The Tale of a City: Re-engineering the Urban Environment

By Tony O'Donohue

There is a complex web of infrastructure behind the day-to-day operation of a Canadian city. Flick the switch and the light comes on; turn the tap and the water is there; flush the toilet and the sewage disappears. But what price are we paying for these services that make our lives easier?

In an age of blackouts, water problems, overflowing sewers, dangerously smoggy skies, and overburdened highways - problems that have led to an increasingly fragile environment with serious consequences for all Canadians - author Tony O’Donohue offers The Tale of a City, an essential primer in helping us to understand and improve our relationships with our engineered and natural environments.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dundurn
• Release date: May 1, 2005
• ISBN: 9781550029413

Tony O'Donohue

Tony O'Donohue's twin career paths as an engineer and a civic politician have given him an intimate understanding of the troubling issues confronting the urban environment. He has received the Citizenship Award from the Ontario Association of Professional Engineers for his "substantial contribution to humanity." He lives in Toronto.

Book preview

Toronto.

INTRODUCTION

A City Moving through Crisis

Cities, by their very nature, are confining and tightly packaged environments. In early modern times, the city was a walled community and the bastion of power in much of the world. Indeed, the city-state was the dominant structure throughout the Middle Ages. But as modern democracy took root, the elected legislatures of nation states, or the ultimate rulers of even broader territories — empires, commonwealths, federated states — began to take on the role of governing and protecting the city and its hinterland. It was a balancing act — finding the best structure to govern and administer a land where the population might share basic roots, but where competing interests vied for power, funds and services.

In the modern application of democracy, cities are the driving engines of the wealth of nations. But cities, on the road to universal suffrage, have ended up as very junior partners in sharing the enormous wealth generated in large urban areas. In consequence, the gradual siphoning of taxes, with little in return to urban centres, has led to the slow decay of cities. Gone are the days when the city-state dominated the political and business structure of a country. The new concept of democracy has pushed the city out of the decision-making role and boundaries of the country and its sovereignty.

It is hardly the decline and fall of ancient Rome, but Toronto’s world-class aspirations are at grave risk if protective measures are not taken. On an annual basis Toronto contributes more than $35 billion in taxes to the federal and provincial treasuries. Of that amount, about $20 billion is returned to the city in services. Over the years the senior governments, while increasing the tax take from the city, have gradually withdrawn funding for many major infrastructure capital projects. At one time, the federal government contributed two-thirds of the capital costs for sewage systems and the provincial government contributed up to 75 percent of the capital costs of rapid transit. These governments have now withdrawn from these programs.

Others may be better prepared to detail the case for a larger share of the tax pie from the senior governments. I have only touched on it. But I do not have to be an economist to realize that the active participation of the federal and provincial governments is a key component for the economic health of the city. Although municipalities, constitutionally, come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, the Ontario Legislature has all but abandoned the city’s needs in many of the servicing areas where Toronto alone cannot carry out its mandate of effective government within its own tight boundaries.

Take the example of waste disposal. As a civil engineer, with the early responsibility for the Keele Valley landfill site — before Metropolitan Toronto acquired it — I could feel the local opposition to Metropolitan Toronto using its power outside its political boundaries. When the site closed on December 31, 2002, the shortcomings of the political criteria had a crippling effect on the City of Toronto. I knew the long-term problem of waste would have to be addressed in a more comprehensive way and with the help of the province — which has not arrived. If it was not for the availability of a landfill site in Michigan (and the rules of NAFTA), Toronto would have been in dire straits.

Ontario has twice taken on the task of aiding Toronto with waste management and spent $253 million between 1985 and 1995 in developing detailed plans. But, with the election of the Conservative government, these plans were cancelled in 1996. Toronto was told to manage its own waste and to find a willing host. The Liberal government, after the defeat of the Conservatives in 2003, has chosen to follow the same path, with little attention or help for waste disposal in the province. Because of the cumulative neglect of the province, and the chaos at City Hall, Toronto taxpayers are now paying a minimum of $42 million per year to haul garbage to a landfill site in Michigan.

