Towers Once in the Park: Uprooting Toronto's Welfare Landscapes
This article is published as part of the Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography special issue 'Revisiting the green geographies of welfare planning', edited by Johan Pries and Mattias Qviström. ABSTRACT In the midst of the growing ecological crisis, the 'compact city' has...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Geografiska annaler. Series B, Human geography Human geography, 2022-07, Vol.104 (3), p.227-249 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This article is published as part of the Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography special issue 'Revisiting the green geographies of welfare planning', edited by Johan Pries and Mattias Qviström.
ABSTRACT
In the midst of the growing ecological crisis, the 'compact city' has become the mainstream urban paradigm for the sustainable future of western cities. However, the uneven implementation of densification policies can have adverse impacts on the amount and quality of urban green spaces, which are vital resources for local communities. This paper explores the controversies of introducing compactness in the case of Toronto's 'towers in the park': housing estates built in comprehensively planned neighbourhoods from the 1950s through the 1970s. It does so through the lenses of urban design and landscape planning, by tracking the evolution of narratives that underpin the current urban regime, and by assessing their legitimacy from the perspective of residents. The findings highlight a persistent mismatch between Toronto's dominant urban design paradigm and the sociomaterial context of its uncritical application. Exemplar episodes of tower infill show two discursive tropes to justify compactness: the alleged underuse of open spaces, and the creation of a proper public realm by replacing these spaces with buildings and streets. Beyond uncovering the fallacy of both claims, this paper outlines an alternative perspective for more equitable strategies for common green spaces, outside unconditional protection and zealous quest for "value uplift." |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0435-3684 1468-0467 |