Turning brownﬁelds into green space in the City of Toronto · 2013. 2. 6. · Over 12% of...

Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (2003) 181–198

Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto

Christopher A. De Sousa∗Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Bolton 410, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413, USA

Received 14 January 2002; received in revised form 9 May 2002; accepted 1 July 2002

Abstract

Since the mid-1980s, policy makers and planners in North America and Europe have been paying significantly moreattention to measures designed to foster sustainable development and improve the quality of life in urban areas. One issue thathas received widespread political support has been the cleanup and redevelopment of under-utilized brownfield sites in urbanareas. In Canada and the US, the focus of policy-making and redevelopment efforts has been on redeveloping brownfield sitesfor industrial, commercial, or residential uses that provide economic benefits through tax revenues and/or jobs. However, therehas been a growing recognition among community groups and environmental organizations that brownfields hold enormouspotential for “greening” city environments, through the implementation of parks, playgrounds, trails, greenways, and otheropen spaces. The objectives of the current research are to examine the issues, obstacles and processes involved in remediatingpotentially contaminated urban brownfield sites and converting them into green spaces, to identify the benefits that thesegreen spaces can bring to the community and culture, and to understand the specific planning processes that it involves. Datafor this study were collected through a review of 10 pertinent “greening” case studies and personal interviews with relevantstakeholders. Toronto’s brownfield-to-green space redevelopment experience has implications for cities across North Americaundergoing brownfield planning and seeking to enhance urban quality of life.© 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Brownfields; Green space; Urban environment; Planning

1. Introduction

Since the mid-1980s, policy makers and plannersin North America and Europe have been paying sig-nificantly more attention to measures designed to fos-ter sustainable development and improve the qualityof life in urban areas. Of these, one that has gainedwidespread political support in the US and Canada isthe redevelopment of under-utilized brownfield sites,which are often located in the core sections of urbanareas and, as such, are prime targets for urban revital-ization. Governments at all levels have, in fact, startedimplementing a wide range of innovative policies in-

∗ Tel.: +1-414-229-4874; fax:+1-414-229-3981.E-mail address:[email protected] (C.A. De Sousa).

tended to lessen the costs and risks associated withbrownfield redevelopment, so as to make it attractiveand feasible. Such policies have led to a kind of “innercity recovery,” as thousands of sites have been cleanedup and redeveloped. But, while many communitieshave started to realize the economic opportunities thatderive from recycling brownfields into productive in-dustrial, commercial and residential properties, fewhave taken full advantage of the potentially enormoussocial, environmental and economic opportunities thatcan accrue from using these sites to enhance a city’sgreen space and overall green infrastructure.

In Europe, the greening movement has beenplaying a much more central role in the design ofsustainable communities than it has in North America.For instance, between 1988 and 1993, over 19% of

0169-2046/02/$20.00 © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S0169-2046(02)00149-4

182 C.A. De Sousa / Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (2003) 181–198

brownfield (derelict) sites in Britain were convertedinto green spaces—more than any other end-use (UKDETR, 1998). In North America, on the other hand,the focus has been put instead on the economic bene-fits that can be attained through public-sector sup-port of private-sector redevelopment for industrial,commercial, and residential purposes (United StatesConference of Mayors, 2000). However, there is agrowing awareness in the US and Canada among manycommunity groups and environmental organizationsthat the public sector should also be undertaking or atleast supporting the greening of brownfields becauseit holds potentially enormous benefits of all kinds.

One city that has been particularly proactive inconverting brownfields into green spaces over the lastdecade is Toronto, Canada. The Planning and ParksDepartments of that city have focused on enhancingthe green space inventory and overall quality of urbanlife in the city (Toronto Planning, 2000). On the basisof the results produced by this particular “greeningexperience,” the main objective of the present paperis to discuss the implications that it may entail forbrownfield redevelopment in comparable urban areas.To that end, this paper will critically examine:

• the issues, obstacles and processes involved inremediating potentially contaminated urban brown-field sites and converting them into green spaces;

• the kinds of benefits that such greening bringsabout;

• the types of planning activities that these public-sectordriven projects involve.

Using data collected from pertinent case studies, aswell as information compiled from personal interviewswith relevant stakeholders, the objective of the presentexamination is to shed light on how brownfield-to-green space projects might be implemented andwhat role they could foreseeably play in improvingenvironmental quality and revitalizing cities.

2. Brownfield redevelopment and green spacemanagement in Toronto

The City of Toronto is Canada’s largest urban area.In 1998, it restructured its local government, merg-ing seven previous municipalities (the former “City ofToronto, ” North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, York,

East York, and Metro Toronto) into a mega city ofover 2.4 million people, which is, in turn, surroundedby four regional municipalities (Durham, Halton, Peel,and York) adding 2.3 million people to the GreaterToronto Area (GTA). The former City of Toronto,where most of the brownfield-to-green space projectsare currently located, has a population of over 650,000(=14% of the GTA) spread over an area of 97 km2.

The most widely accepted definition of brownfieldsis the one provided by theUS EPA (1997, p. 1), whichdefines them as “abandoned, idled, or under-usedindustrial and commercial facilities where expansionor redevelopment is complicated by real or perceivedenvironmental contamination.” The term is used torefer to bothknowncontaminated sites and those onlysuspectedof being so because of previous land-useactivities (e.g. waste disposal, manufacturing, servicestations, etc.). The problem is an extensive one inToronto and other industrialized cities because ofthe gradual, but steady, migration of industries outof the city to peripheral greenfield areas since themid-1970s that left the urban center with innumer-able under-utilized or vacant industrial sites (Gertler,1995). While much information on the scale of theproblem is currently available in the US and Europe,only sporadic data can be found on Canadian citieswhere, according to some estimates, such as the 1995one byBenazon (1995, p. 18), as much as 25% of theurban landscape is potentially contaminated as a resultof previous industrial activities. However, a survey ofsuch lands prepared for the City of Toronto in 1998by Hemson Consulting (Hemson Consulting, 1998)found that there are 865 acres (350 ha) of brownfield,which, although substantial, is significantly less thanBenazon’s 25% estimate.

