-ful, there is strong community-group support for asuccessful annu al Buskers’ Festival on the w ater-front, important to the local economy; whereas pro-posals for a new harbour sewage treatment plantproved unacceptable to community groups, forfinancial and environmental reasons. Thereis never-theless some resentment on specific issues and onthe overall position of community groups as playerson the field. “I don’t think community s upp ort mat-tered a damn when the provincial government final-ly decided w hat they were g oing to do. They createdan entity (the Waterfront Development Corporationto make it happ en, and citizens groups have no t beenessential to the process ... The community groupswere essentially marginalised, for examp le, when thedecision was taken t o dem olish the Irving Arch at thefoot of Sackville Street, the la st of nine historic w ood-en arches leading through from the city streets to thewaterfront” (Hfx).

lnterviewees interpreted the idea of a take-off pointin a variety of ways, and maintained the m etaphor bytalking abou t ‘crash points’ when proposed develop-ments fail, ‘landing points’ when things com e togeth-er satisfactorily, and ‘reaching cruising altitudes’ as astage when community enthusiasm tends to wanesomewhat. A basic contrast emerged between whatcan be achieved on land owned by the federal gov-ernment and its agencies (such as Ports Canada,recently restructured; see Transport Canada1995),which have tended to disregard local communitygroup opinion, and land under municipal zoningrestrictions and provincial legislation, where a take-off point in a developmental context cannot bereached without comm unity group support.

Contrasts also emerged between locations (such asSt John’s) where w aterfront redev elopm ent has todate been undertaken on a relatively modest scale:“Ifeel that we really haven’t taken off yet, we’re still inthe mobilisation framework, waiting for things to



14/16

Confrontation,consultation, cooperation? Community groups and urban ch angein Canadian port-city waterfronts24 1Q

start happening ... The re doesn’t seem t o be a wholelot of attention given to harbourfron t deve lopm entinthis community” StJ); and other locations, notablyVictoria and Kingston, where community groupinvolvement in the substa ntial am oun t of waterfron tredevelopment that has been achieved hasitselfbeen very considerable. In Kingston, the SydenhamWard Tenants and Ratep ayers Association has been inthe forefront of con tinuing debate s about the con-troversial and still und evelo ped 8-acre BlockD on theKingston waterfront. In Victoria thereis a view that “itwould be ab solutely out of the q uestion for schemesto reach take-off point without community groupsupport ...They don’t get to the Planning Dep artme ntwithout having basically a sign-off from com mun itygroups ... We say right off the to p if you’re comingwith a high-rise condo project, forget it, and in thispart of the city the community groups have a greatdea l of c lout” (Vic).

Many respondents took u p the question of when,during the long and often tortuous process from con-ception to completion, the most critical take-offpoint might be said to be, assuming communitygroup involvement at some stage. Several arguedthat the sooner com munity groups become involvedin the process, the better itis for all concerned.“Acritical take-off point is right at the beginning. Ifsomeone is floating an unacceptable idea, commu ni-ty groups can be extremely effective in defeating iteven before it gets off the ground... that’s what Iwould call not a critical take-off point but a criticalcras h poi nt” (Van). “The key take-off pointis gettingthe public involved at the earliest stage possible...and to stay involved, on top of the process, all theway through. One of the worst things that can hap-pen is to have a project go through a lot of ho ops andwhistles and all of a sudden a community groupshow s up at crun ch time say ing they’ve got a big con-cern ... A deve loper wh o has put a lot of time andmon ey a nd effort will obviously say, “Why didn’t youcome out sooner?” (Kgn).

In some ca ses, the critical take-off point may com ea little later, as a schem e matu res or when opp ositionseems negligible. In Vancouver, a critical take-offpoint in th e redev elopm ent of False Creek involved achoice between two con trasted plan ning visions, onebased o n integrated redev elopm ent within the fabricof the city, the ot her an intriguing but som ewh at for-eign conc ept inimical to th e city’s character. Althoughcommunity group opinion was initially divided, adecision in favour of the integrated alternative

turned to som e extent on the balance of local grass-roots attitudes. Schemes requiring commun ity groupsupport can reach take-off point when thereis suffi-cient lack of opposition, however, a s no oppositio nistaken to be agreement.“I think that’s more significantthan actual posi t ive community group support ,because where su ch su ppo rt occurs the political peo-ple tend to be suspic ious of grou p motivation an d areless likely to move in the direction groups want.That’s a bit of a backd oor appro ach to this qu estion,but 1 believe it’s the m otivation of opp osite s:if there’sno opposition, then it’s OK; if there is opposition,politicians become suspicious and assum e a hiddenagen da” (Kgn).

