News   Nov 22, 2024
 390     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 825     4 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 2.1K     6 

Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat to leave City of Toronto

Using words like "complicit" and even "responsible" is unfair. The role of staff is to advise Council but Council makes the decisions. When Council asks staff to carry something out, it's staff's responsibility to do that, even if they advised against it. For Jennifer Keesmaat to refuse to follow orders or direct her staff to not follow orders, she could very justifiably have been fired and disciplined by the OPPI. To call her complicit is to imply that she was involved in some sort of wrongdoing, which isn't the case at all.
The term "complicit" is misleading, albeit I had modulated that by stating "in that respect" (following orders). She could have quit at any time, no? "I refuse to be party to implementing this decision".

We still aren't aware of what 'broke the camel's back' for her, but she must have realized that her professional and personal reputation was being tarnished by association of action. It's good she left when she did, although as is always easy with hindsight, it might have been more opportune to have done it earlier. She does discuss that in some interviews, the gist being 'I had hoped to influence this in a better direction from the inside'.

She is tarnished, no doubt, but far from broken. I for one am interested in seeing what else seeps out with time. She is being very professional in not gushing it out.
 
The term "complicit" is misleading, albeit I had modulated that by stating "in that respect" (following orders). She could have quit at any time, no? "I refuse to be party to implementing this decision".

We still aren't aware of what 'broke the camel's back' for her, but she must have realized that her professional and personal reputation was being tarnished by association of action. It's good she left when she did, although as is always easy with hindsight, it might have been more opportune to have done it earlier. She does discuss that in some interviews, the gist being 'I had hoped to influence this in a better direction from the inside'.

She is tarnished, no doubt, but far from broken. I for one am interested in seeing what else seeps out with time. She is being very professional in not gushing it out.
Good point, but implementing a decision that she don't agree with isn't necessarily something that would tarnish her professionally. For example, if a planner recommends against approval of a development application but it gets approved anyway, their responsibility is to go ahead and implement the approval. It's the way the profession is designed to operate and it happens all the time. Of course, if the approval authority's decisions are completely out of step with the planner's views, quitting is always an option but it's not expected. Where planners get into trouble is when they get pressured into recommending something that goes against their professional opinion, but that doesn't look like it's the case here.
 
implementing a decision that she don't agree with isn't necessarily something that would tarnish her professionally.
That might make for a good soldier, it doesn't make for a person with a higher calling. She's aware of the conundrum, she discusses it herself in interviews, and it becomes clear in the TorStar Pagliaro article I linked. She felt she could push change within her constraints, all the while being 'good soldier' in the press. She failed. She freely admits that. Should she have resigned sooner? There is no logical answer, there rarely is, for the reasons you illustrate.

She did have the sense to call it quits eventually. It remains to be known whether something other than just time snapped her patience. I suspect there is.
 
Last edited:
Where planners get into trouble is when they get pressured into recommending something that goes against their professional opinion, but that doesn't look like it's the case here.

“Based on the criteria that we have for great city building, looking at economic development, supporting healthy neighbourhoods, affordability, choice in the system, the LRT option, in fact, is more desirable.

- Jennifer Keesmaat, in 2013


And as it also turns out,

"Municipal staff were being directed by the mayor’s office on how they could respond to councillors’ questions about the subway, specifically that they should call it an “express subway” because it made the plan sound better."

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...radicts-public-statements-on-subway-memo.html
 
^ It really underlines the necessity of both transit and planning *not* being at the whim of the Mayor and Council. Toronto would have been a far better city generations ago if both of those civic functions were not political footballs.

Good digging Salsa. In poring over interviews with Keesmaat yesterday, I tripped across a number of other planners of note, many of them supporting the STC one stop subway. But what's been lost is that it was, as Keesmaat made clear in her arguments at the time, *contingent* on the LRT also being built.

That's been lost in many discussions on Keesmaat's support for the subway. She gladly makes clear in interviews that it was (gist) "The best compromise under the circumstances".

There's not one of those known planners (many in Uni and College positions) who now support the STC w/o the LRT.
 
She will likely do as Byford did. State that a $3.4B one stop SSE is a good idea, but if the cost goes up to $3.6B, then its a terrible idea and should be revisited.

I view their job to interpret the political demands, convert it into something sensible and find solutions that meet the intent of the goals of the politicians. She instead just literally followed the two political options that were presented.
 
Thats what got us the Spadina Expressway.

Politics is what stopped it.
What does "that's" refer to? Politics, arm length's planning not being at the whim of the Mayor and Council?

Ultimately it was pressure from the Premier (Davis) to stop it.
[...]
Metro Council was forced to return to the planning board to revise the 1966 transportation plan, which would eventually eliminate the idea of expressways in the city’s core.

“Citizens rose up and said you can’t have a conversation about the future of Toronto, if we aren’t at the table,” said Vaughan.[...]
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-the-beginning-of-the-highway-to-nowhere.html

Here's the nub of the problem:
How politics, not evidence, drives transit planning in Toronto

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...dence-drives-transit-planning-in-toronto.html



Political interference, misleading analysis and a lack of transparency have characterized contentious transit plans for decades.
 