As with other cities in North America, the reasonsgiven by both public and private-sector stakeholdersin Toronto for remediating and redeveloping thesesites range considerably. Some of the key benefitspinpointed include reducing development pressure ongreenfield sites, decreasing risks to public health andsafety, restoring former landscapes, renewing urbancores, counteracting negative social stigmas associ-ated with such sites, restoring the tax base of localgovernment, and increasing the utilization of exist-ing municipal services (De Sousa, 2000, 2001, 2002;Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1996). Despitesuch perceivable benefits, it is surprising to note that

C.A. De Sousa / Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (2003) 181–198 183

the management and redevelopment of brownfieldsites in Toronto continues to be envisioned as largelya private-sector responsibility, with provincial andmunicipal governments playing only regulatory andadvisory roles (De Sousa, 2001; Ontario Ministry ofthe Environment, 1996). Currently, the government ofOntario is in the process of implementing brownfieldlegislation (Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act,2001, Bill 56), which contains provisions aimed at re-ducing the costs and the risks associated with brown-field reuse. However, as with similar US policies,there is no provision in the legislation for encouragingthe creation of green space from such lands. It shouldalso be noted that although the regulation of theselands is a provincial responsibility, the City of Torontoand other municipalities in Ontario are responsible formanaging their own brownfield sites, but have limitedfinancial resources and political authority to do so.

Fig. 1. Green space in Toronto (adapted fromCity of Toronto, 1999, p. 6).

With regard to green space, the City of Torontohas been described as a “city within a park.” Withmore than 1500 parks (over 8000 ha), Toronto’s greenspace inventory is extensive (City of Toronto, 1999).Over 12% of Toronto’s urban area is comprised ofgreen space managed by the City of Toronto andthe Toronto Region Conservation Authority, with71% classified as natural heritage land (valley lands,ravines, woodlots, trails along the waterfront, etc.).This proportion is higher than that for most US cities(=approximately 7.7%, seeHarnik, 2000). Histor-ically, Toronto’s green space planning and devel-opment activities gained momentum back in 1954,when the city was ravaged by Hurricane Hazel. As aconsequence, the city started acquiring “flood lands”in an effort to protect its residents from future nat-ural disasters, in addition to enhancing recreationalopportunities and protecting the natural environment


generally. From an inventory of 67 ha in 1953, greenspace development spread rapidly, encompassingmore than 8000 ha by 1999 (Metropolitan TorontoPlanning, 1988; City of Toronto, 1999). Green spaceis now defined by the city as comprising of fourdistinct types of land:

• parkettes: small parks that offer passive recreationalamenities (e.g. sitting areas, walking paths, etc.) forthe surrounding neighborhoods;

• local parks: small parks that offer a range of pas-sive and active recreational amenities (e.g. sportsfacilities, biking trails, etc.) for neighborhoods;

• district/city parks: large parks that provide passiveand active recreational amenities for residents fromacross the city;

• natural heritage areas: green lands that contain his-torically and aesthetically important environmentalfeatures that require conservation and protection.

Despite the amount of available green space, it is notevenly distributed across the city. Most of Toronto’sparks are located along the waterfront and ravinevalleys, instead of in proximity to older and morepopulous localities of the inner city, where lands havebeen developed instead for other uses (seeFig. 1).

3. Schematic overview of the relevant literature

The scientific literature on the redevelopment ofbrownfields and contaminated lands in the US andCanada has been steadily expanding. To date, how-ever, most of the research has concentrated eitheron technical aspects of the problem or on the vi-ability of policies for regulating and/or stimulatingeconomic redevelopment activities (Ford et al., 1994;Meyer et al., 1995; Asante-Duah, 1996; Page, 1997;Simons, 1998; De Sousa, 2001). The issue of convert-ing urban brownfields into green spaces has receivedvirtually no attention in the planning and economicdevelopment literature, although there has been someattention devoted to the greening of urban areas gen-erally (Garvin and Berens, 1997; Harnik, 2000). Theresearch that does exist on the conversion of brown-fields into green spaces comes primarily from thefield of landscape architecture (e.g.Hough, 1994;Thompson and Sorvig, 2000; Kirkwood, 2001).

Thus far, research on greening urban areas, includ-ing brownfields, has explored both the benefits and

barriers associated with greening. Landscape archi-tects tend to focus on the aesthetic and environmentalbenefits that green space oriented redevelopmentcan bestow on urban areas, such as improving en-vironmental quality (e.g. air, water, microclimates),restoring natural habitats, enhancing recreational op-portunities, and enhancing urban appearance (Hough,1994; Hough et al., 1997; Thompson and Sorvig,2000). In addition, recent environmentally focused re-search has been finding that urban greening improvesthe social well being of city residents in a variety ofways (e.g. in crime reduction, business enhancement,improved well being, stress reduction, and so on;Fried, 1982; Kaplan, 1993, 2001; Kuo et al., 1998;Cackowski, 1999; American Institute of Architects,1999; Shafer et al., 2000). Similar findings are alsostarting to emerge from the research conducted byenvironmental economists (More et al., 1982; Lernerand Poole, 1999; Tyrvainen, 2001). For instance,Lerner and Poole (1999)found that greening projectsin the US tend to reduce costs related to urban sprawland infrastructure provision; attract investment, raiseproperty values and invigorate local economies; boosttourism; preserve farmland; prevent flood damage;and safeguard environmental quality generally.

Identifying the numerous benefits associated withgreening urban areas is essential for countering the nu-merous barriers, real or perceived, that are often asso-ciated with such spaces, including high maintenancecosts, safety concerns, poor accessibility, insufficientrecreational programming, and poor design (Garvinand Berens, 1997). This is particularly true in the caseof urban brownfield sites, which are associated with ahost of additional barriers, including health concernsrelated to soil contamination, costs related to demoli-tion and remediation, negative social perceptions, andpressure from competing land-uses.

