The rezoning of the George Brown College site became an issue in late 1992 when it was announced that the College was closing its Kensington campus by 1995. Having received $13 million from the Province to expand two of its four campuses in Toronto, George Brown College let it be known that when the rebuilding at the Casa Loma and St. James campuses was complete, the Kensington campus would be closed and the property sold (Toronto Star, 1992).

According to the secondary plan for Kensington, upon the closing of the College, a planning study was required before the George Brown site could be rezoned from its existing Institutional Use. The Plan states:

Given their history with the Kensington community, and in this context of balancing the needs of Kensington’s residential and commercial interests, planners approached the redevelopment of the George Brown College site with a degree of caution. Although the City was required to undertake a study prior to rezoning the site, when the College officially closed, the planning department decided to wait until an actual proposal was made before attempting to meet this requirement. Aware of the community’s strong interest in the site and the uncertainty over who would own the property in the future, City planners took on a passive, yet interested role. As it turned out, the search for a new owner of the George Brown College site was not straightforward, and it was four years after the College had announced its intentions to close before an application for rezoning was filed with the Planning Department.

When the campus officially closed in March 1995, the site became a widespread community issue. As the feature of a special issue of the local newspaper the "Drum", residents were alerted to the closure with the bold front-page headline "George Brown Gone: Now What?" (Drum, 1995). Describing the site as the largest land parcel in Kensington Market, the paper went on to outline what was known to date about who owned the land and by what process it would be sold.

From the community’s perspective, this was a tremendously important local issue for a variety of reasons. Given the size of Kensington, the scale of the land that was about to become available with the closure was significant. Early rumours in the community suggested the site could become everything from an indoor shopping mall, to residential housing, to a parking lot. The location of the College was important given that it was in such close proximity to the Market, and there was concern over the impact of future uses for the site from the local business interests. As well, the closure of George Brown meant a loss of potential customers: the College had a large student population who had used the Market’s shops and restaurants. The fact that such a locally significant parcel of land was becoming available for redevelopment was also a concern for Kensington residents. Many were concerned about retaining the community’s residential character (resident A-K, 1996), and were anxious both about the future use of the site as well as the safety of the site if it remained empty for a long period of time.

While there were many concerns about the closure, the Kensington community also saw the potential for redevelopment on the site as a real opportunity. As one interested party explained,

While much of land use planning can be characterized as technical and regulatory, some planning issues are unmistakably about politics. Active, vocal residents and business people in Kensington have developed relationships with local planners and politicians, although not along clearly organized channels. Kensington is a community where collective action is possible when necessary; yet ultimately the workings of this diverse community are characteristically anarchical. For example, despite its compact size, the community has multiple business and resident associations claiming to represent Kensington’s interests, as well as some charismatic individuals who hold local influence. As the planner assigned to Kensington explained, this is a community where "you need to listen, accept other ways of living... you need openness, lots of [telephone] calls, and patience" (planner A-K, 1996a).

The closure of George Brown College became an issue that inspired collective action. Although some community members were aware of the impending closure earlier, the first gathering of local interests took place in late 1993 when the local MPP Rosario Marchese (and Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier) called a community meeting. He recognized the College closure would affect a large and important piece of land in the community, and invited people to come and discuss it. A small group of people came to this first meeting, many of whom would later become the core of community planning efforts concerned with the future of the George Brown College site (resident C-K, 1997). Believing the property could be used as a tool of community revitalization, Marchese wanted to ensure the community was not shut out of the process (Kensington Market Working Group, 1997). Subsequent meetings facilitated by MPP Marchese were held over the next year, and attendance grew. What emerged out of this process was the creation of a new community association: the Kensington Market Working Group.

The Kensington Market Working Group aimed to be a representative voice for the community at large over the George Brown College issue, although this was soon expanded to include other issues of local interest such as parking, garbage, and neighbourhood safety. The Working Group was made up of active community members, some of whom were professionals who brought with them skills of law, architecture, business, and politics. Although involving a mixed group of people and interests, as one member admitted that newer ethnic groups present in the community (such as Asian or African) were, and continue to be, deeply under-represented in the Working Group (resident A-K, 1996). The Working Group was designed as a formal voice for the community, with a board of directors and sub-committees to tackle specific issues. One of the first committees to be formed was the George Brown Steering Committee -- involving a group of dedicated individuals who had experience or interests that could lobby for /the community’s position on the future of the George Brown College site.