Last edited:
What does "that's" refer to? Politics, arm length's planning not being at the whim of the Mayor and Council?
Planners universally thought the Spadina Expressway was an excellent idea.

The pressure Premier Davis received from the people to cancel it was received as the NIMBYists of the day, getting in the way of progress.
 
Planners universally thought the Spadina Expressway was an excellent idea.

The pressure Premier Davis received from the people to cancel it was received as the NIMBYists of the day, getting in the way of progress.
Not from my memory of it and that of critical retrospects:
Modernism at a Crossroad: The Spadina Expressway Controversy in Toronto, Ontario ca. 1960–1971
Abstract
The Spadina Expressway controversy in Toronto, Ontario, was sparked by a proposal to run an expressway into the heart of the city. The dispute was part of a broader movement against high modernist planning that swept American and Canadian cities in the 1960s and 1970s. Frustrated by unresponsive politicians and civic officials, citizen activists challenged authorities with an alternate vision for cities that prioritized the safeguarding of the urban environment by preserving communities, preventing environmental degradation, and promoting public transit. By the latter half of the 1960s, citizen activists were no longer fighting alone, as some politicians and civil servants also turned against more traditional modes of city planning. This politicization of urban planning and transportation schemes culminated in the defeat of expressway networks in cities across Canada and the United States, including the Spadina Expressway in 1971. A landmark decision and important precursor to the municipal reform movement that would follow, the legacy of the Spadina episode was nevertheless mixed.
The Canadian Historical Review

http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/chr.92.2.295?journalCode=chr

"Planners universally thought the Spadina Expressway was an excellent idea.". Based on what reference?
 
I recall a newspaper article from the 1960s in which an American planner urged Toronto not to build expressways through the city. He wrote that the American experience was that they didn't actually relieve congestion but made it worse.
 
I recall a newspaper article from the 1960s in which an American planner urged Toronto not to build expressways through the city. He wrote that the American experience was that they didn't actually relieve congestion but made it worse.
It's a good point of discussion, as it does directly affect Keesmaat's record, as she *brought* that thinking to Toronto Planning, that was why she was brought in. Her prior experience was steeped in post-modernism.

As to when the awareness on a general level came to bear in the US is also a good question. I think you're right, I see indications of the early 60s being a turning point on the issue in California especially, San Francisco immediately coming to mind. But one of the best examples is NYCity, and even though they had some nasty accidents with carcentricity, they remain one of the best beacons in North Am for a *non-auto is king* basis:
In 1961, Bennett Cerf, one of the founders of the publishing firm Random House, sent a copy of a new book by Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of American Cities, to the legendary city planner Robert Moses. Moses’s reply was curt:

Dear Bennett,

I am returning the book you sent me. Aside from the fact that it is intemperate and inaccurate, it is also libelous. I call your attention, for example, to page 131. Sell this junk to someone else.

Cordially, Robert Moses


This was no ordinary demurral over a book’s merits. It was a salvo in a struggle between a man who had amassed vast bureaucratic powers and remade New York with expressways, parks and housing towers, and the woman who assembled neighbours and public opinion to stop him when he set his sights on the evisceration of a swath of lower Manhattan.

Moses was an avatar of the early 20th-century vision that the only salvation of cities was the large-scale destruction of their existing features, and Jacobs an exemplar of another, which maintained that the future of cities rested on preserving exactly those qualities. Jacobs’ book was the most powerful retort to Moses’s mode of thinking, and her actions a resounding retort to his mode of operating.
[...]
Jacobs eventually determined to leave New York. Her architect husband had obtained a commission in Toronto, and she was eager to take her sons beyond the risk of the draft for Vietnam. She left in 1968 – not in defeat, however, but in victory. The expressway project had lost all steam, and Mayor Lindsay declared it scrapped the following summer.

Moses received his final comeuppance in the same year, undone by the internal manoeuvrings in government that had so elevated him, as Governor Nelson Rockefeller engineered the dissolution of his most lasting fiefdom, the Triborough Bridge Authority. While Jacobs went on to enjoy a distinguished career as author and urbanist, Moses descended into increasing obloquy. He died in 1981, Jacobs in 2006 – one largely reviled, the other venerated.

“And sure enough,” wrote Tom Wolfe in 2007, “over the past 40 years, the rebirth of Lower Manhattan from Chelsea to Tribeca, of northern Brooklyn, of Astoria and Long Island City in Queens, has taken place without razing a single building in the name of ‘urban renewal’, or shooing away a single citizen through ‘eminent domain’.”

Jacobs – one of those common citizens, denigrated at the time as merely a “housewife” – has, perhaps more than any other, offered inspiration to those informed that plans drawn up in the corridors of power will require them to move elsewhere. Simply say “no”.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/28/story-cities-32-new-york-jane-jacobs-robert-moses

I'm sure Keesmaat has attended many lectures on Jacobs, and given her own share.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top