The existing literature from both landscape ar-chitecture and planning has gone a long way to-wards identifying the features of successful greeningprojects and thus suggesting frameworks for their im-plementation. A recent report byHough et al. (1997),for instance, puts forward an insightful strategy forenhancing the visual, historical, and environmentalquality of Toronto’s Port Lands along the waterfront.The researchers profess that a “greening” projectshould: involve a multi-functional view of redevelop-ment that takes into account economic, environmental,


biological, recreational, and aesthetic issues; aim toprotect and/or restore a healthy and biodiverse envi-ronment; create an interconnected infrastructure; andinvolve communities in the decision-making process.Recent studies sponsored by the Urban Land Instituteand the Trust for Public Land assessing the quan-tity and quality of green space in American cities,offer similar proposals for successful green spacedevelopment, including (Garvin and Berens, 1997;Harnik, 2000): getting the neighborhood involved inthe decision-making; designing with a view towardspromoting safety and usability; reviving under-usedor unused spaces (parking garages, piers, etc.); pro-gramming park-based activities; maintaining publicparks; implementing versatile programs for raisingfunds; using parks to create “a sense of space” inaffected communities; and assigning a key role topark-based governmental agencies.

While the existing literature provides useful in-formation on the benefits and strategies for greeningurban areas generally, it is limited with respect tomany of the practical issues that concern contam-inated brownfield sites specifically, especially asthey relate to project rationalization, implementation,funding, and management. The present study seeksto shed light on these issues in an attempt to gain abetter understanding of why green space is often seenby planners in Toronto as the most worthy end-usefor many brownfield sites and of how the barriers toproject implementation can be overcome. As such,it will attempt to integrate the traditional economicpurview of brownfield redevelopment with the morerecent “landscape-oriented” one, as articulated bystudies such as those cited above.

4. Methodology

Information and data for the present study weregathered from: (1) brownfield-to-green space projectsin the City of Toronto, and (2) personal interviewswith 12 primary stakeholders involved in imple-menting the projects (including five municipal civilservants working for the City of Toronto, three fromthe Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, andfour private-sector and non-profit representatives; seeAppendix A). The brownfield-to-green space projectsexamined in the present study were not selected at

random, but rather were chosen to be representativeof those that underwent complete development orextensive planning. These were the ones identifiedby those actively involved in park development inToronto. Given that the city does not have a formalbrownfields inventory, it is impossible to claim thatthe green space projects examined here represent acomplete list of those undertaken during the timeframe considered. They are, however, representative.

Overall, 14 brownfield-to-green space projects wereidentified, 10 of which emerged as particularly rele-vant to the discussion at hand (seeTable 1). A ques-tionnaire with 20 questions was designed to identifyand/or establish: (1) the characteristics and history ofa site; (2) the planning process involved (objectives,assessment, remediation activities, financing aspects,etc.); (3) the perceived impacts of a project; and (4)purported lessons learned from it (Appendix B). Therelevant literature on the projects (e.g. Master Plandocuments, project profiles, etc.) was also utilized(City of Toronto, 1998).

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Project characteristics

Overall, the greening projects generated new 614 ha(1520 acres) of green space in Toronto. These rangedin size from just under 0.5 ha (1 acre) to 471 ha (1164acre). The median size of the projects was 2.7 ha (6.7acres). Most of the redevelopment projects involvedformer industrial lands; a few involved former rail-way corridors and properties contaminated by previ-ous landfilling and waste disposal activities. Most ofthe larger greening projects involved the redevelop-ment of sites that were near or within existing park-lands (e.g. the waterfront, existing parks, greenwaycorridors, etc.); the smaller ones, instead, involved themore densely-populated areas of the inner city. Fourwere redeveloped primarily for ecological restorationpurposes, two for local active and passive recreationpurposes, two for parkettes, and two for multiple usesto serve local and city residents.

All of the brownfield sites restored to ecologicalhabitat were located adjacent to, or within, greenwayand floodplain areas. Each envisaged an extensivere-introduction of native trees, shrubs, wildflowers,and herbaceous plants to enhance the ecological

186C

.A.

De

So

usa

/La

nd

scap

ea

nd

Urb

an

Pla

nn

ing

62

(20

03

)1

81

–1

98


integrity of the wider area. At the Domtar Polyresinssite, for instance, a Carolinian forest was re-established,wildflowers, wet meadow and woody species planted,and a natural barrier created to protect the eco-logically sensitive climax beech and maple forestconnected to the site. The smaller projects aimed atproviding both active and passive recreation activitieswere constructed in mid-density older neighborhoods.Sorauren Park, for example, has tennis courts, a base-ball diamond, a small soccer field, a few “habitat”areas, and several grass play spaces surrounded byresidential and industrial buildings, some of whichare still abandoned (seeFig. 2). The smaller par-kette sites were constructed in high-density regionsof the city to serve a wide array of residential, com-mercial and retail users. Both involved elaboratedesign schemes—Yorkville was designed to simulateCanadian landscapes (i.e. pine grove, prairie, marsh,orchard and rock outcropping), and the Music Gardento represent the six movements of Johan SebastianBach’s “Suites for Unaccompanied Cello.” Lastly, themultiple-use parks are large areas planned to offer a

Fig. 2. Sorauren Park.

wide range of passive and active uses to both local andcity residents. When completed, Woodbine Park, forexample, will contain a festival green band shell thatcan serve 22,000 people, garden gateway entrances,trails, a promenade, 15 acres of native plantings, anornamental fountain, a children’s storybook place,a memorial for the raceway formerly at the site, astorm-water retention pond, and a children’s soccerfield and playground.