Perhaps the greatest success of the Working Group has been the creation of a venue where residential and commercial interests could come together. Incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1995, the Working Group built bridges with politicians and other community associations in a concentrated effort to be a truly representative body for the community. This was unusual for Kensington. Unlike other residential communities where there might be one residents’ or ratepayers’ association, or other commercial areas where merchants have joined together with a Business Improvement Area or a registered Business Association, Kensington has had a much more erratic and free-flowing association of interests. Multiple resident and business groups do exist, but the degree to which any particular group represents all relevant interests or communicates with those interests is questionable. From the beginning, the Working Group aimed to be different from existing community associations in Kensington. As one Working Group member explained, "The group speaks in terms of ‘we the community’... this is in contrast to the business associations where they still speak more from their individual experience; ‘my store’" (resident C-K, 1997).

It is within this environment that the Kensington Market Working Group set out to generate a community-wide consensus over what should be done with the George Brown College site. The Working Group members were convinced of the need to develop such a consensus despite tendencies in the community towards more interest-based coalitions and a practice of somewhat unconventional organization. To encourage wide community participation, hundreds of flyers were delivered in the community, with translations provided by the City of Toronto as well as a local community organization, St. Stephen’s House. Articles in the local newspaper such as the special issue on the campus closure (Drum, 1995) were also helpful in increasing local awareness. At community meetings, interpretive services were made available in Chinese, Spanish and Portuguese. Even with these inclusive efforts, participation by the wide range of ethnocultural groups living and working within Kensington remained low. "They still come to the community meetings," one person active in the community explained, "...but none of them are involved in the steering group. That could be seen as an under-representation in the process. Language seems to be a major factor" (interested party B-K, 1997).

In February 1995, the Working Group sponsored an "Ideas Meeting" as a first step in the community planning process over the future of the College site. A professional facilitator was hired and the eighty people that attended developed an impressive list of possible uses for the site through brainstorming -- parking, housing, park space, retail, education, arts, "green" initiatives, and community services, among other ideas (Kensington Market Working Group, 1995a). Motivated by a Working Group member who had experience with community participation processes, a grassroots consultative approach was employed at the meeting. As one of the organizers in attendance described it:

As those in attendance moved from brainstorming to critically analyzing each idea for its practicality, a community consensus over what should be done with the George Brown College site evolved. The Working Group was left with a general schematic plan of what could be done, and more importantly a list of development principles for the site that transcended architecture (interested party A-K, 1997). These principles represented what the community wanted to retain and foster in their neighbourhood, and included: the need to make any future development financially stable; a rejection of mega-developments; a concern over protecting the vitality of the commercial activity in the market; a concern over the impact of future development for the residential community; and a preference for renovation and redevelopment over demolition and new development on the site.

The Working Group used the February 1995 meeting as a springboard for developing a community-based option for the site. Two additional community-wide meetings were held to take the community’s ideas and translate them into action. As one active Working Group member explained, they saw this community planning process as a real opportunity. "Usually the public is in a reactive position when it comes to zoning changes... this time the community could get ahead of the ball" (resident A-K, 1996). Aiming to carry the weight of community consensus behind it, the Working Group set out to be a player in the political maneuvering over what would eventually happen to the property.

At a formal level, the City of Toronto was mandated by the Kensington neighbourhood Official Plan to be a key player throughout the redevelopment process of the site. Although required to do a planning study prior to rezoning the College site, the planning department decided to wait until a proposal was made by a developer.

The search for a new owner of the George Brown College site was complicated. The province of Ontario had bought the property in the 1950s, and transferred ownership to the Board of Governors for George Brown College in 1970. The Ministry of Education had reserved an option at this time to regain ownership of the land for seven dollars in the event that the College did not have any further use for it. When the College first announced its intention to close the Kensington campus, the matter was immediately referred to the Province’s Management Board Secretariat.

