Problems and Purpose

Toronto’s waterfront had been suffering from underdevelopment and a series of failed attempts to address growth struggles in the area. Sidewalk Labs on the other hand had been searching for an area where they could test their urban innovations, and as a large, diverse, and progressive city, Toronto seemed like an ideal location. The citizen engagement techniques used throughout the Sidewalk Toronto Project were designed to provide the initiative with a public mandate and avoid opposition through fostering a sense of community ownership by incorporating citizen proposals and projecting transparency [1].

Background History and Context

Toronto’s waterfront has long been a focal point for ambitious urban development, with plans to reshape this area dating back over five decades. These evolving plans reflect broader changes in Toronto’s economic and social landscape, particularly as the city transitioned away from its manufacturing and resource-based industries, which once dominated the waterfront. This shift revealed new opportunities for diverse economic activities and increased public access to the underutilized lands along the water's edge.

Historically, the city has witnessed three distinct eras of planning ambitions for the waterfront. Between 1960 and 1972, city planners envisioned a high-density, modernist project known as "Harbor City," which sought to radically transform the area. By the mid-1970s, civic leaders shifted their focus away from grand master plans, opting instead for smaller-scale improvements aimed at enhancing the public realm, expanding parklands, and stimulating job growth in the eastern harbour. The period from 1988 to 2000 marked another transition, as the focus turned towards brownfield remediation, ecosystem restoration, and the promotion of mixed-use development. Despite the varying approaches across these eras, none of the plans came to full fruition due to a range of challenges, including legal disputes, changes in leadership, complex governance structures, and conflicts over land ownership among different government entities.

In 2002, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation—later rebranded as Waterfront Toronto in 2007—was established through provincial legislation, supported by a CAD 1.5 billion funding commitment from municipal, provincial, and federal governments. Waterfront Toronto was granted legal authority to oversee strategic planning, remediation efforts, and development partnerships across 2840 acres of waterfront land. However, the corporation faced significant challenges from the outset, including limited control over the land, as it was only given ownership of 1% of the lands it was tasked with revitalizing. Additionally, nearly half of the promised government funding never materialized. Despite these constraints, Waterfront Toronto successfully advanced several redevelopment projects, focusing on sustainability, resilience, and innovation.

Between 2007 and 2009, Waterfront Toronto managed to acquire 4.9 hectares of land adjacent to the Port Lands, which came to be known as "Quayside." With this land unencumbered by private or governmental ownership, Waterfront Toronto was positioned to push forward with its ambitious planning agenda. By March 2017, the corporation issued a request-for-proposals (RFP) seeking an innovation and funding partner to help realize its vision for Quayside. This RFP reflected both the financial realities facing Waterfront Toronto—having largely depleted its initial funding—and its desire to use the Quayside site as a "test bed" for new and emerging technologies. On October 17, 2017, it was announced that Sidewalk Labs, an urban innovation firm owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, had won the bid to partner with Waterfront Toronto. The two entities subsequently formed a limited partnership to collaborate on the development of the Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) for Quayside and the broader Eastern Waterfront.

Sidewalk Labs, founded in 2015 by Daniel L. Doctoroff, aimed to build a city "from the Internet up." This vision aligned closely with the goals of Waterfront Toronto, making the Quayside project an attractive opportunity for Sidewalk Labs to test its urban innovation ideas on a highly visible stage. As the project unfolded, it became apparent that the integration of advanced technology with urban planning would raise significant questions about data ownership, access, and the broader implications of "platform urbanism"—a model where digital infrastructure mediates interactions, sets governance conditions, and profits from data extraction and analysis. These challenges highlighted the complex dynamics at play in the development of smart cities and set the stage for the debates that would soon emerge as the project progressed [2].

