Partnerships for the Goals

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Partnerships for Smart City Retrofits: The Case of Toronto’s Quayside

  • Deborah E. de LangeEmail author
Living reference work entry


The phrase city technology innovationis related to the term “smart city.” City technology innovation refers to the implementation of technology that contributes to a smart city. Such innovation would add to and/or improve upon existing city systems such as energy, waste, water, buildings, food, and transportation. Installing electric car charging infrastructure would be an example of introducing innovation into a city. This is a smart addition to a city because more chargers would support the choice to use electric vehicles over combustion engine cars and thereby reduce local pollution and climate-change-inducing greenhouse gases. The International Telecommunication Union defines a smart city as an “innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICT) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Adler RP, Goggin J (2005) What do we mean by “civic engagement”?. J trans edu 3(3):236–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BIS (2013) The Smart City market: opportunities for the UK, BIS research paper no. 136. Department for Business, Innovation & Science, London. Scholar
  3. Bliss L (2018) When a tech giant plays waterfront developer. CityLab, Jan 9thGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth M (2014) The almost nearly perfect people: Behind the myth of the Scandinavian utopia. Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  5. Boseley S (2018) How do you build a healthy city? Copenhagen reveals its secrets. The Guardian, February 11thGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozikovic A (2017) Google’s sidewalk labs signs deal for ‘smart city’ makeover of Toronto’s waterfront. The Globe and Mail, October 17thGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozikovic A, Gray J (2017) Google’s sidewalk labs preferred partner on Toronto waterfront development. The Globe and Mail, October 4thGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga M (2018) Sidewalk labs says its ‘smart’ neighbourhood will respect your privacy – but proof is in the details. CBC News, May 4thGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinkerhoff DW, Brinkerhoff JM (2011) Public–private partnerships: perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Adm Dev 31(1):2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown J (2017). ‘Places you’ll only visit due to random misfortune’: an alt guide to Canada’s cities. The Guardian, June 30hGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunce S (2004) The emergence of ‘smart growth’ intensification in Toronto: environment and economy in the new official plan. Local Environment 9(2):177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burch S (2010) Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Glob Environ Chang 20(2):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. C40 Cities (2017) Case studies: “cities100: London – iconic buses provide real-time air quality alerts”, “cities100: Copenhagen – mapping real-time consumption to plan efficiency updates”, “Cities100: Oslo – smart initiatives to cut CO2 emissions”, September 14thGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardullo P, Kitchin R, Di Feliciantonio C (2017) Living labs and vacancy in the neoliberal city. CitiesGoogle Scholar
  15. Castelnovo W, Misuraca G, Savoldelli A (2015) Citizen’s engagement and value co-production in smart and sustainable cities. In International conference on public policy (pp. 1–16). MilanGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark J, Shelton T (2016) Technocratic values and uneven development in the “Smart City”. In MetropoliticsGoogle Scholar
  17. De Souza Briggs X (1997) Social capital and the cities: Advice to change agents. National Civic Review 86(2):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Firnkorn J, Müller M (2015) Free-floating electric car sharing-fleets in smart cities: the dawning of a post-private car era in urban environments? Environ Sci Pol 45:30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Florida R (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & community, 2(1):3–19Google Scholar
  20. Fredericks J, Hespanhol L, Parker C, Zhou D, Tomitsch M (2018) Blending pop-up urbanism and participatory technologies: challenges and opportunities for inclusive city making. City Cult Soc 12:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gascó M (2017) Living labs: implementing open innovation in the public sector. Gov Inf Q 34(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33(1):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gordon DLA (1996) Planning, design and managing change in urban waterfront redevelopment. Town Planning Review 67(3):261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen L (2018) The Ontario municipal board will soon be no more. Here’s what that means for you. CBC, April 2ndGoogle Scholar
  25. Heller K, Price RH, Reinharz S, Riger S, Wandersman A, D’Aunno TA (1984) Psychology and community change: Challenges of the future. Monterey, CA: BrooksGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodge GA, Greve C (2010) Public–private partnerships: governance scheme or language game? Aust J Publ Admin 69(1):S8–S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hounsell K (2018) Canadian municipalities struggling to find place for recyclables after China restricts foreign waste. CBC News, April 12thGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes L (2017) In the absence of national leadership, cities are driving climate policy. The Conversation, July 18thGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenson J (2009) Lost in Translation: The Social Investment Perspective and Gender Equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(4):446–483Google Scholar