In this book, I have attempted to cover the major services that every city or community needs. They include electricity, energy, water supply, sewage treatment, transportation, waste disposal, recycling, environmental issues, etc. These are all part of the urban landscape and will always be essential wherever large numbers of people live and work. But the vast majority of people, perhaps as high as 99 percent, have no idea how these everyday services work and what they cost. Flick the switch and the light comes on; turn the tap and the water is there; flush the toilet and the sewage disappears; put out the garbage and it is picked up and hauled away. We have taken all these services for granted. We ask questions only when something goes wrong — and recently much has gone wrong. We have had a serious electricity blackout, garbage disposal chaos, water problems, overflowing sewers, sludge mess, filthy beaches, smoggy skies and traffic gridlock. Even our elected representatives know very little about the workings of those basic services or how to improve them. True, they are not very glamorous, but they are part of the package of costly ingredients which every city needs and which the taxpayers pay for.

Any city with a nuclear power plant on its doorstep has an additional cause for concern. The eight aging reactors of the Pickering nuclear power plant, begun in 1972, are like a festering sore on our eastern border. This plant will not improve with age. It will only get worse and will be a menacing problem for generations to come. As a city, it should be our number one priority. Although it is a provincial responsibility, we cannot duck this one: we do have a stake in it.

The lack of knowledge, the absence of any clear plan, the probing at a distance, the secrecy, the unknown magnitude of coping with unrecognized or unseen defects — these issues have challenged all those assigned to fix the reactors since they were closed for repairs in 1997. But then again, there is no manual on fixing reactors. Of the 400-odd reactors in operation now in the world, most are past middle age and showing signs of wear. They were supposed to have a maximum life span of about 40 years. Imagine the nightmare legacy we are leaving to our children as these first generation reactors sputter to the end of life and their final resting place in a yet-to-be-located nuclear graveyard!

Nuclear power, electricity, energy and environmental concerns are all part of this book. It is meant to provide a very basic primer for all who are interested in the workings of a community or a city. I hope it will help planners, politicians and all those interested in the way we live and use our resources. Catering to an increasingly fragile environment will require a lot of attention as more of us crowd the planet and strip it of its green mantle — all the time adding to the pollution of the thin band of atmosphere surrounding us.

In an attempt to chart the road ahead for the next and future generations, in the last chapter of this book I have focused on developing a standard education package for the youth of the world who will inherit a deeply wounded planet. Recognizing the mistakes of the past, and the corrections that must be made, will require a basic understanding of our fragile planet and how it can be nurtured back to health. This may take many years to achieve. But, through environmental education, it will attract people who can make a difference. And it will encourage many of them to run for public office.

As a professional engineer with nearly 50 years experience, I know at first hand how difficult the task is. And as a former Toronto city politician, with more than a quarter-century of service, I know how tough it is for an elected politician to make a difference in the turmoil of local politics.

I hope this book will be helpful in challenging all to improve our relationship with our engineered and our natural environments.

CHAPTER 1

The Re-engineering of a Modern City

The flight of rural people to cities and towns is not a new phenomenon. Human beings, naturally seeking close relationships, have always had a tendency to avoid living in isolation. It has been a mark of human existence since our ancestors evolved into homo sapiens a mere thousand generations ago. And indeed, there has been remarkable continuity across the centuries in the concept of the city, not only as a locus of power and wealth, but as a centre of culture and civilization. So, too, there is continuity in the notion that to be urban is to be urbane (both have their roots in the Latin urbs, or city). Big cities are seen to be chic and cool environments, places of glamour, a major draw for the Hollywood elite at events such as the Toronto Film Festival, held every September.

But great cities are also prone to calamity — as evidenced by the 9/11 terror that hit New York in the World Trade Center attacks; by strange diseases such as the SARS outbreak that rocked Toronto in the spring of 2003; or by the blackout that plunged 50 million people in parts of eastern Canada and the United States into medieval darkness at 4:11 p.m. on August 14, later that summer. Cities can also be devastated by plague, economic catastrophe, drought, storms, wars, fire and earthquakes. And they can be affected in more mundane ways by the corruption and mere incompetence of their city leaders.

The ancient world had many great cities — and some, like Athens and Rome, continue to flourish. Others, like Carthage and Babylon, lie in ruins or under mounds of sand. By the beginning of the Dark Ages, Athens was all but forgotten and Rome had fallen to the Visigoths. The cities of the classical world were in trouble. Civilization shifted to the periphery of Europe, where for 500 years or more, beginning in the seventh century, Celtic monks planted the seeds of a modern enlightenment. They built churches and centres of learning around which towns developed. Many of these exist today as bustling towns and cities in countries such as France, Britain, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Throughout the Middle Ages, many Christian religious orders built monasteries, which attracted people to live and work in their communities. Paris, for example, had the great medieval monastery of Cluny. Monks led structured lives and helped develop crafts and industries for their communities. It was the monk Dom Perignon, the abbot of Hautvillers, who discovered how to make wine sparkle — and the bubbles led directly to the huge champagne industry and to the growth of cities like Rheims. Local people also felt protected and helped by the more erudite monks, who established schools to educate the populace — especially teaching children from the earliest years.