While seven dollars might sound like a bargain for 200,000 sq. ft. in a downtown Toronto neighbourhood, from the beginning the property was generally treated by everyone except the community as a liability no one wanted to be stuck with. Every potential use for the site was expected to involve substantial and costly renovations, estimated at $10 -20 million depending on the intended use (Drum, 1995). Although the buildings were structurally sound, they were not insulated, and had outdated heating, plumbing and electrical systems. Straight demolition of the buildings to use the property as a parking lot was expected to cost $1 million.

With a cost of one-half a million dollars to do nothing but safely keep the buildings empty, the Province did not jump at the chance to exercise its seven dollar option. The Province did, however, commission a study to look at four specific scenarios for the property: continuing use for educational and/or commercial purposes; residential development; residential / commercial mixed use; and complete redevelopment of the site (demolition). The study described the zoning changes each scenario would require, and concluded that using the main floor of the buildings for commercial use and the rest for non-profit housing was the preferred option, allowing for the highest and best use for the Province (Ian Morrison and Associates, 1993). The Management Board Secretariat was reluctant to engage in such a project, choosing instead to delay its final decision about the seven dollar option until the campus finally closed.

The Kensington Market Working Group, by contrast, had always been very interested in the property. Following the community planning process they had initiated, and using volunteer labour from those who lived, worked and were concerned about the future of Kensington, the Working Group managed to put together a rather detailed proposal of their own (Kensington Market Working Group, 1995b). Envisioning a participatory community planning and design process, they prepared the proposal with a non-profit organization, Toronto Artscape Inc., as the developer. Requiring the three existing buildings to be converted from an Institutional Use to a Mixed Use designation, the Working Group’s proposal involved the construction of a combination of artist live/work studios, housing, a cultural incubator, some parking, and grade-level retail facing Baldwin Street. While in many respects the proposal articulated a vision for the site’s future use, it also included a remarkable amount of specificity. Costs and financing were outlined; schematic plans and a timeline for implementation were included. The key assumption of the proposal, however, was that the Province would transfer its ownership (through the seven dollar option) to the non-profit Toronto Artscape. The problem, as they soon discovered, was that the transfer of ownership could only go to another government, and not to a non-profit organization. At this point the Working Group went to the City of Toronto.

The housing department at the City of Toronto was generally enthusiastic about the potential for an affordable housing project on the site, seeing it as a means to meet needs for family housing within Kensington and adjacent neighbourhoods. The housing department’s interests peaked as provincial funding sources for such projects were cut soon after the Conservative government took power in June 1995. The Kensington Market Working Group’s proposal also had support from the local City Councillor, Dan Leckie, who was concerned about the Market’s decline. Many with an interest in Kensington feared pressures from the recession and the increasing number of empty storefronts put the neighbourhood at risk -- the closure of George Brown College could become symbolic of a dying community.

The Toronto City Council’s Executive Committee proved to be the real stumbling block for the Working Group’s community proposal. Headed by Tom Jacobek, a conservative Councillor well known for his cost-cutting stance, the Executive Committee was worried about the potential for the City to be stuck with a property that would be expensive to renovate and maintain. At the same time, though, the possibility for the City to get centrally located real estate for just seven dollars was indeed attractive. As the committee reported to Council:

The Executive Committee recommended that the City commission additional feasibility and environmental studies of the property. The Province agreed to extend the deadline on the transfer option until July 31, 1995 to allow the City’s studies to be done, arranging to pay for the upkeep costs of the property in the interim. If the City agreed, the actual transfer would take place on September 30 of that year (City of Toronto Executive Committee, 1995a: 59).

In an irony of bureaucratic red tape, the completion of these studies took longer than the deadline extension allowed for and eventually cost the City its chance to own the land. As time ran out, the City of Toronto sent a letter to the Province saying it would exercise the option pending the completion of what they expected to be favourable studies, but it was too late. The new provincial government, perhaps believing the process had dragged on long enough and unwilling to pay anything further for the site, did not grant another extension. The Management Board Secretariat officially allowed the transfer option to expire. Only two days later the City’s studies came in recommending the City of Toronto buy the property, a fact that is somewhat bitterly remembered by those involved (resident A-K, 1996).