Methods and Tools Used

At the core of the participatory planning tools used by the Sidewalk Toronto project was the principle of community-driven development, guiding the overall approach to citizen engagement. This strategy was crucial in ensuring that the urban planning and technological advancements had civil legitimacy. The community-driven development framework in the Sidewalk Toronto project encompassed a variety of public engagement methods.

Various participatory methods were designed to gather a diverse range of perspectives from different segments of Toronto's population. The Resident Reference Panels allowed for structured feedback on key aspects of the project, including data governance, public space design, and environmental sustainability. Design Jams were creative sessions aimed at collaboratively brainstorming innovative solutions for the project. The Fellows Program was an initiative aimed at engaging young professionals to contribute to the project’s development process. Neighbourhood Meetings provided a forum for local residents to engage directly with project leaders, ensuring that those most affected by the project had their voices heard [3].

Public Consultations

Public Consultations were a critical component of the Sidewalk Toronto project, designed to capture a broad spectrum of community input. These consultations were structured to include presentations by project leaders, followed by breakout sessions where participants could discuss specific topics in smaller groups. A variety of tools were used during these consultations, including feedback forms, discussion guides, and interactive activities that allowed participants to engage deeply with the topics at hand [4].

Public Roundtables

Public Roundtables were open forums that provided an opportunity for residents to engage in in-depth discussions on specific aspects of the project. These events were designed to be accessible to a broad audience, with sessions held in various locations across the city. The roundtables were structured to allow for both group discussions and plenary sessions where feedback could be shared with all participants [5].

Town Halls

Town Halls were a cornerstone of the public consultation process, providing a direct channel for residents to voice their opinions and concerns to project leaders. Multiple town halls were held at different locations across Toronto to ensure accessibility. Each town hall included presentations by representatives from Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto, followed by extensive periods of open discussion where participants could ask questions and provide feedback [6].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Participants for the Resident Reference Panels were selected through a civic lottery process managed by MASS LBP, ensuring demographic representativeness across various age groups, genders, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. From this process, 36 individuals were chosen to participate, reflecting the diversity of Toronto’s population. Design Jams participants were selected through targeted invitations extended to a broad range of stakeholders, with Waterfront Toronto asking Neighbourhood Associations, City of Toronto, Councillors, CivicAction, Cycle Toronto, Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, George Brown College, Sidewalk Toronto Working Group and Sidewalk Toronto Fellows Program for citizen participants.

The Fellows Program was highly competitive, attracting 660 applicants from young professionals aged 19-24. Out of these, 12 Fellows were selected by a panel that included representatives from Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto, offering these young leaders a direct role in the project’s development. Neighbourhood Meetings were open to all residents, with participation determined by self-selection [7].

Public Consultations, Public Roundtables, and Town Halls were open to all residents with extensive media promotion by Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto encouraging participation. This included face-book and twitter posts, emails to newsletter subscribers, website news releases, and an op-ed in the Toronto Star newspaper.

For the July 2019 Public Consultation there were four avenues for participation: seven identical drop-in information sessions at various libraries; four identical public meetings held at separate venues; an online survey launched twenty days prior; and written submissions. The estimated participatory figures were 200 attendants for the drop-in sessions, 600 attendants for the public meetings, 200 responses for the online survey, and 34 written submissions, totalling at 1,034 estimated total participations during the public consultation process. Each public meeting saw at least 10-15% of individuals in attendance that had never been to a discussion related to Sidewalk Toronto [8].