The Normans depended heavily on monasteries to develop centres of learning and commerce. Once the development and integration of the urban system had taken place, a structured form of self-government became possible. Most European cities, including the great city-states of the early modern world — like Venice and Genoa — still have some historical links to the monastic past and to the work of the Christian church. After the confiscation of church properties and the closing of the monasteries by Henry VIII in the 1500s in England and Ireland, accompanied by the turmoil of the Reformation all over Europe, wars and revolutions caused many problems for local communities. The crafts and trades that had developed around the monasteries struggled to survive. But ordinary people, not wanting to lose community-based industries and schools, produced civic leaders who took a more active role in the development of their communities.

In other cultures, beyond the reach of the Western churches, towns developed primarily for the same reasons. The leader of a group selected a site, which could first and foremost be protected from enemies. It was then the responsibility of the leaders to design and build the town and its fortifications. A well-fortified town usually had a moat and sturdy walls around the perimeter — all designed to ward off marauding bands of bandits or the hostile armies of rival chieftains.

Leaders emerged as a result of conflict. The new chieftain was often a military conqueror, like William of Normandy in England when he defeated the Britons in the Battle of Hastings in 1066; or Brian Boru when he beat the Norsemen in the Battle of Clontarf in Ireland in 1014. And most of the great monarchs and emperors of the day simply established their right to rule through bloody battles, accompanied by indiscriminate human slaughter. Most victors were strict and cruel tyrants — ruthless with the people they were supposed to protect. Kings ruled by divine right. Citizens were subjects of the monarch and the sword was the law. There were no elections — and on the death of the king, his eldest son succeeded to the throne. It was an all in the family hereditary system, unless some upstart tyrant defeated the king and established his own dynasty. Ordinary people accepted this system and looked to the king as protector and provider.

All of the prevailing dynasties, especially in Europe, can trace their roots to intrigue, skullduggery and bloody battles where people were used as the cannon fodder to enrich the monarch. Wars were waged to subdue more people and control more lands. Even in the years after World War II, a ruthless dictator like the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin could oust people from their lands because of their religion or ethnic origins and replace them with loyal supporters of the Communist way of life.

Feeling guilty for the plight of the Jewish people and the terrible genocide inflicted on them by Nazis in World War II, the United Nations, at the instigation of Britain and its Allies, decided that a space or a homeland in Palestine would be created for them. In the process hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ousted to make way for the State of Israel. These actions and the further occupation of more Palestinian lands by Jewish settlers have caused enormous problems of terror and hatred between the Muslims and Jews in that area. It is an expanding cauldron of bloodshed and tears, not only for Arabs and Israelis, but for all civilized peoples. And there is no end in sight.

About 1,000 years earlier, the Crusades of the eleventh century, organized by European Christian kings to oust the Saracens or Muslims from the Holy Land (Palestine), achieved little and succeeded only in laying the foundation for centuries of bitterness and violence between Christianity and Islam — which exists to this day. And the splits in the Christian religion added to the carnage and breakup of many peoples all over Europe. But the togetherness of a common religion in those times did offer a certain amount of security — inside the old protective wall or moat. Cities such as Rome, Mecca and Constantinople (now Istanbul) are examples of the powerful impact of religion on the history and life of cities. Great religious centres have also tended to see themselves as golden cities at the heart of the world. When the Pope gives his apostolic blessing, it is delivered urbi et orbi — to the city and the world.

Religion also played a dominant role in determining who should stay in the city and who should be banished. Monarchs and emperors fought to preserve or restore their particular brand of religion. Many bitter and bloody battles were fought between city-states in the name of religion. The winning side, after these battles, would invariably draft laws that imposed their religion on the losers and had to be obeyed under penalty of death or dismemberment. The idea of civility suffered, too, when sectarian violence became part of the landscape and the religion of the losing side was outlawed.