Careful not to put too much stake in governments that seemed unwilling to act quickly and take over the property, the Working Group had also been negotiating with George Brown College itself during this period. The Working Group was proposing the College retain title to the land until the community moved through what was expected to be a lengthy rezoning process. Under this proposal, the community would not be responsible for financing until they could start construction, but it was argued the College would also benefit because the proposal involved community cultural groups renting space to cover general upkeep costs. The Working Group gave an opening offer of $700,000 for the land itself, with an on-going rental stream of $100,000 per year (interested party A-K, 1997). From the Working Group’s perspective, this deal was very fair -- their own feasibility studies had shown that the property was only worth $1 million, and the yearly payment could have paid for something like a Chair of Urban Planning for the College (resident A-K, 1996). The College disagreed. They were obviously interested in obtaining as much revenue for the property as possible, and believed market value would yield much more. As well, according to Working Group members, the College was not interested in maintaining any sort of permanent role on the site. George Brown College rejected the community’s offer, and put the property up for sale.

At this point, the Kensington Market Working Group decided to invest their energies in educating potential buyers about the community’s interests for the site rather than attempt another proposal. The Kensington community had developed a consensus over what they did and didn’t want for the site -- the majority of the site for residential use, retail on Baldwin Street to reconnect the market with Spadina Avenue and Chinatown, parking to accommodate these uses, and the potential for community space. The Working Group wanted any future developer to work within this framework. The efforts of the Working Group paid off. Of the three bids seriously considered by the College, all were from developers who had agreed to support the community’s proposal (resident A-K, 1996). Worth noting, however, is that despite the College’s belief that the buildings were worth considerably more (some suggest they expected $5 million), interested developers did not offer much more than the community itself had (interested party A-K, 1997).

By the end of October 1996, it became known that George Brown College had found a buyer (planner A-K, 1996b). The first impressions within the Kensington community were positive: the buyer the College had chosen was also one the Working Group supported, feeling comfortable with their commitment to work with the community if they secured the favourable bid for the site. Closing the deal, however, proved to be difficult. Amidst a climate of speculation and hearsay within the community, the announcement of the sale was delayed into November, and then again into the new year.

It was at this point that a second developer entered the scene. Having heard about the delay in closing the George Brown College deal, they approached the College directly and discovered the buyer had put down a deposit, but was having financial problems in closing the deal (developer interest A-K, 1997). An architect involved with this new developer had been interested in the site at the original sale, and suggested they team up and effectively assume the buyer’s offer. As a result:

Having secured the deal, the new developer quickly went to work drawing up plans for the site. Eager to have their application for development and zoning changes approved before the City of Toronto was dissolved into the "mega-city", they met with the Kensington community and announced their plans to turn the site into primarily affordable residential loft condominiums, with some grade-level retail space on Baldwin Street. Parking for these residential units was incorporated into the site, and most of the structure of the three College buildings was to be retained. The developers also established an aggressive timeline that had building starting January 1998 and the property occupied by the following summer.

The community was generally supportive of the plans. It seemed the developer respected the community’s vision for the site and was willing to risk a sizable amount of money on a redevelopment project that would both protect the community’s character as a residential neighbourhood, as well as infuse the Market with new customers for its shops and restaurants. While the developer did not use the Kensington Market Working Group’s proposal, they did agree to the development principles it included and the basic elements of the community proposal were incorporated into the developer’s plans (interested party A-K, 1997). The developer also hired the two architects who had been working on the community proposal, thereby capitalizing on their knowledge of the site, and sustaining a continuity with the community consensus that had been achieved.

As was explained in Chapter Two, the case studies in this research were evaluated on four grounds: (1) participation in public decision-making; (2) democratic equality; (3) social structures and associations; and (4) solidarity and tolerance. Each of these criterion will be evaluated below in the context of the Kensington case.

In Kensington, it was the local MPP who initiated a collective community reaction when it was first known that George Brown College campus would be closing. Although the relationship between citizens and government officials had not always been this harmonious, in this case it was undoubtedly an important ingredient (business interest B-K, 1997). In contrast to the politicians who were instigating community action, the planning department took on a more responsive role. In fact, this role allowed for a substantial informal planning process to begin under the guidance of the Working Group long before the formal planning process was engaged with the submission of a zoning change to the City by the successful developer. Looking back on the success of the outcome, this was applauded by some:

Although reluctant to direct the process, the planning department, and specifically the local planner, was described as being competent, knowledgeable, and aware of both what the community wanted, and what was appropriate (developer interest A-K, 1997; interested party A-K, 1997).