  30. Joshi K (1991) A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Q 15:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joss S, Cook M, Dayot Y (2017) Smart cities: towards a new citizenship regime? A discourse analysis of the British smart city standard. J Urban Technol 24(4):29–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennedy C, Cuddihy J, Engel-Yan J (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J Ind Ecol 11(2):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenworthy JR (2006) The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environ Urban 18(1):67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kondepudi SN (2014) Smart sustainable cities analysis of definitions. The ITU-T focus group for smart sustainable cities. International Telecommunication Union, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  35. Kourtit K, Nijkamp P (2018) Big data dashboards as smart decision support tools for i-cities–an experiment on Stockholm. Land Use Policy 71:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krohe J Jr (1991) Cityscape: how the lakefront was won. Chicago Reader, November 7th Accessed online July 23rd, 2018 at
  37. Kuitenbrouwer P (2012) Peter Kuitenbrouwer: Toronto not much to look at but is still a good place to live. National Post, July 11thGoogle Scholar
  38. Larsen K, Gunnarsson-Östling U (2009) Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures. Habitat Int 33(3):260–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee T, Van de Meene S (2012) Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate network. Policy Sci 45(3):199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lloyd K, Auld C (2003) Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban Policy Res 21(4):339–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lorimer A (2016) Mass-participation architecture: Social media and the decentralisation of architectural agency as a commercial imperative. University of Plymouth online.
  42. Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Connolly D, Wenzel H, Østergaard PA, Möller B, Nielsen S, Ridjan I, Karnøea P, Sperling K, Hvelplund FK (2015) Smart energy systems for coherent 100% renewable energy and transport solutions. Appl Energy 145:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McLeod J (2018) Sidewalk labs to hold public party to open Toronto HQ, but critics remain skeptical of ‘smart city’ project. Financial Post, June 14thGoogle Scholar
  44. Morgan D, Zeffane R (2003) Employee involvement, organizational change and trust in management. Int J Hum Resour Manag 14(1):55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morris C (2018) London to add 68 electric double-decker buses to its fleet Charged Electric Vehicles Magazine, July 3rdGoogle Scholar
  46. Mueller J, Lu H, Chirkin A, Klein B, Schmitt G (2018) Citizen design science: a strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities 72:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nesti G (2015) Urban living labs as a new form of co-production. Insights from the European experience. In: Paper presented at ICPP – International Conference on Public Policy II. Milan, July 1–4Google Scholar
  48. Offenhuber D, Schechtner K (2018) Improstructure-an improvisational perspective on smart infrastructure governance. Cities 72:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliveira MA, Carvalho A, Bártolo L (2004) Public Discussion of Oporto’s Municipal Master Plan: An e-Democracy Service Supported by a Geographical Information System. In International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp 410–413Google Scholar
  50. Powell J (2018) Waterfront Toronto CEO departs. Financial Times, July 6thGoogle Scholar
  51. Preville P (2016) How Toronto’s population will change over the next 50 years. Toronto Life, October 20thGoogle Scholar
  52. Rau M (2018) Toronto – welcome to the post-OMB world., January, 18th accessed online July 22, 2018 at
  53. Rosen G, Walks A (2013) Rising cities: condominium development and the private transformation of the metropolis. Geoforum 49:160–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roy I (2018) Waterfront Toronto CEO will fleissig to step down. Toronto Star, July 4thGoogle Scholar
  55. Sarmento JM, Renneboog L (2016) Anatomy of public-private partnerships: their creation, financing and renegotiations. Int J Manag Proj Bus 9(1):94–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sidewalk Toronto (2018) Hello! How to get involved and help us imagine Toronto’s newest neighbourhood. February 2ndGoogle Scholar
  57. Tvinnereim E, Fløttum K, Gjerstad Ø, Johannesson MP, Nordø ÅD (2017) Citizens’ preferences for tackling climate change. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of their freely formulated solutions. Glob Environ Chang 46:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UNEP (2013) City-level decoupling: urban resource flows and the governance of infrastructure transitions. A Report of the Working Group on Cities of the International Resource Panel. Swilling M, Robinson B, Marvin S and Hodson MGoogle Scholar
  59. Valverde M (2018) The controversy over Google’s futuristic plans for Toronto. Toronto Star, January 31stGoogle Scholar
  60. Van den Hurk M, Siemiatycki M (2018) Public–private partnerships and the design process: consequences for architects and city building. Int J Urban Reg Res 42:704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Venance L (2017) Going public: a look at how other cities use outdoor space. Globe and Mail, November 12thGoogle Scholar
  62. Vincent D, Ferguson R (2019) Civil liberties group launches court action to stop Quayside, says Canadians should not be ‘lab rats’. Toronto Star, April 16thGoogle Scholar
  63. Voytenko Y, McCormick K, Evans J, Schliwa G (2016) Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. J Clea Prod 123:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waterfront BIA (2017) Strategic framework & tactical plan, JulyGoogle Scholar
  65. Willing J (2019) OMB back from the dead: Ontario PCs reverting to old rules for planning appeals. Ottawa Citizen, May 3rdGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wylie B (2018) Sidewalk Toronto has yet to give us a reason to trust its smart city experiment. Huffington Post, May 9thGoogle Scholar
  68. Younger M, Morrow-Almeida HR, Vindigni SM, Dannenberg AL (2008) The built environment, climate change, and health: opportunities for co-benefits. Am J Prev Med 35(5):517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang K, Ni J, Yang K, Liang X, Ren J, Shen XS (2017) Security and privacy in smart city applications: challenges and solutions. IEEE Commun Mag 55(1):122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Management Studies, Ted Rogers School of ManagementRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Section editors and affiliations

  • Monica Thiel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public Administration and School of Business AdministrationUniversity of International Business and Economics & China University of PetroleumBeijingChina