Alongside its open invite, the 2017 Community Town Hall also involved a google form that allowed those that couldn’t attend or watch the livestream submit questions, which reached 5,538 people and received 67 comments, questions, and concerns. This event had in excess of 530 attendees and 3000 online viewers. The 4th Public Roundtable in 2018 saw similar numbers, with over 500 in-person participants and over 3500 viewers on the event livestream [9][10].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Most of the participatory planning methods were generally supported and facilitated by Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs. These organizations provided the necessary logistical support, including venue arrangements and the dissemination of materials. Financial resources were primarily provided by Sidewalk Labs, while local community organizations contributed to participant mobilization and ensuring diverse attendance [11][12][13]. The Resident Reference Panels were organized in collaboration with MASS LBP, a Canadian organization specializing in public engagement and deliberative democracy. MASS LBP was instrumental in managing the sortition process and facilitating the panel discussions, ensuring that the panels were both representative and effective [14].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Sidewalk Toronto project involved multiple phases of public participation, each offering unique opportunities for interaction and feedback that were crucial in shaping the project's trajectory and addressing community concerns. The initial phase of citizen engagement commenced shortly after the project's official announcement in late 2017, when Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs organized a series of public consultations, town halls, and roundtable meetings across the city. These early engagements were primarily focused on introducing the project to the public, gathering preliminary feedback, and laying the groundwork for more detailed deliberations.

The various public participation methods, including Neighbourhood Meetings, Resident Reference Panels (RRP), and the Fellows Program, each had distinct characteristics and impacts on the project. The Neighbourhood Meetings in Quayside, for instance, were composed of presentations and Q&A sessions where citizens could only contribute feedback by tagging it onto their questions. This format limited the ability of participants to offer detailed opinions and proposals, thereby diminishing their influence on the smart city project. In contrast, the RRP and Fellows Program offered more comprehensive opportunities for citizen involvement. These programs allowed participants to engage in extended discussions and co-write detailed reports with specific recommendations for Quayside, enhancing their capacity to influence the project's direction.

The Resident Reference Panels were particularly instrumental in gathering detailed feedback from a representative cross-section of Toronto’s residents. These panels were designed to provide a structured environment where participants could discuss and deliberate on key aspects of the project, such as data governance and public space design. The panels encouraged participants to explore the potential implications of the project on their communities, resulting in a final report that included five detailed minority reports. These reports offered additional insights into participants’ perspectives on the quality of citizen engagement and highlighted areas where further attention was needed.

Design Jams provided a different approach to citizen engagement, fostering a creative and collaborative atmosphere where participants worked in groups to brainstorm solutions to the challenges presented by the Quayside development. These sessions were less formal than other engagement methods, allowing for a free flow of ideas and a focus on innovation. This process not only generated a wide range of ideas but also created a sense of ownership among participants, as their contributions were directly integrated into the planning process [15].

Public Consultations

The Public Consultations were a significant component of the engagement process, structured to maximize participant involvement and ensure that diverse perspectives were heard. Each consultation session began with an overview presentation by project leaders, providing the necessary context for the discussions. Participants were then divided into smaller breakout groups, each facilitated by a trained moderator, to discuss specific topics such as environmental sustainability, data privacy, and urban design.

The use of discussion guides and interactive tools helped structure these conversations, ensuring that all participants had the opportunity to contribute meaningfully. The feedback gathered from these consultations was meticulously recorded and analysed, with the results being used to inform subsequent stages of the project. The consultations were marked by a high level of interaction, with participants actively engaging with one another and the facilitators to explore the implications of the project. The consultations revealed a strong demand for greater transparency in the project’s planning and implementation phases, as well as concerns about the project's impact on the local community and environment.

Public Roundtables

Public Roundtables were designed to facilitate more in-depth discussions on specific aspects of the project, offering a platform for a wide range of voices to be heard. These sessions were structured to allow for both small group discussions and larger plenary sessions, where ideas and feedback could be shared with the broader group.

Each roundtable session began with a brief introduction to the topic, followed by small group discussions. These groups were often composed of participants with diverse backgrounds, including community activists, environmental advocates, technology experts, and everyday residents. The small group format allowed for detailed exploration of the issues, with participants encouraged to share their experiences, concerns, and ideas. After the group discussions, participants reconvened in a plenary session where representatives from each group presented their key takeaways and recommendations.