Most of these religious laws are now part of the junk heap of history. But, sadly, the odd law still survives. It reminds us how difficult it has been to adhere to the basic principles of the democracy we so loudly proclaim. As an example of the latter, the Act of Settlement 1701 is included in the Canadian Constitution — the Canada Act 1982. It spells out clearly that no Roman Catholic, or anyone married to a Roman Catholic, can become monarch of Britain or her possessions (and that includes Canada). It makes a farce of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — also part of the Constitution!

All monarchies and kingdoms began through bloody battles and not through the ballot box. Democracy was just a word at the time (the voice of demos, the crowd) — although the ancient Greeks in the millennium before the Common Era had done their best to use it as a foundation for government. But it was not fully understood or desired by the kings and rulers of the time. It did not take root until much later, when education and the idea of civic responsibility brought the franchise and the freedom of the city to all people.

The beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1850s, following the development of the steam engine (and railroads) and the discovery of oil, sparked the increase of country folk moving to towns and centres of industry. Indeed, the industrial revolution led the modern rush into cities. Farm mechanization required fewer farm workers, and factories were built to mass produce goods in the urban setting.

But an increasing world population has shown a worrisome acceleration of the movement of peoples in all countries to towns and cities. Population projections for the twenty-first century are alarming and disturbing: alarming, because of the need to provide so much more food and shelter; and disturbing, because nearly all of the projected population increases will occur in Third World countries — countries that cannot handle their present numbers, let alone an increase in their overall population.

If good urban planning is crucial to the successful city, the more immediate reasons for early man to come together were safety and security. And once the most desirable location was found, work began to build the fortifications. The great old cities of the world owe their existence and survival to the foresight of their first inhabitants. These cities were usually situated on a prominent location at the mouth of a river with a sheltered harbour. The river provided the freshwater needs and the port helped develop trade and commerce. Water played the key role in the development of every city. If there is no water there will be no life. Every living thing needs water to survive, so towns and cities would only flourish if water was available. Some towns and cities, as populations grew, had to import additional water — a costly and necessary element for the life of a city. Las Vegas, the modern gambling town in the Nevada Desert, is one such example. There, all the water needs are carefully monitored and water conservation is an integral part of survival. Its future survival depends on its ability to maintain that constant supply of water.

The Romans were great urban engineers. Their ability to forge a relationship with the natural environment was superb. After 2,000 years, we can still see the aqueducts and bridges they built in many old European towns and cities. Many of these structures are still in use today. The survival of peoples and cultures throughout the short existence of the human species has depended on their intelligence and adaptability. All the historical evidence shows that the old civilizations — Greeks, Romans, Persians, Incas, Aztecs, etc. — built and used water systems to sustain them. They had to be urban planners. And with the discovery of America in 1492, Europeans began to import their developed urban skills to aid in the building of the New World and its cities.

But there is no clear way to calculate accurately the pressures of population on cities around the time of the great explorers. The world’s population would not have been much greater than 500 million, five centuries ago. The planet, at that time, was much more in harmony with all the living creatures it nourished. The tools of man had not yet begun the destruction of the natural environment. That came much later with the industrial revolution, when the world population reached an estimated 1.2 billion in 1850. A century later, by 1950, the world population had doubled to 2.4 billion. By 1988 it had reached five billion; and in October 1999 it passed the six billion mark. Sadly, population increases have taken place in the poorer countries — in places that could ill afford to feed and house so many additional people.

Before the discovery of the New World, the Americas were vast, wild, open spaces — home to a host of nomadic tribes whose existence scarcely made a dent on the land. They had a different concept of life than Europeans. They worshipped the sun and other gods and made human sacrifices to satisfy their deities. Mostly nomadic and living inland, away from the ocean, some aboriginal people developed towns that are almost forgotten today. They lie in ruins, consumed by jungles and forests over the centuries. A few town sites have been discovered and attempts have been made to understand life in these towns and why they were eventually abandoned. The ruins of Copan in Honduras, Chichen Itza, Uxmal and Tikal in Mexico and Machu Pichu in Peru provide a glimpse of what life was like for those earlier inhabitants.

As wave after wave of immigrants arrived, after the discovery of the new world, the landscape began to change. Land was cleared for farming and trees were logged to build homes. Soon the landscape began to show the same type of scars as the old country. The northern European town soon found its roots in areas that attracted Germans, Swedes, Ukrainians, Polish, Irish, English, French and other immigrants from countries with colder climates. The streets were planned and laid out with a little more controlled planning — with a wider, grid-like street pattern. The centre was the area catering to the commercial and shopping needs of the people. It included government buildings, churches, small parks and at least one main street. People lived on the upper floors of commercial buildings and added to the vitality of the inner-city community.