As to the factors motivating these projects, nine ofthe interviewees identified the conversion of brown-fields into ecological habitats as the key factor; ofthese, five ranked it as the most important, especiallyfor projects involving sites that lay within, or werenear, the waterfront or greenway corridors. Eightnamed the provision of recreational opportunities forunder-serviced communities as significant; of these,three ranked it as the most important factor. Five sin-gled out flood protection and storm-water control asa central goal of redevelopment; of these, only oneranked it as the most important. The interviewees alsomentioned—in order of decreasing significance—


wetland rehabilitation, the improvement of the envi-ronment, the preservation of historically-significantspace, the reduction of urban blight, and economicbenefits. Interestingly, many of the intervieweespointed out that economically-based objectives arebecoming increasingly important as an argument forjustifying redevelopment projects in general.

All of the projects were carried out by the publicsector, with the majority of sites redeveloped by themunicipal government’s Parks Department and eachone taking from 3 to 5 years to complete. Other gov-ernmental agencies actively involved in planning anddevelopment activities included the Toronto and Re-gion Conservation Authority (which concerned itselfprimarily with projects involving lands within flood-plains), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,and the Federal Government (which concerned itselfwith projects involving waterfront lands). Over halfof the sites were already owned by the city or bysome other level of government, while the remainingsites were privately owned. The latter were eitherdonated to the city as part of a larger redevelopmentdeal between the city and the developers; or else theywere purchased outright by the city. As several of thegovernment employees interviewed noted, the city isstarting to shy away from purchasing expensive sitesdue to budgetary constraints. They also pointed outthat the strong real estate market in the city is makingit more difficult and costly to expropriate property.

5.2. Overcoming the barriers to greening brownfields

Predictably, the greening of brownfields has beenhindered by a variety of real and perceived costs andrisks that scare off many would-be private-sector de-velopers. The interviewees were asked to discuss whatfactors they perceived as being the key barriers to thegreening of brownfield sites. The single most impor-tant factor mentioned by virtually all of the intervie-wees was the lack of financial resources for planning,coordinating and undertaking remediation and rede-velopment. The second most-mentioned factor was theperception that the economic benefits of such projects(and in some cases its environmental benefits, as well)were debatable at best. Other factors mentioned inorder of importance were: a lack of knowledge on theimpacts of soil contamination on human health and theenvironment and of the appropriate scientific meth-

ods for dealing with such contamination; a lack ofgovernment leadership and poor coordination amonggovernmental agencies; a lack of similar greeningmodels to replicate; and the existence of a mistrustbetween public and private-sector stakeholders.

The factor that makes urban brownfield redevel-opment particularly challenging involves the costsand risks associated with managing contaminationproblems. As mentioned above, the projects in ques-tion were contaminated primarily because of formerindustrial and landfilling activities on the sites. Sitesaffected by landfilling were generally less contami-nated and costly to cleanup than were those that hadindustrial uses on them. Overall, the average cost ofsite assessment and remediation was approximatelyCDN$ 430,000 per project, or CDN$ 200,000 ha−1

(CDN$ 80,000 per acre, excluding the Leslie StreetSpit and the Port Lands).

As in the case of more and more private-sectorredevelopment efforts, a site-specific risk assessment(SSRA) approach was employed to establish cleanuplevels for most of the properties examined becauseit typically yields the lowest cleanup cost estimates(seeTable 2). Under this commonly used approach,cleanup levels for contaminants in the soil are notbased on generic criteria set by governmental regu-lations for different land uses (i.e. residential/park,commercial, industrial), but on criteria established fora specific site or for a level of exposure protectionbased on risk (typically human risk). Those assessingthe site, therefore, can take into account the usagecharacteristics of different types of green space in es-timating cleanup levels (e.g. the risks at an ecologicalhabitat site versus a neighborhood park). At Wood-bine Park, for instance, the cleanup criteria for thesite were based on the likely exposure of a 5-year-oldchild to contaminants—to be extra prudent, it wasassumed that the exposure levels of the child wouldnot change considerably in adulthood.

In selecting remediation strategies, the intervieweesinsisted on options that were safe, cost effective, andallowed contaminants to be managed on site as muchas possible. These included so-called “capping” (foursites), monitoring/isolation (two sites), innovativetechnology (two sites), and off-site “dig-and-dump”disposal (two sites). The most common method usedwas the utilization of soil, concrete or other materialsto cover (“cap”) contaminants in situ. This approach


Table 2Contamination and remediation

Site Contaminants Approach

Village of Yorkville Park Metals, oils, lubricants Dig-and-dump (removal and disposal of 800 m3 ofcontaminated fill at an appropriate facility)800 m3 of contaminated fill removed

Parliament Square Heavy metals, coal tar,polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

SSRAComposite geo-membrane/clean soil cap (on top ofcontaminated soil)

Spadina Gardens/ TheMusic Garden

Heavy metals, PAHs SSRAContaminated soil used as roadbedIntegrated landscape surfacing/clean soil cap

Domtar Polyresins Ethyl benzene, toluene, styrene, PAHs SSRAInnovative bioremediation approach

Sorauren Park Heavy metals, hydrocarbons,chlorinated solvents

SSRAConcrete slab preserved to capcontaminants/integrated landscape and clean soil cap

Chester Springs Marsh Cinder, rubble, heavy metals SSRAMonitoring of heavy metals is ongoing

Woodbine Park Heavy metals, hydrocarbons SSRARemoval of coal and clinker ashBio-pad treatment of hydrocarbonsX-ray fluorescent technology for soil testing and treatment500,000 m3 of engineered fill brought to the entire siteDemolition of buildings and parking lot

Don Valley Brickworks Heavy metals, asbestos, PAHs Site filled with clean soil in anticipation of aresidential redevelopment projectPAH area has been isolated