The roundtables covered a broad range of topics, including the environmental impact of the project, potential surveillance concerns related to data collection, and the integration of technology into public spaces. Participants were encouraged to provide candid feedback, which was then shared with project leaders for consideration. The roundtables were notable for their dynamic interactions, with participants engaging in robust debates over the project's implications and pushing for more community involvement in the decision-making process.

Town Halls

Town Halls served as open forums where residents could directly engage with project leaders from Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto. These events were among the most publicized and accessible, drawing a diverse group of participants from across the city.

The sessions typically began with presentations from project leaders, providing updates on the current status of the project and outlining key developments. These presentations were followed by an open-floor discussion where participants could ask questions and voice their concerns. The format was designed to be as inclusive as possible, with significant time allocated for participant input. Media coverage and social media outreach played a crucial role in promoting these events, ensuring high levels of public awareness and participation.

One of the most contentious issues discussed at the Town Halls was the potential for the project to lead to gentrification and displacement of low-income residents. Many participants expressed fears that the development would drive up property prices and rents, making the area unaffordable for existing residents. There were also concerns about the level of corporate influence in the project, with some participants arguing that the project’s goals were more aligned with the interests of private companies than the needs of the community.

The feedback from the Town Halls emphasized the need for the project to include safeguards against gentrification, such as affordable housing mandates and community benefit agreements. The discussions around corporate influence led to recommendations for more community oversight and control over the project’s development, with some participants suggesting the establishment of a community advisory board to represent residents’ interests.

Common Themes

Throughout the various public engagement methods, several common themes emerged, reflecting widespread concerns and shared priorities among Toronto’s residents.

Across all engagement methods, data privacy was a dominant concern. Participants consistently expressed apprehension about how personal data would be collected, stored, and used by Sidewalk Labs, with participants questioning how the vast amounts of data generated by the smart city technologies would be handled. There were common debates over the risks of surveillance, the potential for data misuse, and the need for strong governance frameworks to protect residents’ rights. In general, there was a strong demand for greater transparency, with calls for stringent data protection measures, including anonymization techniques, regular audits, and the establishment of an independent oversight body to ensure accountability. Participants also called for heightened data privacy protections, including the implementation of opt-in systems for data collection and greater transparency about how data would be used. There was widely shared support for the creation of an independent oversight body to monitor data collection and use, as well as calls for more transparent decision-making processes that involved community input.

The environmental impact of the Quayside development was another key issue that resonated across all discussions. Voiced concerns arose about the potential for increased pollution, the effects of construction on local ecosystems, and the sustainability of the proposed infrastructure. Recommendations included the adoption of green technologies, green building practices, waste management strategies, preservative measures for local wildlife habitats, renewable energy sources, and comprehensive environmental monitoring protocols.

The need for inclusive and accessible public spaces was a consistent priority. Participants emphasized that urban design should cater to the diverse needs of Toronto’s residents, including considerations for accessibility, cultural relevance, and safety. Suggestions were made for the creation of public spaces that were accessible and inclusive, with participants advocating for more green spaces, pedestrian-friendly areas, and community-focused amenities.

Interaction and Response

The interactions between residents, community groups, government agencies, and Sidewalk Labs were central to the Sidewalk Toronto project. These interactions were characterized by a dynamic exchange of ideas, concerns, and recommendations, with participants often challenging project leaders on key issues and pushing for more transparency and accountability. One of the central tensions throughout the engagement process was the balancing of public and private interests. While Sidewalk Labs brought significant technological expertise and financial resources to the project, there was widespread concern about the level of corporate influence over public spaces and the potential for profit motives to overshadow community needs. These concerns were particularly acute in discussions around data governance and the commercialization of public space, with many participants advocating for stronger public control and oversight [16][17][18].