Relationships between community groups, devel-opers and urban authorities are critical to the out-comes of waterfront redevelopment projects, andwithin this triangular framework the take-off pointmight be defined as the moment when all partiesagree on what is going to happ en. Such a point mightbe arrived a t as a result of comm unity group pres-sures, taken to the point that politicians could notmaintain the ir credibility withou t making the projecttheir ow n. “It’s like exp osing the em pero r withoutclothes, and the emperor has to run off and put som eclothes on ... If you sta te the obvious in a way thatisirrefutable, they have no option ” (Kgn).

The triangular relationship assumes a differentcharacter when one party d oes not recognise thevalidity of another’s viewpoint.A Vancouver commu-nity grou p representativ e comm ented that “We had itpointed out to us many many t imes during thecourse of the consultations about the proposed casi-no, and then when the proposal was unveiled and wereally started opposing what w as going on, that therewas nothing to make Ports Canada listen to anythingwe had to sa y” (Van). Another set of re lationship squadripartite rather than triangular between devel-opers , governments , community groups and t radesunions also affects outcom es, the last-named beingnormally suppo rtive of comm unity groups but som e-times in the interests of job creation acting likedevelopers. In the Vancouver casino case develop-me nt was ultimately sto pp ed , technically, not bycomm unity group action but by th e provincial gov-ernment’s refusal to chan ge B ritish Columbia’s gam -ing laws; bu t on e of the critical factorsin the situa-tion that led to the grounding of the proposal wasundoubtedly the stren gth of comm unity group oppo-sition.

The Canadian Geographer/ Le Ceographe canadien44, no 3 (2000)


15/16

242 Brian HoyleQ

Conclusions

The basic purpose of the research on which thispaper is based was threefold: to sam ple the range ofcommunity group opinion in a variety of types ofcityport in Canada, and the character and activitiesofsuch groups; to asses s the degree to which commu-nity views influence the processes and pattern ofchange; and third, to discover whether there exists acommon pattern of reactive and proactive criticismacross a range of cityport types and communitygroups in Canada, or whether opinions a nd activitiesare essentially place-specific. The paper providessome insights into ways in which comm unity groupshelp to shape waterfront redevelopment in Canada,in the wider context of citizen participation in deci-sion making which is such a major component ofCanadian social and political life.

The project revealed not only a larger number andgreater variety of community groups than had been

anticipated, but also a clear distinction, at least intheory, between geographical, area-basedor neigh-bourhood groups on the one hand and problem-asso-ciated or issue-based grou ps on the other. The degreeof involvement of either kind of group with the urbanwaterfront varies from quite limited to almost total;for some groups the urban waterfront involves onlya small part of what they do; while othe r groupscount the urban waterfront as their primary concern.

The essential questionof the degree t o which com-munity views and activities influence the processesand pattern of change on Canadian urban water-fronts inevitably produces a wide range of views.

Two broad conclusions are: first, that communitygroups’ influence varies substantially according tothe quality and vitality of group activities and theaccuracy with which group operations are targetted;second, that there is often a substantial time-lagbetween the initial growth and development of agroup an d a realisation that its activities are actuallyhaving some effect. Group impacts thus vary sub-stantially in a spatial sense and over time.

There are many common elements in the objec-t ives and achievements of community groupsinvolved in waterfront change in Canadian portcities, despite the diversity of the places involved

and of the groups themselves. There exists, broadly,a comm on pattern of reactive and proactive criticismacross a range of cityport types and communitygroups in Canada, and opinio ns and activities are notexclusively locally-orientated. Many ideas and

actions remain place-specific, however: Canada is abig country, an d people in one port city often d o notknow very much ab out what goes on in m any others.Many group activists, however, are only too wellaware that the problems they face on their urbanwaterfronts are commonplace in port cities and otherurban places, not only in Canada but around theworld. While som e may ado pt a localised appro ach toissues, many more appreciate the universality ofrelationships between environment and society.Asin so many other fields of activity and enquiry, theCanadian data examined in this project clearly illus-trate issues and principles of widespread interna-tional relevance, interest and concern.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the Canadian Government and the Nuffield Foundationfor their financial support and to 28 representatives of community

groups in Canada who participated in the interview programme andwho, by agreement, remain anonymous . In Canada, Ian Langlands, BrianOsborne, Janet Sullivan and Ian Smith were among those who helped meto identify appropr iate groups and interviewees; Ruth Coldbloom andJuliet Rowson-Evans provided addi tional information. At Southampton,Kate Martinson transferred the audiotapes from 25 interviews ontodisks, and Bob Smith prepared the illustrations. I am grateful, too, forhelpful comments on a preliminary draft of this paper received fromBrian Osborne and Brian Slack; and for the views of anonymous referees.

