Sidewalk Labs just released its draft Master Innovation and Development Plan ("MIDP") for Toronto's eastern waterfront. It's called Toronto Tomorrow: A New Approach for Inclusive Growth, and it's massive. Over 1,500 pages. It consists of an overview and 3 volumes, all of which can be downloaded here.

At a high-level, the objectives of the plan are twofold. They want to revitalize the eastern waterfront (it's currently appalling) and they want to test new urban ideas that could benefit the broader city, as well as the rest of the world. Deploying new technologies at a larger scale is one of the ways the company intends to make money.

I am still working my way through the plan (I may never finish), but here's a breakdown of the development program for the Quayside precinct:

If you're looking for a quick overview of the plan, here are five things to know about the Sidewalk Toronto project and here is an overview of the public-private partnership that they are proposing. Of course, there's also no shortage of criticism on Sidewalk's plans for the waterfront. Some links here, here, and here (paywall).

Sidewalk Labs is trying to assuage public concerns through some of its open commitments. They have said that they will not seek special tax subsidies, control urban data, sell personal info and/or use it for ads, or develop the entire eastern waterfront themselves. But the plan remains highly controversial.

I think part of the issue is that, because so much of what they are proposing hasn't been done before, there are a lot of unanswered questions and a great deal of uncertainty around the future. Many are interpreting this as the company hiding its true intentions. Maybe it is. Or maybe it isn't.

But let's not forget what Waterfront Toronto requested back in 2017 for these lands. It wanted an innovation and funding partner:

Waterfront Toronto is seeking a unique partner, one with invention ingrained in its culture, which can transform conventional business practices and help to establish a benchmark climate positive approach that will lead the world in city building practices.

There's no question that what Sidewalk Toronto has put forward is bold. As I scanned through the plans today, I found myself hard pressed to think of any "conventional" developer that would be willing to come forward with a proposal as ambitious as this one.

As you all know, Sidewalk Labs' parent company is called Alphabet. But I think it's worth mentioning that "alpha" is a finance term that refers to the excess return of a strategy beyond that of a benchmark index. Put differently: How much better are you than the status quo?

The whole point of Alphabet is that they're supposed to make "alpha bets" on ambitious projects. They are given the "resources, freedom, and focus" to try new things. Sometimes those projects will fail. But in other cases they will succeed in moving the world forward.

Every city today is trying to grow a thriving technology ecosystem. We want to be innovative. We want to transform conventional businesses practices. And we want to lead the world. Unfortunately, that rise to the top is almost never a smooth and linear one. There will be mistakes along the way.

How badly do we want to lead?

Last week I went for a tour of Sidewalk Labs' "307" workshop here in Toronto. In it they have a generative urban design tool that allows you to toggle things like density, building shape, building height, the amount of green space, the distribution of green space, and so on.

Perhaps some of you have seen it or used it before. The controls look like this:

After you're done playing around with the dials, you are then able to provide feedback on the design that you've birthed through two very simple feedback buttons. One is a happy face. And the other is a sad face. (I wonder if the placement of these two buttons has any impact on responses.)

What I like about this tool is that it immediately imposes a certain degree of reality and it forces you, the participant, to acknowledge the various trade-offs that need to be considered when you're designing and planning a city.

For example, if you want lots of parks and public spaces, but you want to hold population density constant -- perhaps because you're trying to make use of an investment made in transit infrastructure -- well then you'll need to accept taller buildings.

A very similar thought process goes into each and every development pro forma as we all try and manage the myriad of competing interests. But I guess this is also true of life in general. There are gives and there are takes.

San Francisco recently became the first city in the US to ban the use of facial recognition software by city agencies. (There's a second vote next week, but it is considered just a formality.) A similar ban is also making its way through the system in Boston.

I thought the following quote by Aaron Peskin in the New York Times was an interesting one, because it speaks to some of the growing tensions between tech, policy, and city building:

“I think part of San Francisco being the real and perceived headquarters for all things tech also comes with a responsibility for its local legislators,” Mr. Peskin said. “We have an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology precisely because they are headquartered here.”

I can appreciate both sides of this argument.

For those concerned about crime and safety, facial recognition promises more effective policing. That's why this technology is already used at many airports, including SFO. (Because it's under federal jurisdiction, it won't be impacted by this ban.)

At the same time, there are legitimate concerns related to the large-scale collection of personally identifiable data. And it is this same concern that is fueling the debates here in Toronto around what Sidewalk Labs is up to along the waterfront.

I am not an expert on this particular topic (or many topics for that matter). But if you're a regular reader of this blog, you will know that I believe in innovation and I believe in progress.

However, I also believe that it is important and healthy for us to be having these debates. Because what I do know is that I wouldn't want Toronto to become Shenzhen. I wouldn't want to jaywalk across the street and have facial recognition software automatically send a ticket to my phone and post my photo to a "wall of shame."

That doesn't sound like a very fun city.

Photo by Chris Leipelt on Unsplash