Procedural Concerns

Several procedural issues were identified across the various citizen engagement methods. One significant challenge was the perceived imbalance in information provision. Many participants felt that they were not provided with sufficient or accessible information to fully engage in the discussions. For instance, results from a public roundtable post-event survey indicated that 87 percent of citizen respondents attended the Roundtable to ‘learn more about the project.’ This trend was common across the Sidewalk Toronto engagement methods, which often emphasized education and information provision as a prerequisite for meaningful participation. Yet, this focus on information provision sometimes limited the time available for deeper engagement and proposal formation, as participants needed to absorb a significant amount of information before they could contribute effectively.

Participants in the Residents’ Reference Panel expressed similar concerns, noting that the complexity of the Quayside proposals made it difficult to thoroughly consider and review the numerous elements of the project. One panellist highlighted the need for future engagements to focus on improving participants’ understanding of the details pertaining to each individual proposal, so that they could properly evaluate the project’s merits. Public consultation participants also voiced frustration with the 1,500-page Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) document outlining the project, characterizing it as either a poorly conceived communication plan or an effort to overwhelm. Many called for a shorter, simplified version of the document, alongside more detailed information in key areas.

The origins of the information provided during these engagements also raised concerns. Stakeholder-led information provision was seen as potentially influencing the nature of citizens’ involvement. In the RRP, despite the extensive nature of information provision through guided tours, presentations, and workshops, some participants felt that they were not fully informed about certain critical issues. For example, a minority report from the RRP noted that participants were often caught off guard by media coverage of issues not disclosed during the panel sessions, such as the proposed diversion of tax funds to Sidewalk Labs. This lack of transparency in information provision led to concerns that participants were not adequately equipped to contest or propose alternatives to the stakeholder’s original ideas.

Moreover, the structured nature of the RRP and other engagement methods meant that citizens had limited control over the topics discussed. This was particularly evident in the discussions on data governance, where participants felt that the scope of the discussions was too narrow to fully address their concerns. The influence of stakeholders in designing the engagement process was seen as limiting the ability of citizens to shape the discussions, thereby reducing their potential impact on the project.

In the public consultations, many participants emphasized the importance of reviewing the Draft MIDP from a position of strength, considering the value of the public asset at stake. There were calls for Waterfront Toronto to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment, including analysing the track record of proposed innovations, contingency plans for potential failures, and the opportunity costs of partnering with Sidewalk Labs. Participants also requested more information on several aspects of the proposals, such as the governance structures, affordable housing mechanisms, and the broader Canadian and global context of the project. These suggestions highlighted the need for more rigorous consideration of the Draft MIDP, with participants advocating for thorough research and analysis to inform public reflection on the proposal [19].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The public engagement methods employed in the Sidewalk Toronto project were intended to provide democratic legitimacy and supposedly to align the project’s development with the needs and concerns of Toronto’s residents. On the other hand, the outcomes of these methods revealed significant tensions between public interests and corporate objectives, which ultimately contributed to the project's demise.

The various engagement methods—ranging from Resident Reference Panels and Design Jams to Public Consultations, Public Roundtables, and Town Halls—produced a wealth of feedback, recommendations, and critiques. On the surface, these methods were designed to create spaces for citizen input, aiming to foster a sense of ownership and to democratize the decision-making process, but the actual influence of these methods on the project’s direction was limited by structural constraints and underlying corporate goals.

One of the most prominent issues that emerged from the public engagement processes was the concern over data privacy. This concern was pervasive across all forms of citizen engagement, with participants consistently expressing fears about how personal data would be collected, stored, and used by Sidewalk Labs. As a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., Sidewalk Labs was perceived as having a vested interest in the collection and monetization of data, a practice that has been at the core of Alphabet’s business model. Participants questioned the true intentions behind the smart city project, suspecting that it was less about creating a liveable urban environment and more about expanding the company’s data collection capabilities.