Notes

1 The five port cities used in this investigation St John’s, Halifax,Kingston, Vancouver and Victoria) also figured, with others SaintJohn , Quebec, Montreal, Hamilton, Toronto, Thunder Bay and NewWestminster), n earlier research to which reference is made on p. 230.

2 Responses to other questions more closely concerned, for example,with transport matters - are reviewed elsewhere Hoyle 1999a and b).

3 Quotations from interview transcripts are identified by location, notby interviewee. StJ = St John’s, Newfoundland; H f x Halifax, NovaScotia; Kgn = Kingston, Ontario; Van = Vancouver, British Columbia;and Vic = Victoria, British Columbia.

4 Other proposition sets are discussed elsewhere. See Note 1 above.

References

ASHTON, w., ROWE, J. and SIMPSON, M. 1995 ‘Lessons for p lanners: facilitatingsustainable communities through partnerships’ Plan CanadaNovember, 16-19

B i m , J.H., LIXHHFAD, E.N. and WILUNW, M.C. 1983 ’Methods of investigatingdecisions involving spatial effects including content analysis of inter-

views’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 8 143-57B r i m s H COLUMBIA 1995 Riparian Rights and Public Foreshore Use in the

Administration of Aquatic Crown Land Wctoria: Ministry of CrownLands)

BRUITOMESU , R. 1993 ed., Waterfronts: A New Frontier for Cities on WaterVenice: International Centre Cities on Water)



16/16

Confrontation, consultation, cooperation? Com mu nity groups and u rban change in Canadian port-city waterfronts 243Q

CANADA 1990 Canada’s Green Plan fo r a Healthy Environment Ottawa:Minister of Supply and Services)

CAU, L. 1996 ‘Environmental perception and planning: the case ofPlymouth’s waterfront’ in Cityports Coastal Zones and RegionalChange: International Perspectives on Plann ing and Management edB.S. Hoyle Chichester: Wiley). 61-82

Social Geography London: Belhaven Press, and New York: Halsted

Press)

Economic Development Ap proach Ottawa: ECC)ENVIRONMENT CANADA 1993a Atlantic Coastal Action Program. Volume I

Sharing th e Challenge: a Guide fo r Commun ity-based EnvironmentPlanning Dartmouth: Environment Canada)

_. 1993b Atlantic Coastal Action Program. Volume 2 CommunityEnvironmental Profile: a Workbook for Use in ACAP Project AreasDartmouth: Environment Canada)

FAINSmN, S S 1994 The City Builders: Prop ew Politics and Planning inLondon and New YorkOxford: Blackwell)

FORWARD, C.N. 1969 ‘A comparison of waterfront land us in four Canadianports: St John’s, Saint John, Halifax and Victoria’ Economic Geog raphy

GEORGISON, J.P. and DAY, J.C. 1995 ‘Port administration and coastal zonemanagement in Vancouver, British Columbia: a comparison with

Seattle, Washington’ Coastal Management 23, 265-91COLDRICK, M. and MERRENS, R. 1996 ’Toronto: searching for a new enviro-

mental paradigm’ in City Capital and Water. ed P Malone London:Routledge) 219-39

GORWN, O.L.A. 1996 ‘Planning, design and managing change in urbanwaterfront redevelopment’ Town Planning Review67, 261-90

_. 1997 ’Managing the changing political environment in urban water-front redevelopment’ Urban Studies 34, 61-84

GREENBERG. K. 1996 ‘Toronto: the urban waterfront as a terrain of avail-ability’ in City Capital and Water. ed P. Malone London: Routledge)

HASSON, s. and LEY, D. eds. 1994a Neighbourhood Organizations and theWelfare State Toronto: University of Toronto Press)

_. 1994b ‘The Downtown Eastside: One Hundred Years of Struggle’ inNeighbourhood Organizations and the W elfareState ed S . Hasson andD. Ley Toronto: University of Toronto Press) 172-204

HILUNC, D. 1988 ‘Socio-economic change in the maritime quarter s: thedemise of sailortown’ in Revitalizing the Waterfront: InternationalDimensions of Dockland Redevelopmented B.S. Hoyle, D.A Pinder andM S Husain London: Belhaven) 20-37

HOW. B.S. 1992 ’Waterfront redevelopment in Canadian por t cities: someviewpoints on issues involved‘ Maritime Policy and M anagement 19,279-95

_. 1994 ’A rediscovered resource: comparative Canadian perceptions ofwaterfront redevelopment’ Journal of Transport Geography 2 19-29

