Learning from Ad Hoc Mixed-Use Partnerships in Toronto

When governments privatize public services, they compete for urban land with market actors. Creative mixed-use (CMU) development blending nonprofit and for-profit uses enables cross-sectoral partnerships, allocating development value to public service providers. This allows nonprofits and public agencies to become valuable partners in urban development.

In "Finding Mutual Benefit in Urban Development" (Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 90, No. 1), Yinnon Geva and Matti Siemiatycki trace the emergence of the creative mixed-use approach in Toronto over two decades.

Drawing on the theory of collaborative advantage and mixed-use design scholarship, the authors conducted a qualitative analysis of 54 CMU projects in Toronto. They examined the motivations for partnership, the physical design of use mixing, the strategic pooling of resources, excluded stakeholders, and the limitations of the approach in providing public services.

Key Takeaways for CMU Practitioners

All sectors share the need for land and development opportunities. However, partners bring distinct toolsets and goals to the table when engaging in CMU, which relies on finite urban land and faces competition with market actors. Public agencies may contribute land, policy expertise, and access to public funding. Nonprofit organizations can bring their experience in public services and amenities delivery. Developers often offer development expertise, access to capital, and market knowledge.

This development type is dubbed 'creative' because it does not follow a prescribed development or design formula. Ad hoc partnerships between public and private stakeholders shape unique designs and governance of the project. This development style is underpinned by Toronto's relatively strong metropolitan framework that encourages intensification and use of mixing in specific central areas.

The authors offer key takeaways for practitioners of CMU, including:

• Collaboration is not serendipitous; it requires local shifts and champions.
• Spatial separation, when intentionally designed to meet all partners' needs, can allow for the provision of public services not prioritized by the market.

• CMU development is not an excuse to privatize or starve public services.

Figure 1: CMU development in Toronto, by main public or nonprofit use. Note: Education includes both schools and universities; social, health, and community includes daycare, homeless services, and sports facilities. Source: Authors.

Insights from Planned Community Developers

Organizations' motivations to partner extend beyond resource-sharing. Geva and Siemiatycki document a shift in CMU partnership motivations from overcoming obstacles to meeting organizational goals. The authors classify partnerships as reactive or strategic. Reactive partnerships seek nonprofit stakeholders to meet planning requirements or community resistance, while strategic partnerships involve private developers seeking nonprofits for marketing or social impact goals.

For instance, a planned community developer offering space to the Museum of Contemporary Art enhanced the development's image and attracted market-rate tenants. The authors' interviews reveal how strategic partnerships empower nonprofits in urban development, allowing developers to access subsidies and finance tools to offset costs and highlight the profitability of social uses.

The authors' interviews make clear the nuances of stakeholder motivation. The shift toward strategic partnerships allowed nonprofit actors to re-evaluate their position in urban development and claim power in CMU projects. Through partnership, private developers can pool public subsidies and financial tools that offset the costs of providing space to public services. One developer indicated that CMUs made clear how social uses can drive profitability if considered at the outset.

Elected officials facilitated CMU development in Toronto by matchmaking nonprofits and developers or coercing partnerships. Champions of CMU, both within government and externally, play a crucial role in forging partnerships and broadening institutional willingness to engage.

Challenges in CMU Development

The authors highlight the limitations of CMU development, including how partnerships often favor certain organizations and use, excluding those lacking development capacities or networks. Nonprofit fundraising poses a major barrier, as space is just one of many costs. Additionally, there's a hierarchy of public services, with arts facilities favored over homeless services. Market-based partnerships also create power imbalances, with some agreements sacrificing permanent benefits for limited-term leases, potentially leading to rent hikes for nonprofits.

Geva and Siemiatycki extract essential insights for cities aiming to promote public and nonprofit uses through a development-led land market. Toronto's planning institutions laid crucial groundwork for spontaneous partnerships to emerge, fostering a diverse expansion of CMU development.

Top image: iStock / Getty Images Plus - Arash Moallemi