Toronto Port Lands Contaminants and heavy metals Ongoing

Leslie Street Spit Heavy metals, PCBs Clean fill/wetland cap

turned out to be very cost effective and, in manycases, was creatively integrated with park design (i.e.in the location of berms, parking areas, roads, tenniscourts, etc.). To mention two cases in-point, cappingtechniques reduced initial cleanup cost estimates forSorauren Park and Parliament Square by 90%, lead-ing to the decision to realize the park projects. Attwo other sites, contaminants were deemed to poseminimal risk and, thus, were left on site, with theproviso that they undergo monitoring. In two othercases, contaminated soils were removed and hauledaway to a landfill site. Innovative technologies werealso employed at two sites where cleanup posed aparticularly challenging engineering problem. An ex-perimental bioremediation technique—funded partlyby the developers of the new technology together withthe Federal Government—was employed at the Dom-

tar Polyresins site to deal with the high contaminationlevels at the site. At Woodbine Park, bio-pad treatmentwas used to treat petroleum contamination, and a newX-ray fluorescent technology was used to reduce theamount of non-contaminated fill being removed fromthe site by carefully identifying only the contaminatedsoils that required treatment (still, over 500,000 m3 ofengineered fill had to be brought in to raise the siteto grade). Interestingly, remediation at the WoodbinePark site was carried out by the developer of an adja-cent residential project. This made cleanup more costeffective for the city and, according to the developer,sped up the greening process so that the site wouldact as an aesthetic benefit for their project, as opposedto an unsightly liability (seeFigs. 3 and 4).

In addition to the costs associated with contamina-tion, one of the problems with converting brownfields


Fig. 3. Woodbine Park and the Beach Residential Projects, 1999.

into green spaces is the fear that children and wildlifewill be exposed to residual contamination. As theinterviewees stated, this concern was raised at severalsites; but most residents were nonetheless reassuredby the fact that the remediation measures were ade-quate. This is typically not the case for other types ofbrownfield redevelopment projects, which are oftenplagued by public suspicion and mistrust regardingexposure levels to contamination. Several possibleexplanations for this difference according to those in-terviewed include: (1) the fact that exposure is consid-ered to be minimal because people only spend a shortamount of time there; (2) the fact that the sites wouldbe cleaner than they were before; and (3) the factthat natural processes might actually contribute, overtime, to the cleanup of the site. In general, the publicalso seemed to have faith in the public sector’s abilityto carry out and/or oversee appropriate remediation.

In addition to site assessment and remediationcosts, funding the planning and implementation of

these urban greening projects also represents a majorchallenge. Indeed, the average capital cost for theprojects examined was CDN$ 1.8 million ha−1 (CDN$660,000 per acre) and the median cost was CDN$580,000 ha−1 (CDN$ 211,000 per acre; seeTable 3).The discrepancy between the two statistical mea-sures is due to the high construction costs connectedto two specific upper-scale urban parkette projects:namely, the Yorkville and Music Garden ones. Onaverage, capital costs represented approximately 75%of total project costs, and site assessment/cleanup theremaining 25%.

Needless to say, most green space projects are de-signed to serve the general public and thus do notgenerate private revenue. Consequently, the publicsector typically assumed 90–100% of costs for theprojects examined. Only in the case of the Music Gar-den, a project strongly promoted by internationally-renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma and local philanthropistJames Flick, did private funding exceed public funding


Fig. 4. Woodbine Park and the Beach Residential Projects, 2001.

(seeFig. 5). Neighborhood parks built for recreationpurposes were paid for by the City of Toronto, whilemany of the larger parks were sponsored by variouslevels of government. To deal with the cost issues,project managers and other interested parties soughtout funds from a wide variety of organizations fordifferent aspects of a project (site assessment, de-sign, construction, etc.). At Chester Springs Marsh,for instance, site acquisition was sponsored by publicfunds, site assessment by private funds, and designand implementation by public funds provided by fivedifferent agencies from the three levels of govern-ment. Plantings, maintenance, monitoring, and edu-cation activities are currently funded by the city, theConservation Authority, and various private sources.According to most of the interviewees, attracting amultiplicity of funding partners is becoming increas-ingly necessary for bringing such projects to fruitionand maintaining them over the long term.

In general, the City of Toronto generates funds forgreen space projects from development activities. A

construction project is required by law to: apportion5% of its site to the city or pay the city a 5% tax onconstruction costs, or else to provide a combination ofboth. Fortunately, an extensive amount of brownfieldredevelopment has taken place in Toronto over thelast half decade, especially in the area of residentialredevelopment, which has helped generate funds andjustify the need for additional green space.

In addition to the direct costs and risks describedabove, the interview sessions revealed that anotherkey barrier to implementing greening projects is theperception that the economic benefits ensuing fromthem (and in some cases the environmental benefits aswell) are doubtful. This view seems particularly com-mon when there is pressure to redevelop a brownfieldfor some other type of use. To help justify the meritof these projects, to overcome cost and risk barriers,and to bring disparate stakeholders together, the inter-viewees pointed to the central role that was played bylocal communities and, in some cases, their po-litical representatives. Unlike most private-sector


Table 3Projects costs and funding

Site Remediation costs Capital costs (CDN$) Funding sources

Village of Yorkville Park CDN$ 65,000 3,000,000 City of Toronto

Parliament Square CDN$ 200,000 520,000 City of Toronto

The Music Garden Undisclosed 2,500,000 City of Toronto (CDN$ 1 million)Private fundraising (CDN$ 1.5 million)

Domtar Polyresins CDN$ 1,330,000 1,630,000 Remediation paid for by: ConservationAuthority, provincial government,private cleanup firm (with federalfunding); park development paid for bythe city

Sorauren Park CDN$ 300,000 600,000 City of Toronto

Chester Springs Marsh CDN$ 40,000 (for site assessmentand related costs)

440,000 Federal Government (30%)

Provincial government (30%)City (29%)Conservation Authority (1%)Private sources (10%)

Woodbine Park CDN$ 3,000,000 (for park sitepreparation; approximately 1/3 forremediation)

5,000,000 City of Toronto

Don Valley Brickworks Master Plan estimated that CDN$ 80,000will be needed for environmentalassessment reporting

5,000,000 TRCA (45%)

City of Toronto (45%)Private (10%)

Toronto Port Lands SSRA will probably reach CDN$ 13.75million (25% of the CDN$ 55,000,000estimated for entire site)

Estimated 5–6 billion(for the entire project)

Unknown

Leslie Street Spit Undisclosed Undisclosed All levels of government

driven brownfield redevelopment projects, decisionsat every stage of the project, from acquisition topost-construction management, were strongly influ-enced by public pressure.

