Why a Study?
Toronto Has One Downtown Waterfront. We Should Be Certain We Are Making the Most of It.
Toronto’s waterfront is undergoing one of the largest transformations in the city’s history.
New neighbourhoods are being built. The Port Lands are being remade. Ontario Place and Exhibition Place are changing. The Hearn is attracting major redevelopment interest. New transit, parks, cultural attractions and visitor infrastructure are being contemplated across the waterfront.
These are significant investments.
But most are being considered individually.
The larger question has never really been tested:
What combination of uses would create the greatest long-term public benefit from Toronto’s waterfront as a whole?
That is the case for a study.
The Question Is Bigger Than Any One Project
Harbourlands is not asking Toronto simply to approve another development proposal.
It is asking the city to compare alternative futures.
What is the economic value of maintaining a downtown airport compared with creating a continuous public waterfront?
What could be gained by connecting the Toronto Islands directly to Harbourfront and the Port Lands?
Would a major convention and event district strengthen Toronto’s visitor economy?
Could better waterfront transit allow existing and proposed destinations to reinforce one another?
What additional value could be created if the Hearn, Tommy Thompson Park, Ookwemin Minising, the Islands, Harbourfront, Ontario Place and Exhibition Place functioned as parts of one connected destination?
These are questions of opportunity cost, connectivity and long-term public value.
They deserve more than assumptions.
They deserve analysis.
The Waterfront Should Be Evaluated as a System
The value of a waterfront does not come only from the individual attractions located along it.
It also comes from the connections between them.
A park becomes more valuable when it connects to another destination. A convention centre becomes more attractive when visitors can easily reach restaurants, cultural attractions and public spaces. Transit becomes more useful as the number of destinations it connects grows.
This is the network effect of a great urban waterfront.
Toronto should therefore evaluate its waterfront not simply parcel by parcel, but as a connected economic, recreational, cultural and transportation system.
The question is not only:
“Does this project create value?”
It is:
“Which combination of investments creates the greatest value for Toronto?”
Measure the Net Public Benefit
A serious study should compare alternative waterfront futures against a common set of measures.
It should examine:
Economic value — tourism, conventions, investment, employment and adjacent development.
Public access — how much of the waterfront becomes accessible and useful to residents.
Connectivity — how effectively destinations, neighbourhoods and transit systems reinforce one another.
Environmental value — natural habitat, resilience, parkland and waterfront ecology.
Transportation value — mobility, regional access and the most efficient use of transportation infrastructure.
Opportunity cost — what Toronto gives up by committing scarce waterfront land to one use rather than another.
Long-term flexibility — whether today's decisions expand or constrain the choices available to future generations.
The objective should not be to prove Harbourlands right.
It should be to determine which future produces the greatest net public benefit.
Compare Real Alternatives
A meaningful study should not compare the status quo with an abstract ideal.
It should evaluate credible alternatives.
That could include:
1. The Existing Waterfront Path
Continue developing the waterfront through the projects and planning frameworks already underway.
2. An Airport-Oriented Waterfront
Retain Billy Bishop as a permanent aviation asset and plan surrounding investments around its continued operation.
3. A Connected Waterfront
Convert the airport lands to public use and connect the Islands, Harbourfront and Port Lands through transit, bridges, parks and visitor destinations.
4. Hybrid Options
Explore intermediate scenarios and determine whether some of the benefits of greater connectivity can be achieved without the full Harbourlands concept.
The results should be transparent and publicly available.
Why Now?
Timing matters.
Much of Toronto’s eastern waterfront remains in transition.
That means options still exist.
But every major new building, infrastructure investment and long-term land-use decision narrows those options.
There is a moment in every major city-building exercise when asking the larger question is inexpensive.
Later, it becomes extraordinarily difficult.
Toronto should ask that question before the answer is determined by a series of unrelated decisions.
The Study Is the Proposal
Harbourlands presents one possible future.
It is deliberately conceptual.
Its purpose is not to claim that every bridge, transit line, park or building shown must be constructed exactly as illustrated.
Its purpose is to demonstrate that there may be another way to think about Toronto’s waterfront — as one connected destination rather than a collection of separate projects.
The immediate proposal is therefore much simpler:
Study the alternatives. Measure the benefits and costs. Compare them transparently.
Then make the decision.
Toronto has only one downtown waterfront.