In response to these concerns, Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs made several attempts to reassure the public. These included promises that all data collected would be stored in Canada and that the project would adhere to existing and future privacy laws. Nevertheless, these assurances failed to alleviate the deep-seated fears about data misuse and the potential for surveillance. Participants were particularly concerned about the lack of transparency regarding how data governance would be managed, and who would have ultimate control over the data collected. The Civic Data Trust (CDT), a proposed governance structure designed to oversee data use, was seen by many as insufficiently robust to protect against potential abuses. The lack of clarity around the CDT’s authority and the perceived loopholes in its framework only exacerbated the public’s scepticism [20].

Further exacerbating the situation was the perception that the public engagement processes were being used as a tool for placation rather than for genuine democratic decision-making. Despite the extensive feedback and detailed recommendations provided by citizens—particularly on issues like data governance and public space design—many participants felt that their input was being subordinated to the larger objectives of the project stakeholders. This sentiment was particularly strong in discussions around data privacy, where there was a growing sense that the engagement processes were designed more to appease public concerns than to effect real change in the project’s direction.

The culmination of these concerns, combined with the procedural shortcomings of the public engagement processes, ultimately contributed to the growing opposition to the Sidewalk Toronto project. The engagement processes, while extensive, failed to build the necessary trust and confidence among the public. Instead, they highlighted the deep disconnect between the project’s ambitions and the values of the community it was supposed to serve [21].

As public criticism mounted, the viability of the project was increasingly called into question. The perceived lack of genuine accountability, the suspicion of "governance by mercenary," and the ongoing concerns about data privacy and corporate influence all played a role in eroding support for the initiative. The failure to meaningfully integrate public feedback into the project’s framework led many to view the engagement processes as a form of tokenism, designed to placate rather than empower [22].

The eventual cancellation of the Sidewalk Toronto project in May 2020, officially attributed to budgetary constraints related to the COVID-19 pandemic, was widely seen as the culmination of these unresolved issues. An increasing set of demands from Waterfront Toronto influenced by the public response led to expectations from Sidewalk Labs to increase the public scope of the project, therefore decreasing its projected profitability. The collapse of the project served as a cautionary tale for future smart city initiatives, emphasizing the importance of building genuine public trust, ensuring transparency, and aligning corporate goals with public values [23].

In broader terms, the Sidewalk Toronto experience has had a lasting impact on the discourse around smart cities and public participation, underscoring the need for more robust governance frameworks that prioritize public interest and accountability, particularly in projects involving significant private sector involvement.

Analysis of the Impact on Democratic Goods

The Sidewalk Toronto project was not only a test bed for new urban technologies but also a significant experiment in public participation. However, the project faced substantial challenges related to its democratic goods, as outlined by Graham Smith. The following analysis evaluates the project’s performance across key democratic goods, including inclusion, considered judgment, popular control, transparency, efficiency, and transferability [24].

Inclusion

Inclusion is a critical democratic good that refers to the ability of a process to engage a diverse and representative sample of the population. The Sidewalk Toronto project employed various participatory methods promoting inclusivity, such as Resident Reference Panels, Public Consultations, Town Halls, and Public Roundtables. These efforts were designed to engage a broad cross-section of Toronto’s population, including residents from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, young professionals, and community leaders, but their effectiveness was mixed. While the Resident Reference Panels were selected through a civic lottery, ensuring a degree of demographic representativeness, other methods like the Town Halls and Public Consultations relied on self-selection, which may have skewed participation towards more vocal and engaged citizens. Although this approach is inclusive in theory, may have excluded less confident or informed individuals who were less likely to participate actively. Some engagement methods, such as the Neighbourhood Meetings, were criticized for their limited format, which restricted participants' ability to provide detailed feedback.

The project claimed to make efforts to accommodate different participants by providing information sessions and materials to build capacity, withal the complexity of the issues at hand, particularly around data governance and the technical aspects of smart city infrastructure, may have limited meaningful participation for some groups. The use of highly technical language and the overwhelming volume of information presented in the Draft Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) further complicated efforts to ensure true inclusivity, resulting in accusations that this was a design choice.