Support for ecological restoration projects typicallycame from established community-based environ-mental groups, such as the Task Force to Bring Backthe Don (river); while support for green space inunder-serviced neighborhoods typically came fromsmaller, ad-hoc groups that were united by a commu-nity leader (or leaders). As a consequence, a varietyof opportunities and frameworks for public consul-tation and involvement emerged during the planningand redevelopment process, including meetings, workgroups, committees, site visitations and “educationaltours.” In addition, community advocates pushed for

a park design that would be conducive to public par-ticipation in the site’s long-term management andmaintenance (e.g. planting events, walking tours, edu-cational programs, monitoring of habitat, coordinationof cleanup activities, etc.). One of the downsides ofthis extensive community involvement at many sites,however, was the emergence of a debate over whattype of green space was to be implemented. At Wood-bine Park, for instance, several groups pressured thecity to turn the site into an ecological habitat, whileothers lobbied for soccer fields, baseball diamonds, amarina and other recreational uses.

In sum, when asked what facets of a project playeda central role in facilitating its implementation, mostinterviewees pointed to the importance of commu-nity and political involvement (seeTable 4 for a


Fig. 5. The Music Garden.

Table 4Factors facilitating the conversion of brownfield-to-green spaces

Factors facilitating development Frequency

Community involvement and collaboration 8Political leadership 5Government funding 4Private funding and partnership 4Brownfield location (near floodplain or greenway) 2SSRA and environmental technology made

remediation feasible2

breakdown). As mentioned, the role of the com-munities, whether through environmental groups,ad-hoc associations, or residents rallying behind alocal politician, emerged as crucial in all aspects andphases of the projects. The availability of public andprivate funds was considered next in level of impor-tance. Local government dollars were clearly centralto most projects, given that they constituted the bulkof the funds. However, public funds from other levelsof government and private sources were important for

several projects, especially the ecological habitat oneswhere other government bodies supported site assess-ment, remediation, and various other kinds of costs.Private funds for these projects were also identifiedas important as a sign of community support—as inthe case of the Music Garden and the Chester SpringsMarsh (where an environmental group got the projectmoving by paying for the initial site assessment). Thelocation of a site was also singled out as extremelyimportant, especially in areas where the project wouldlikely enhance an existing greenway or would pro-vide parks for under-serviced communities in theinner city. Lastly, the ability to reduce project coststhrough an appropriate technology or risk assessmentprocedure was also perceived as highly important.

5.3. The benefits of turning brownfields green

When asked what kinds of benefits ensued fromthe greening projects discussed above, nine of theinterviewees identified the creation of new ecological


Table 5Project benefits

Key project benefits Frequency

Creation/expansion of ecological habitat spaces 9Public and community collaboration and

involvement7

Increasing areas for public recreation and use 6The projects could be used as an overarching

model for future brownfield redevelopment6

Education 6Flood control 3Environmental renewal (e.g. soil and

groundwater quality)3

Economic stimulation 3Improvement of neighborhood “aesthetics” 2Identifying what underlies the sense of

community in urban areas2

Testing and promoting remediation technology 2Preservation of historically-significant sites 2

habitats as a primary one (seeTable 5 for a break-down). Seven claimed that the context of collaborationcreated among disparate groups—from communitygroups to governmental agencies—was another pri-mary benefit. Six pointed out that the provisionof recreational places and the opportunity for ed-ucating central city residents about restoration andhabitat were also among the main benefits. Otherbenefits mentioned included flood control, environ-mental renewal, economic stimulation, improvementof neighborhood aesthetics, enhancement of thesense of community and place, and preservation ofhistorically-significant buildings and/or landscapes.

The creation of new ecological habitats was consid-ered particularly important for those sites constructedto enhance the biodiversity potential of existing green-way corridors. Notably, the city and local communitygroups continue to monitor the ecological outcome ofthose brownfield projects. The Chester Springs MarshMonitoring Program (Task Force to Bring Back theDon, 2000, Part 2), for instance, established an en-vironmental audit of the site through a combinationof professional and community-based monitoringtechniques that check for biological responses to therestoration project over time (re-colonization and nat-ural succession). So far, a considerable increase inthe number and diversity of plant, bird, mammal, am-phibian and insect species has been documented. Inaddition to the creation of habitat, the extensive use ofinterpretive signs at these sites has been seen to help

educate the public about the viability and importanceof habitat in urban areas.

Notably, most of the other key benefits identifiedwere “human-oriented,” i.e. they were seen as mo-tivating stakeholder collaboration and involvement,providing more recreational spaces, offering modelsfor future redevelopment and enhanced educationalopportunities, etc. Although it was not initially consid-ered as a primary goal of these projects, many stake-holders praised the social networks that emerged andthe long-term interaction that was evidenced (oftenleading to new greening projects). Even the private de-veloper pointed out that initial apprehensions quicklydissolved as site development progressed. Stakeholderinteraction and capacity building are perceived as cen-tral to the process of building so-called social capital,which is becoming an increasingly sought after ob-jective of community economic development (CED)initiatives. Indeed, asArmstrong et al. (2002, p. 465)point out, “in the event of CED initiatives failing tocreate traditional economic benefits via communitylinkage (such as permanent jobs), it is likely that pro-ponents will argue that the creation of social capitalwill have been worthwhile in its own right.”

The development of brownfields to enhance alter-native types of green space in the central city is alsoviewed as important for achieving parkland objectives,both in terms of the number of such sites and theiraccessibility. Another noteworthy offshoot benefit isthat greening projects act as “flagship” or “marquee”demonstration “experiments” that serve as models forfuture greening endeavors—something that many in-terviewees pointed out was initially lacking to supportthe projects. As one interviewee put it: “these projectsadvertise the potential that greening has to heal brown-fields and improve inner-city communities.” Overall,it is obvious that the success of these projects has madepark planners and other stakeholders more confidentin pursuing, supporting and acquiring other brownfieldsites throughout the city for greening purposes, evenif, as one interviewee put it: “this may involve havingto wrangle over such sites with those who see them ashaving other uses.”