As was described earlier in this chapter, community participation in this case was organic and proactive. Moreover, in a community with a history of collective action, the reaction to George Brown College’s closure was not uncharacteristic. Although not the first government project to capture local attention, the redevelopment of the College site was seen as a large structural change that could potentially have a tremendous local impact. This sparked a proactive reaction on the part of individuals within the community, who chose to see the College’s closure as an opportunity for the neighbourhood. They were eager to have their concerns taken seriously and did not want any one of the community’s diverse interests to detract from what was best for the community as a whole (resident A-K, 1996).

The Working Group represented the core of public participation. Working Group members were individuals with the time and ability to get involved in local issues and those who had a strong interest in the changes occurring in their community. Some described these people as "middle-aged, middle-class professionals" (business interest A-K, 1997). Others saw the participation of this association as covertly political, supporting the agenda of an active City Councillor (resident B-K, 1997). Older Kensington residents, however, acknowledged that the involvement of a small group of people is natural, reflecting almost a generational shift, as they remember times when they too were active in local planning issues in the community (business interest B-K, 1997). Regardless of the motivation of these key participants, it was the skills of those who took leadership roles and the sophistication of their involvement that was key to what became a non-adversarial process between planners, the developer and the community, and the creation of a final outcome that is supported by the majority of Kensington residents and business people today.

What gave this collection of community members legitimacy to speak for Kensington as a whole was that the Working Group employed grassroots consultation techniques to develop a community consensus over the future of the site outside the formal planning process, and then used this consensus as leverage among the other interested parties. As a result, this collective community approach was seen by outsiders as a unique but healthy example of local planning:

Despite best efforts, however complete community participation was unattainable. While encouraged by the large showing of community members at the first consensus-building meeting the Working Group held to develop a proposal for the George Brown College site, those involved in the planning process admitted that full participation was exceedingly hard to attain (resident A-K, 1996). As someone active in the community stated:

This sentiment was echoed by those with extensive experience in community planning processes:

According to some, limited participation was the result of the busy schedules of people, especially business people (resident C-K, 1997). Others suggested that interest in an issue was difficult to sustain over the long term, and so participation would predictably drop off as the process continued (business interest A-K, 1997). A lack of language and literacy skills was raised as an alternative reason for low participation rates by those who specifically questioned the low turn-out of proportionally smaller ethnocultural groups (who are also recent immigrants) (interested party B-K, 1997).

While some continued to see the Working Group’s activities as politically motivated and insincere (resident B-K, 1997), to their credit they did succeed in building bridges between the two major cleavages within the community, incorporating people who represented both local business and resident interests in decision-making. In a community with several business and residents’ associations, this was no small task and made the informal community planning process arguably more legitimate. As one who facilitated this process explained:

Moreover, through their extensive efforts at community consensus-building, the Working Group was able to keep the community informed about the planning process surrounding the College’s redevelopment, and even expand their mandate beyond this one planning issue to address other concerns raised by business people and residents. Again, the one glaring omission in terms of representation was that of recent immigrants belonging to proportionally smaller ethnocultural groups. Although they were evident in the larger community meetings, they did not appear to be represented in the leadership of the Working Group or any of its subcommittees (interested party B-K, 1997; developer interest A-K, 1997).

Participation in the Kensington case study was largely within an informal planning process, dominated by a handful of interested community members. In keeping with its "urban village" character, Kensington is a community where personalities matter a great deal. As a community service organization employee active in the Kensington area noted:

To those living in Kensington, these personalized relationships are crucial to how influence is exercised in local decision-making. Perhaps best described as coalition-building, support within the community for pursuing local changes within formal planning channels was centred around the personalities of influential individuals. As one long-time resident explained:

In addition to the influence of personalities in the community was the powerful role played by the Working Group. In fact, many of the charismatic leaders in the community were members of the Working Group, or its sub-committees. The influence of the Working Group was rooted in the varied community interests it incorporated. It was legitimized by the community consensus they worked at acquiring early and continued to carry with them throughout the process. This role was praised as key to how the College redevelopment was resolved with such wide support within the community (interested party A-K, 1997):

To date, many Working Group members are committed to cementing this influence in the community even though their raison d’ etre, the closure of the George Brown College, has come to a natural conclusion. Some Working Group members hope to replace the ad-hoc arrangement of influential individuals and sometimes inactive associations by entrenching the Working Group as the structure for local decision-making within Kensington:

This is not a new direction for the Working Group. Early in its life a board of directors was formed, regular meetings were held, and non-profit status was sought. This was done to separate the Working Group from other local associations that had a history of questionable representation and fractured local politics (resident A-K, 1996). Efforts to form a legitimate structure for community representation improved the Working Group’s ability to be considered a genuine player in the formal planning process and "politicking" that occurred beyond the local community.