Considered Judgment

Considered judgment refers to the ability of participants to engage in reflective and informed decision-making. Sidewalk Toronto projected the support of considered judgment through various means, including the provision of detailed information, the facilitation of discussions by trained moderators, and the use of structured deliberative processes. However, the project’s success in fostering considered judgment was limited by several factors. The sheer complexity of the topics discussed, such as data privacy, urban design, and environmental sustainability, posed a significant challenge. Many participants struggled to fully understand the implications of the project, particularly in the context of data governance and the potential for surveillance. The overwhelming amount of information, coupled with the technical nature of the content, often left participants feeling underprepared to engage in meaningful deliberation. Moreover, the limited time available for discussions, particularly in the Neighbourhood Meetings, further hindered the ability of participants to engage in deep, reflective deliberation.

Despite these challenges, the project did foster some degree of empathy and understanding among participants. The discussions in the Public Consultations and Town Halls often highlighted the diverse perspectives within the community, allowing participants to hear and consider viewpoints different from their own. However, the project’s overall effectiveness in promoting considered judgment was undermined by the barriers to understanding and the unequal participation dynamics.

Popular Control

Popular control refers to the extent to which participants can influence the decision-making process. In the context of the Sidewalk Toronto project, popular control was supposedly a central concern, as the project stated aims to balance public input with the objectives of private stakeholders, particularly Sidewalk Labs.

The participatory methods employed in the project were designed to give citizens a voice in shaping the development of Quayside. Despite this, the actual influence of participants over the project’s outcomes was limited. While the public engagement sessions generated a wealth of feedback and recommendations, many participants felt that their input was not adequately reflected in the project’s subsequent proposals. This was particularly evident in discussions around data governance and privacy, where participants called for stronger protections and more community control, but were met with responses that many saw as inadequate or dismissive.

The power imbalance between Sidewalk Labs and the public was a recurring theme throughout the engagement process. Despite the project’s emphasis on public participation, decision-making power remained largely in the hands of the corporate and governmental stakeholders, with the role of the public often relegated to advisory rather than decisional. This dynamic was further complicated by the perception that the project’s ultimate goals were more aligned with corporate interests than with the needs of the community.

Transparency

Transparency is a fundamental democratic good that involves both internal transparency within the participatory process and external transparency towards the broader public. The Sidewalk Toronto project faced significant challenges in achieving transparency, particularly in its handling of information and decision-making processes.

Transparency was largely undermined by concerns about the origins and control of information. Many participants questioned the objectivity of the information provided, particularly when it came from Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., known for its data exploitation practices. The perceived lack of transparency around key aspects of the project, such as data governance and the financial implications of the development, fuelled distrust among the public. Despite efforts to address these concerns through public consultations and Town Halls, the project struggled to build and maintain trust with the community.

Efficiency

Efficiency in the context of democratic goods refers to the cost-benefit ratio for all actors involved in the process, including participants, organizers, and the broader public. The Sidewalk Toronto project required significant resources, both in terms of time and financial investment, to facilitate the various public engagement methods. For participants, the efficiency of the process was mixed. While the engagement sessions provided opportunities for meaningful input, the complexity and duration of the discussions, particularly in the Resident Reference Panels and Public Consultations, demanded a considerable commitment of time and effort. For many participants, the benefits of engagement were diminished by the sense that their contributions did not have a significant impact on the final outcomes.

From the perspective of the organizers, the process was resource-intensive, requiring substantial investment in facilitation, logistics, and communication. While these efforts were necessary to ensure a broad and inclusive engagement process, the overall efficiency of the process was called into question by the project’s eventual cancellation. The inability to reconcile public concerns with the project’s objectives ultimately resulted in a significant loss of resources, with limited tangible outcomes to show for the extensive public engagement efforts.