As for social benefits, several of the intervieweescommented on the marked improvement in neigh-borhood aesthetics resulting from the removal ofabandoned industrial buildings. A few others identifiedthe flood-control infrastructure benefits that such


Fig. 6. The Brickworks.

projects brought about. Some projects also pro-vided new technological opportunities. The DomtarPolyresins and the Woodbine Park projects, for exam-ple, involved the use of innovative remediation tech-nologies that have since been used in other brownfieldredevelopment projects within the city. Lastly, projectssuch as the Brickworks one have been able to preservehistoric buildings, landscapes and geological featuresthat add character to their neighborhoods and preservethe history of the city’s urban environment (seeFig. 6).

6. Concluding remarks

The Toronto “greening experience” makes it obvi-ous that the redevelopment of brownfield sites con-stitutes a valuable opportunity for increasing greenspaces in urban areas and, thus, bringing about bene-fits such as soil quality improvement, habitat creation,recreational opportunity enhancement, economic re-vitalization of neighborhoods, and so on. Such rede-velopment, however, requires extensive public-sector

involvement and is not inexpensive or easy to carryout. As the Toronto experience demonstrates, it re-quires a concerted effort among people from variousdomains in the social landscape of the city (from plan-ners to community representatives). The obvious im-plications that the Toronto experience holds for similarjurisdictions in North America can be listed as follows:

• The involvement of communities in the whole rede-velopment process is crucial, in both the short andlong term.

• Green space and brownfield inventories need to beestablished and used in tandem to identify wheregreening opportunities exist.

• Potential funding sources must be identified and/orcreated through the involvement of public andprivate interest groups.

• Municipal departments involved in the administra-tion of parklands should be consulted and involveddirectly in all greening projects.

• Greening projects should be encouraged becausethey tend to revitalize “blighted” neighborhoods,


with an eye toward enhancing their economic andsocial appeal.

• An appropriate risk assessment method that inte-grates elements of landscape design with availablesite remediation technology should be used, sincethis will enhance the feasibility of greening projects.

• Greening projects present greater challenges thanother forms of redevelopment in justifying end-useand project funding, but are more easily acceptedby affected communities.

• Funding for all stages of the conversion process,as well as for long-term maintenance of the greenspaces, must be actively sought from both theprivate and public sectors.

Needless to say, more data must be collected fromsimilar greening experiences in order to validate thefindings of the present study and, thus, to support theapplicability of the above “lessons from the field.”Without taking greening into account, it is unlikely thatthe process of “inner city recovery” will become per-manent in most major cities. In a phrase, the “greeningof brownfields” in the redevelopment schemes of ur-ban centers throughout North America should be givena high priority in the policy, planning and communityeconomic development process, if the quality of lifewithin these centers is to be maintained or improved.

Acknowledgements

The research for this study was funded by theUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Graduate Schoolthrough the Research Committee Award program,to whom I express my sincere gratitude. I am alsograteful to David O’Hara of the City of Toronto forhelping me identify the relevant sites for this study.

Appendix A. Interviewees/survey respondents

A.1. Interviewees

• Adele Freeman, Watershed Specialist, Toronto &Region Conservation Authority;

• Thomas Albani, Project Manager, Metrus Develop-ment Inc.;

• Beth Benson, Director, Waterfront RegenerationTrust;

• Beth Cragg, Natural Environment Specialist, Cityof Toronto, Parks & Recreation, Economic Devel-opment, Culture & Tourism;

• David Stonehouse, Planner, City of Toronto, CityPlanning, Urban Development Services;

• David O’Hara, Parks & Recreation Planner, City ofToronto, Policy & Development, Economic Devel-opment, Culture & Tourism;

• Moranne Hagey, Engineering Technician, Toronto& Region Conservation Authority;

• Nick Siccione, Manager, Environmental Services,Toronto & Region Conservation Authority;

• Melanie Hare, Planner, Urban Strategies;• Garth Armor, Natural Environment Coordinator,

City of Toronto, Parks & Recreation, EconomicDevelopment, Culture & Tourism;

• Murray Boyce, Private Consultant;• Leslie Coates, Special Projects Coordinator, City of

Toronto, Parks & Recreation, Economic Develop-ment, Culture & Tourism.

A.2. Additional information providers

• Tim Park, Supervisor, Land Acquisition & Devel-opment Applications, City of Toronto, Policy &Development, Economic Development, Culture &Tourism;

• Bob Duguid, Landscape Architect, City of Toronto,Policy & Development, Economic Development,Culture & Tourism.

Appendix B. Interview questions

Site name:Location:Size:

1. The history of the brownfield site being examined:(a) How did this site become a brownfield and why

was it targeted for reuse?2. The planning process, including:

(a) Project administration:(i) What organizations were responsible for

planning and administering the project?Describe their roles and responsibilities.

(ii) Please describe the project timeline.(iii) Who will be responsible for managing

the project over the long term?


(b) Project objectives and goals:(i) What factors (economic, environmental,

social) motivated you to undertake theproject? (Rank them from the most im-portant to the least important.)

(c) Assessment and remediation activities:(i) What contaminants were found at the

site?(ii) How were they remediated?

(iii) Were there any concerns expressed bythe community regarding the develop-ment of this park on a brownfield site?

(d) Community involvement:(i) Describe the role of the local commu-

nity in planning and implementing theproject.

(ii) Was there any conflict over how the landwas to be used?

(e) Project funding (cost, funding sources):(i) How was the project funded?

(ii) To what extent were cleanup and rede-velopment activities funded by the gov-ernment and/or by the private sector?Why?

3. Project impacts (e.g. neighborhood revitalization,increased real estate value, economic benefits, en-vironmental quality benefits, etc.):(i) What benefits do you think resulted from reme-

diating and redeveloping this brownfield siteinto green space? Describe and rank in orderof importance.