As new people arrived, the residential characteristics began to change. Houses were built on large lots in the suburbs or outskirts of the city — most times in a haphazard sprawl of subdivisions. These developments consumed vast tracts of farmland outside every city, giving an ugly, disjointed appearance to most modern cities. Spanish and Portuguese settlers built towns and urban centres — replicas of the towns and cities in their homelands. The broad square or plaza in the centre, surrounded by the major government buildings, stores, hotels and the church or cathedral, was the focal point of every town and city. High walls — to guard the privacy of the inhabitants — surrounded courtyards and dwellings. Location was important, and towns and cities were built wherever the first immigrants found a site that was easy to defend, with a protected, safe harbour. The old colonial towns and cities of many Latin American countries have retained the charm and character of Spain and Portugal. But the stifling humidity of the tropical climate along the coast had a dampening effect on the vitality of these Hispanic towns. Later on, many towns were built in the mountains where the climate is more moderate.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the expansion of Third World cities has scarred the planet in many ways and has dramatically pointed to the division between rich and poor. The enormous extent of the poverty, despair and ugliness illustrates what such cities can do to people. The population explosion and lack of employment has caused many of the poorest unskilled peasants to flock from rural to urban areas. The haphazard shantytowns and favellas give testimony to the plight of the poor and the difficulty of eking out a living.

In North America, the aboriginal Indian tribes fared no better than Central and South Americans with the arrival of the white man. The Indian and Inuit peoples were nomadic and paid little attention to permanent structures. There were no towns or cities — only encampments that could be moved as the need arose. Their mobility was restricted, as even the horse was not known to them at that time. Although the aboriginal peoples were peaceful, it soon dawned on them that they were losing control of their territory as more and more immigrants began to clear the land and build towns. It also became apparent that the white man was staying. The aboriginal peoples were considered savage and a nuisance to the immigrants. As constant battles erupted, the superior weapons ensured that the white man would win. Eventually the Indians were rounded up and moved to reservations. Some tribes supported the Spanish, some the French and some the British. And many stayed neutral. But it did not matter who won — the aboriginal peoples would lose in the end.

At one time, British administrators thought of the Indian chiefs as a mere nuisance to be wiped out. They invited the chiefs of all the tribes in Upper Canada to a council meeting. Most of the chiefs, suspecting treachery, did not attend, but sent delegates. When the delegates were leaving after the meeting, their hosts sent presents to the chiefs as a sign of friendship. The presents were carefully wrapped with clothing material taken from victims of the cholera virus!

Immigrants adjusted more easily to their new surroundings but were always fearful of Indian attacks. Business and farming reflected a continuation of old country life with that extra drive to succeed in the new country. This was a land of opportunity — a land where a better life was available to all. A little hard work and the door opened to that life. As the chuckwagons full of immigrants moved west, the spirit of adventure was part of the challenge of this new land. And then, the linking together of rivers and lakes with canals became the challenge of the expanding population after the American War of Independence and the founding of the Republic in 1776.

The European battles between Britain and France spilled over into Canada. The battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759, in Quebec City, led to the Treaty of Paris in 1763, which gave Canada to Britain. The British government passed the Quebec Act in 1764, which permitted the French-speaking population in Quebec to follow French civil law and allowed Roman Catholics to practise their religion. British forces then proceeded with the building of Canada, modelled after the English or British system of government.

By the early 1800s many canal works were underway and continued over the next 150 years to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1958. These canal works were labour-intensive. Towns developed at the most favoured locations along the routes, as the movement of goods by river and canal became the transportation of choice. The development of the steam engine led to the building of the railroads, which began in the 1850s and continued at a furious pace for the rest of the century. Railroads had a devastating impact on the canals. The railroads not only opened up the age of passenger travel but for the first time linked towns and cities together to move goods and open new markets to manufacturing businesses. By the time Canada became a dominion in 1867, the building of the railroad was well underway. In 1885 the Canadian Pacific Railway reached Port Moody on the Pacific coast of British Columbia — duplicating the link-up of the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts in the United States in 1869.