Transferability

Transferability refers to the potential for the democratic innovations used in the Sidewalk Toronto project to be adapted and applied in other contexts. The project’s use of a variety of participatory methods offers valuable lessons for other cities and projects seeking to engage the public in large-scale urban developments. However, the transferability of these methods is limited by several factors. First, the specific context of the Sidewalk Toronto project, including the involvement of a major technology company like Sidewalk Labs and the focus on creating a smart city, may not be directly applicable to other urban development projects. The challenges related to data governance, corporate influence, and public trust are particularly relevant to smart city initiatives but may be less applicable in other contexts.

Second, the failure for the most part of the engagement methods in achieving most of the democratic goods suggests that these methods need to be adapted or supplemented with additional approaches to be effective in different settings. For example, future projects might benefit from a greater emphasis on building participants’ capacity to engage with complex issues, as well as more robust mechanisms for ensuring that public input is meaningfully incorporated into decision-making processes.

Overall, while the Sidewalk Toronto project provides important insights into the use of democratic innovations in urban development, the transferability of its methods is limited by the unique challenges and context of the project. Other cities and projects seeking to learn from this experience will need to carefully consider how to adapt these methods to their specific needs and circumstances.

References

[1][22] Goodman, Ellen, and Julia Powles. “Urbanism under Google: Lessons from Sidewalk Toronto.” Fordham Law Review, vol. 88, no. 2, Nov. 2019, p. 457, ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss2/4/

[2] Robinson, Pamela, and Steven Coutts. “The Case of Quayside, Toronto, Canada.” ScienceDirect, edited by Leonidas Anthopoulos, Elsevier, 1 Jan. 2019, pp. 333–50, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012816169200016X.

[3][7][14][15][19][24] Chantry, Will. “Built from the Internet Up: Assessing Citizen Participation in Smart City Planning through the Case Study of Quayside, Toronto.” GeoJournal, vol. 88, no. 1, July 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10688-3. Accessed 27 July 2022.

[4][8][11][16] Waterfront Toronto, and Swerhun Inc. “Waterfront Toronto’s Public Consultation on the Draft MIDP: Round One Feedback Report.” Waterfront Toronto, 19 Sept. 2019, www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sites/default/files/documents/round-one-public-consultation-feedback-report-september-19-2019.pdf.

[5][10][12][17] Waterfront Toronto, and Sidewalk Labs. “Sidewalk Toronto Roundtable 4 - Summary Report.” Waterfront Toronto, 8 Dec. 2012, www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sites/default/files/documents/swt-rt4-final-report-compressed.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug. 2024.

[6][9][13][18] Waterfront Toronto, and Sidewalk Labs. “Sidewalk Toronto Community Town Hall: Feedback Report.” Waterfront Toronto, Dec. 2017, www.waterfrontoronto.ca/sites/default/files/documents/sidewalk-toronto-feedback-report-town-hall.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug. 2024.

[20] McCord, Curtis, and Christoph Becker. Sidewalk and Toronto: Critical Systems Heuristics and the Smart City. June 2019, arxiv.org/abs/1906.02266.

[21] Shimizu, Yuho, et al. “Social Acceptance of Smart City Projects: Focus on the Sidewalk Toronto Case.” Frontier Environmental Science, vol. 10, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.898922. Accessed 23 Aug. 2024.

[23] Wylie, Bianca, and Matthew Bui. “Counterpublics.” Keywords of the Datafied State, Data & Society Research Institute, 2024, datasociety.net/library/keywords-of-the-datafied-state/. Accessed 23 Aug. 2024.

[24] Smith, Graham. “Realising the Goods of Democratic Institutions.” Cambridge University Press EBooks, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 162–93, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609848.007. Accessed 23 Aug. 2024.

Notes

This case study was completed as part of the Politics module "Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation, and Power" at the University of Southampton. The section "Analysis of the Impact on Democratic Goods" is focused on linking what was learned in the study of this case study with what we learnt about democratic innovations in class.