4. Lessons learned:(i) What mechanisms would help promote and

facilitate future redevelopment projects (e.g.public/private partnerships, community fundraising and involvement, federal support)?

(ii) What do you perceive as the main factors limit-ing the implementation of brownfield-to-greenspace projects in your jurisdiction? Please rankthem in order of importance. How can these beovercome?

References

American Institute of Architects, 1999. Survey of State andLocal Officials on Livable Communities. Fredrick SchneidersResearch, Washington.

Armstrong, H.W., Kehrer, B., Wells, P., Wood, A.M., 2002. Theevaluation of community economic development initiatives.Urban Stud. 39 (3), 457–481.

Asante-Duah, D.K., 1996. Management of Contaminated SiteProblems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Benazon, N., 1995. Soil remediation: a practical overviewof Canadian cleanup strategies and commercially availabletechnology. Hazard. Mater. Manage. 7 (5), 10–26.

Cackowski, J.M., 1999. The Restorative Effects of Nature:Implications for Driver Anger and Frustration. UnpublishedMaster’s Thesis, The Ohio State University.

City of Toronto, 1998. Brownfields Profiles for Village of Yorkville,Sorauren, Woodbine Park, and Parliament Square. Toronto:Parks and Recreation Division, Economic Development, Cultureand Tourism, Toronto.

City of Toronto, 1999. Toronto Parkland Naturalization Update.Natural Environment and Horticulture Section, Parks andRecreation Division, Economic Development, Culture andTourism, Toronto.

De Sousa, C.A., 2000. Brownfield redevelopment versus greenfielddevelopment: a private sector perspective on the costs andrisks associated with brownfield redevelopment in the GreaterToronto Area. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 43 (6), 831–853.

De Sousa, C.A., 2001. Contaminated sites management: theCanadian situation in international context. J. Environ. Manage.62 (2), 131–154.

De Sousa, C.A., 2002. Measuring the public costs and benefitsof brownfield versus greenfield development in the GreaterToronto Area. Environ. Plann. B 29 (2), 251–280.

Ford, G., Macdonald, D., Winfield, M., 1994. Who pays for pastsins? Policy issues surrounding contaminated site remediationin Canada. Alternatives 20, 28–34.

Fried, M., 1982. Residential attachment: sources of residential andcommunity satisfaction. J. Social Issues 38 (3).

Garvin, A., Berens, G., 1997. Urban Parks and Open Space. UrbanLand Institute and Trust for Public Land, Washington.

Gertler, M., 1995. Adapting to New Realities: Industrial LandOutlook for Metropolitan Toronto, Durham, York, Halton,Peel, Hamilton-Wentworth and Waterloo. Berridge LewinbergGreenberg Dark Gabor Ltd., Municipality of MetropolitanToronto, Toronto.

Harnik, P., 2000. Inside City Parks. Urban Land Institute and Trustfor Public Land, Washington.

Hemson Consulting, 1998. Retaining Employment Lands—Morn-ingside Heights: A Report to the City of Toronto Economic De-velopment, Tourism and Culture. Hemson Consulting, Toronto.

Hough, M., 1994. Cities and Natural Process. Rutledge, London.Hough, M., Benson, B., Evenson, J., 1997. Greening the Toronto

Port Lands. Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Toronto.Kaplan, R., 1993. The role of nature in the context of the

workplace. Landsc. Urban Plann. 26, 193–201.Kaplan, R., 2001. The nature of the view from home. Environ.

Behav. 33 (4), 507–542.Kirkwood, N. (Ed.), 2001. Manufactured Sites. E & F Spon,

London.Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M., Sullivan, W.C., 1998. Transforming inner-

city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environ.Behav. 30 (1), 28–59.


Lerner, S., Poole, W., 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks andOpen Space. The Trust for Public Land, Washington.

Metropolitan Toronto Planning, 1988. Metropolitan Plan Review:Parks and Open Space. Metropolitan Toronto PlanningDepartment, Policy Development Division, Toronto.

Meyer, P., Williams, R., Yount, K., 1995. Contaminated Land:Reclamation, Redevelopment and Reuse in the United Statesand European Union. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, UK.

More, T.A., Stevens, T., Allen, P.G., 1982. The economics of urbanparks: a cost/benefit analysis. Parks Recreat. 17, 31–33.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1996. Guideline for Useat Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario,Toronto.

Page, W., 1997. Contaminated Sites and Environmental Cleanup:International Approaches to Prevention, Remediation, andReuse. Academic Press, San Diego.

Shafer, C.S., Lee, B.K., Turner, S., 2000. A tale of three greenwaytrails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landsc. UrbanPlann. 49, 163–178.

Simons, R., 1998. Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks. UrbanLand Institute, Washington.

Thompson, J.W., Sorvig, K., 2000. Sustainable LandscapeConstruction. Island Press, Washington.

Toronto Planning, 2000. Toronto at the Crossroads. City of Toronto,Toronto.

Tyrvainen, L., 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefitsin Finland. J. Environ. Manage. 62, 75–92.

UK DETR, 1998. Derelict Land Surveys in 1988 and 1993.Department of Environment, London.

United States Conference of Mayors, 2000. Recycling America’sLand: A National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment, Vol.III. United States Conference of Mayors, Washington.

US EPA, 1997. Brownfields Definition. US EPA BrownfieldsHomepage,http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/glossary.htm.

Christopher A. De Sousa is assistant professor of geography atthe University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He received his PhD ingeography from the University of Toronto in 2000. His researchactivities focus on various aspects of urban brownfield redevelop-ment in Canada and the United States. He is also actively involvedin community work involving urban environmental management,brownfield redevelopment and sustainability reporting.

http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/glossary.htm

Turning brownﬁelds into green space in the City of Toronto · 2013. 2. 6. · Over 12% of...

Documents

Transcript of Turning brownﬁelds into green space in the City of Toronto · 2013. 2. 6. · Over 12% of...