The powerful role the Kensington community was able to have in the planning process was facilitated by the City planning department, local politicians, and a community service organization, yet it was achieved because local residents decided to take this power by opting for a strong, informed role early on. Because it was considered a serious local issue, the closure of the George Brown College generated a spontaneous, informal planning process.

Beyond the informal process, the ability of community members to develop a consensus over what was best for the redevelopment site (e.g. residential use) and, more importantly, what they collectively valued and wished to protect and enhance in Kensington as a whole proved to be a powerful tool. This clarity and consensus allowed the community to retain influence, through the Working Group, even as the planning process moved into a more formal vein. Once into that formal planning process, the developer had a great deal of power over what was to be proposed, and the municipality and planning department had power by way of their authority to approve any applications, and the mandated need to complete a study before rezoning of the site could occur. Because the Kensington community had opted for a pro-active role early on, however, its collective interests remained a strong influence even at this stage. As a spokesperson for the final developer explained:

The result was a formal planning process that lacked the acrimony and frustration that is sometimes felt by developers, planners and residents when they discover their interests diverge (developer interest A-K, 1997; interested party A-K, 1997).

Kensington’s ethnocultural diversity is not manifested in local ethnocultural associations. One possible reason for this is that in Toronto, ethnic groups have spread across various urban neighbourhoods as they have grown in size. For example, while the Portuguese were the dominant group in Kensington in the 1960s, the present Portuguese community of Toronto spreads across fifty city blocks and its cultural centre is located many blocks west of Kensington (Teixeira, 1995). The strength of ethnocultural associations within Kensington is also limited by the fact there are few ethnocultural groups large enough in the community to have a collective presence, and those that are large enough have divisions within them based on political ideology, class, or home country. While many residents may be part of ethnocultural associations outside of Kensington, within the community these associations do not form citizens’ central affiliation or identity. As one active community member explained:

In the case of George Brown College, the primary community differentiation was between residents and business people. This historical cleavage sprang from the unusual mixing of residential and commercial uses within such a densely populated area and is accentuated by the fact that most business people in the Market today do not live within the Kensington community (resident B-K, 1997). The division between residential and commercial interests dissolves into sub-groups as other factors such as ethnicity, culture, age, and length of time in the community are taken into account. For example, although there is formally only a single residents’ association there is an obvious split in the community between the interests of older and newer residents, which combines with differences in ethnicity and culture given Kensington’s layered pattern of immigration. This split is to some extent represented in the membership of the two community organizations -- the Kensington Residents’ Association and the Working Group.

The business community in Kensington is even more fractured. Unlike other downtown Toronto communities that have formed Business Improvement Areas to join local business interests, merchants in Kensington Market are much more disorganized. As the City of Toronto planner responsible for Kensington described, they are "...not clearly organized, but maybe they are in their own way. Is that the cause of, the nature of the community?... It doesn’t have to be organized if it works" (planner A-K, 1996a). This diversity of local business interests was best explained by those active in local community politics and decision-making:

Officially there are two separate business associations in the Market, although power-struggles and specific issues have at different times split even these two associations. Factors such as ethnicity, age, type of business and whether space is owned or rented outline stark differences in the membership between the two associations, and are a reflection of when each association was created. The oldest business association is the Kensington Market Businessmen’s [sic] Association -- an association that was formed in the early 1960s when primarily white, male, Jewish landowners joined together out of a common interest in property values (business interest A-K, 1997). This association and its active leadership have been credited with winning some important battles against the City for merchants within Kensington Market (resident A-K, 1996), although in more recent years has been severely criticized for not being representative of all the local business interests. Despite an election for the association in 1989, many were frustrated that no real power-sharing occurred or "new blood" was infused as a result. The association claimed to be an active body, but failed to present proof of this in the way of meeting minutes or bank records (resident C-K, 1997). Amidst these charges, new elections were held and a subsequent business association was created in 1995. Known as the Kensington Market Business Association, this new association includes a cross-section of ethnocultural groups (reflecting the diversity of shops in the Market today) and is dominated by younger merchants, many of whom rent their space.