_. 1995a Redeveloping W aterfronts in Canadian Port Cities: Perspectiveson Principles and Practice Le Havre: ASSOCiatiDn Internationale Villeset Ports)

_. 1995b ‘A shared space: contrasted perspectives on urban waterfrontdevelopment in Canada’ Town Planning Review66, 345-69

_. 1996 ed Cityports Coastal Zones and Regional Change: InternationalPerspectives on Planning an d M anagement Chichester: Wiley)

_. 1999a ‘Scale and sustainabil ity: the role of communi ty groups inCanadian port-city waterfront change’ Journal of Transport

DA VIS , W.K.D. and HERBERT, D.T. 1993 COf??mUnitieSwithin Cities: an Urban

ECONOMIC COUNCILOF CANADA ECC) 1990 From the Bottom Up: the COtnmUnity

45, 155-69

195-218

Geography 7, 65-78_. 1999b ‘Reactive, proactive or interactive? Community perceptions of

waterfront change in Canadian port cities’ Town Planning Review70,455-77

International Dimensions o f Dockland Redevelopment London:Belhaven)

HUDSON,B.J. 1996 Cities on the Sh ore: the Urban Littoral Frontier London:

Pinter)HUDSPEM, T.R. 1986 ’Visual preference as a tool for facilitating c itizen par-

ticipation in urban waterfront revitalization’ Journa l o fEnvironmental Manag ement23, 373-85

HUU D. and S E ~ ,. 1996 Victoria and Esquimault Harbours GorgeWaterway and Portage Inlet: Existing Regulatory ResponsibilitiesVictoria: The Victoria and Esquimault Harbours Environmental

Action Program)w m c , M. 1991 Comparative Urban Politics: Power and the City in the

United States Can ada Britain and France Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)KRAUSE, G.H. 1995 ’Tourism and waterfront renewal: assessing residential

perception in Newport, Rhode Island, USA’ Ocean and CoastalManagement 26, 179-203

HOYLE,B.S., PINDER, D.A. and HUSAIN, M.S. 1988 eds Revitalizing the Waterfront:

MALONE,P 1996 ed City Capital and Water London: Routledge)MERRENS,R. 1980 Urban Water front Redevelopment in North America: a n

Annotated Bibliography Toronto: York University/Universi ty of

Toronto Joint Program in Transportation, Research Report No. 66)_. 1992 The Redevelopment o f Toronto’s Port and Waterfront:a SelectedBibliograph. Toronto: Canadian Waterfront Resource Centre, WorkingPaper No. 11)

NORCUFFE. c., BASS^, K. and HOARE, T. 1996 ’The emergence of postmod-ernism on the urban waterfront’ Journal of Transport Geography 4,123-34

OSBORNE, B.S. and SWAINSON,D. 1988 Kingston: Building on th ePast Westport,Ontario: Butternut Press Inc.)

PINDER, D.A. 1981 ‘Community attitude a s a limiting factor in port growth:the case of Rotterdam‘ Cityport Industrialization and RegionalDevelopment: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategiesed B.S. Hoyleand D.A. Pinder Oxford: Pergamon) 181-99

ROBINSON, G.M. 1997 ‘Community-based planning: Canada’s AtlanticCoastal Action Program ACAP)’ Geographical Journ al 163, 25-37

Regeneration: Toronto’s Wate rfront and the Su stainable C ity: FinalReport Toronto)

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT 1992

s TA n s n c s CANADAShipping in Cana da Ottawa, annually)TRANSWRT CANADA 1995 National Marine Policy Ottawa)VALENTINE,c . 1997 ‘Tell me about .. using interviews as a research

methodology’ Methods in Hum an Geographyed R Flowerdew and D.Martin Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman) 110-26

VICTORIA, ITY F 1995 Victoria Official Com mun ity Plan Victoria. B.C.)_. 1996 Jam es Bay Neighbourhood Transportation Man agement Plan.

Victoria, B.C.: Urban Systems Ltd and Cityspaces Consulting Ltd.)

Waterside Regeneration: Problems an d Prospects Chichester: EllisHorwood)

WY“ 6 and OKE, T. 1992 eds, Vancouver and its Region Vancouver: UBCPress)

WHITE, .N., BELUNGER, E.G., SAUL, A.J.. SYMES M. and HENDRY K. 1993 eds Urban

Submitted 07/99; Accepted 11/99

The Canadian Geographer / Le Ceographe canadien 44, no 3 (2000)

P Port City WatP Erfront_hoyle

Documents

Transcript of P Port City WatP Erfront_hoyle