To many planners, the separation of the town’s waterfront from the centre of the town by a few railroad tracks seemed to clutter up the urban landscape. Many towns have earned an ugly reputation because of the clumsy way the railroad invaded the town. But there is no denying that the railroad became the lifeline of towns and cities across the land. It also meant that any city with a deepwater port and a railroad to the port was guaranteed success. Old cities had to change to make way for these railroads, while new cities included the railroad and its Union Station as a vital hub for commerce and business.

As towns and cities expanded with each wave of new immigrants, and advancements in technology boosted business, the needs of the newcomers and the younger generation began to change. Their expectations were different from those of the old city dwellers. They wanted a rural-like setting — more grass and trees, less density and more breathing room. They saw themselves as benefiting from the best of both worlds, as citizens of the New World. After the end of World War II in 1945, the two-car garage became their symbol. This meant the building of more roads and highways to accommodate their vehicles. Rail and public transit systems were regarded as obsolete.

But as the cities of the First World flourished, the cities of the Third World — or to use the more politically correct label, developing world — made desperate cries for help. Water supply, sewage treatment, education, housing, health services and an adequate supply of energy are some of the basic needs — and they are often sorely needed. The exploding population of these cities — through migration from the countryside and increased birth rate — adds to the poverty and continues to eat away at their viability. On the other hand, the cities of the developed world continue to grow at a slower and more organized pace. But there are still pockets of poverty, unemployment and homelessness. There is always a quest for a better life in any city. And no matter how hard a municipality tries to house and help the homeless, the poor will always be there, either by circumstances or by choice. As St. Paul said, The poor will always be with us.

As we ponder the economic divisions on our planet, the developed world has to reach out to bridge the great divide between the poverty of so many cities and the affluence of others. That helping hand may not come during our lifetime. It will only become a reality when there is a vastly increased flood of refugees putting ever greater pressure on the more prosperous cities and towns of the developed world.

THE CITY OF TORONTO

When the British army staked out the Town of York in the 1750s, it never envisioned the city of 2.4 million people we now call Toronto — or that the Greater Toronto Area, with close to 5 million people, would be the fifth-largest megalopolis in North America. As was the custom of the time, the streets were laid out in rectangular fashion, beginning along the shore of Lake Ontario, between the Don River and the Humber River. The wooded land gently rolled to the lake as it carried water runoff in the many little streams, gullies and seasonal ditches. Although the town was not in a windswept location, a few small islands just offshore offered added protection to the little budding hamlet. The land was fertile, with many varieties of wild fowl and animals and plenty of water — all ingredients for the beginnings of a new town. Since most of the early settlers were from the British Isles, the town followed the pattern of old country towns — down to the naming of streets after dignitaries and sovereigns.

Since the British and French were the two major colonial powers in the northern half of North America at that time, it was only natural that their way of life predominated in the towns they developed. The native peoples were easily subdued and had to conform to the new system of government and the European way of life. When Canada became part of the British possessions, the British North America Act of 1867 established it as a colony, with limited powers. The act allowed the French to maintain their culture and language and participate with the British as a junior partner in the colonial rule of Canada. The two official languages — English and French, with French mainly in Quebec — made Canada a bilingual country. Earlier, after the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence in 1776, many British loyalists who fought to maintain the status quo and retain George III as their king moved to Canada. Many of these loyalists settled in the Town of York, while others settled in rural Ontario.

Toronto grew slowly from its humble beginnings. It did not register as a city of any significance until the influx of new immigrants after World War II, between 1947 and 1972. Those 25 years of immigration turned the city into a modern cosmopolitan centre to rival many of the fine cities of the world. It brought prosperity and a new life to a city that some said just woke up. For the first time, local governments were not accustomed to dealing with the vast increase in the numbers of immigrants, most of whom wanted to go to work immediately and make a new home. Government infrastructure — mainly provincial and municipal — was not in place to handle the integration of the newcomers and prepare for the orderly expansion of Toronto. And immigrants had visions of a better life, after six years of war in Europe and the Far East, which had brought nothing but hunger and misery. Toronto was the place to make a new start and build a permanent home.

Toronto developed like most other cities in a hurry — with a simple plan for modest development at first and a hurried plan for expansion as more people arrived. Planning for expansion was mostly politically motivated and depended on how the majority of the electorate reacted. Rarely would a politician lead if the plan would cause major dissent or the prospect of not being re-elected. The politician usually tried to get a snapshot of what would be acceptable and then present it as a proposal for acceptance to the municipal