Within this somewhat disorganized environment, the Kensington community functions in practice not through associations, but instead through the leadership of individuals who act as spokespersons for different interests. For some, including those who have been working hard to create formal structures of power and influence in the community, this is a point of constant frustration. As one person active in the new Business Association lamented, "Most people are not involved. Only through loose connections to groups via membership, but they don’t go to meetings. This is despite repeated opportunities to get involved" (business interest A-K, 1997). Perhaps as a result of this reluctance on the part of community members to actively participate in local associations, the Business Association appears to be suffering a similar fate as its rival and has struggled to hold onto its structure of regular meetings. It is amidst this environment that Kensington Market Working Group’s continued success as a collective, organized association is unusual, and is attributable to the personal commitment of its membership and the specific, time-bounded challenge it had to address. For others, however, the domination of influential people continues to be a natural and useful way to accomplish local goals (business interest B-K, 1997). Personal alliances with local leaders remain a more accurate reflection of Kensington’s social structure than formal association membership lists.

Given this complex maze of associations, alliances, and personal influence, Kensington is a community that could be interpreted as disorganized and somewhat dysfunctional as a collectivity. Yet this apparent disorganization is a historical element of continuity within Kensington. As a community where the multiplicity of smaller factions of interests has been the norm, continuity springs from the creation and re-creation of alliances and associations as issues within the community arise. During the research, both residents and business people alike were quick to give examples of other instances where community interests coalesced (and Kensington’s history of community activism supports this), invariably at times when the community felt threatened in some way. Despite the diversity of interests present in Kensington, there is a degree of continuity that some find comfort in. As one long-time resident commented: "If my parents came back to life they’d still recognize Kensington. Renovations have been done, but there is an atmosphere, an ambiance... it is a place where you can live, work, eat, go to school all in the same block" (resident B-K, 1997).

Kensington’s sense of community solidarity comes from the unique downtown urbanism (often described as an "urban village") that it offers as a place to live and work. Home to a population of immigrants and urban professionals, Kensington is a community that embodies a diversity that many find attractive. This "urbanism" is tangible:

Kensington residents also acknowledge, however, that it is a community where people "mind their own business", where people are independent and come together only when a particular issue moves them (resident B-K, 1997; business interest B-K, 1997). The solidarity that community members share in their urban identity was particularly evident in the planning example explored in this research. The closure of the George Brown College campus was just the sort of issue that could bring together independent interests. As was revealed in Chapter Four, the Kensington area has a long history of collective action at times when change appears to threaten the unique character of the community. Yet this periodic "coming together" of diverse interests should not be equated with a sense of community that runs beyond their common interest in preserving the place that embodies the urban identity they find attractive. As one active resident explained:

This sentiment was expressed by business people active in Kensington as well:

The historical pattern of immigration into Kensington also has a unifying effect on the community. In fact, diversity is so embedded in the community’s history that it is taken for granted, and tends to be interpreted as a source of strength, rather than a factor working against community solidarity. With one of its greatest constants being change, Kensington has become home to a new group of immigrants that continue to reinforce not only ethnocultural diversity, but also: "diversity from language, different needs, representation of issues, education, culture and laws, income levels, [and] responsibilities..." (resident C-K, 1997).

Others outside the community have noticed this strength. Kensington attracts many visitors and tourists who are eager to experience this "atmosphere and ambiance" that is created by the community’s density, mixed uses, and ethnocultural diversity. Kensington’s uniqueness has also proved to be a bargaining tool: according to some, when local needs and initiatives can be identified as supporting the multicultural character or the community’s diversity, the City of Toronto is keen to be supportive (business interest A-K, 1997). Interestingly, the community’s ethnocultural diversity has been touted as the best selling feature for the new condominiums the developers are building on the old George Brown College site (developer interest A-K, 1997).

Diversity, however, has also proved to be counter-productive to accomplishing what some would consider to be community goals. Viewed as a "selling feature" by the developers and something unique and worthy of protection by the City of Toronto, Kensington’s diversity is not as idealized by those who live and work there. Although valued as an important aspect of the community’s urban identity, residents and business people also recognize that the community is a collection of individual people, sometimes with very different perspectives, that come together often informally over specific issues. This is a source of frustration for some active members of the community who want to build a strong community solidarity -- reaching consensus within such a mixed group of interests and viewpoints is a challenge. Therefore, while they may see Kensington’s diversity as a positive, they also recognize it can be the community’s "worst enemy" (business interest A-K, 1997).

Tolerance is a significant aspect of community life in Kensington, given the high density of the neighbourhood and the multiple group associations that functioned within its borders. Some identified this tolerance by pointing to examples of the different languages and cultures that live and work side-by-side each other in Kensington (business interest B-K, 1997). Others, however, contradicted the notion of Kensington as a tolerant community by suggesting that what some saw as tolerance was really no more than an acceptance that no single group of people was large enough or powerful enough to exert its weight over others in the community. When asked if Kensington was a tolerant community, one resident even suggested it was the lack of a majority that made Kensington seem tolerant:

Ethnocultural diversity is not the only strain on tolerance in Kensington. In fact, for some it is the combination of residential and commercial uses in such a densely populated space that is the most amazing example of tolerance present in the community. As one person explained:

Alternatively, the coexistence of residential and commercial interests can be attributed to the practical requirements of their proximity rather than a common understanding, or a consciously shared sense of place:

With the George Brown College planning issue coming to a close, some members of the Kensington community had been working on other means of revitalizing the neighbourhood. A member of the Kensington Market Business Association prepared a detailed inventory of the revitalization needs of the community, and presented it to Councillor Dan Leckie (business interest A-K, 1997). This project was taken on by the City of Toronto planning department, which developed a draft Kensington Market Action Plan. Constructed with the help of a reference group of active community residents and merchants (some of whom were involved in the Working Group and local business associations), the planning department’s aim was to develop grassroots suggestions for the community’s revitalization needs and create a basis for the consensus needed to implement any future revitalization plan (planner A-K, 1996b). A public meeting on the Plan was held in March, 1997 and Council adopted the Action Plan in June of that year.

The Action Plan is a framework to revitalize the Kensington area, and focuses on the Market. Based on the recognition that the economic vitality of the Market had been sapped in recent years, the Plan suggested action in six particular areas: physical appearance; promotion of the Market; street marketing; store vacancies; traffic and parking; and recycling (City of Toronto Urban Development Services, 1997). The Action Plan was given a three year implementation timeline, and continues to require a joint effort by the City of Toronto, property owners and businesses in the Market.

In combination with the on-going redevelopment of the George Brown College site, these revitalization efforts from the Action Plan have infused the Kensington community with a new sense of excitement and change. Not everyone, of course, is happy with the direction of these changes. As one long time resident explained,

Although there have been planning efforts by the City to draw a reference group together to develop a revitalization agenda, there continue to be at least two competing Business Associations in the Market. As well, the Kensington Market Working Group is trying to entrench itself in the hopes of being a central voice for the community beyond their original mandate of the George Brown College’s redevelopment (Kensington Market Working Group, 1997; resident C-K, 1997). With the City promising to spend money in Kensington, and even talk of federal government infrastructure money becoming available in the future, these associations are at present not in conflict. Although they may not envision identical futures for the neighbourhood, the many groups and interests present in the community all want Kensington to succeed. There is also the question of who is representing the silent majority of immigrants living in the community. Although the diversity of the area is seen in the public meetings that have been held on the Action Plan, it is not as evident amongst the leaders of community associations.

As a politicized urban planning issue, the redevelopment of George Brown College spurred a unique and dynamic community planning process. Within this process, however, evidence of the social, economic, and political implications of land use decisions have emerged. These implications will be more fully addressed in Chapter Eight, where an analysis and comparison of the two case studies used in this dissertation is presented. In the next chapter, the focus is on the second case study in this research: the suburban community of Markham.

___________________________________________________________________________

Titlepages - chapter:   1 |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  - Appdxa - biblio