Is the current “balances of uses” sacred? What Liberal MPs need to know
- Parks not Planes
- 3 hours ago
- 5 min read
Parks not Planes, June 2026
Part 7 of 8
Toronto’s Liberal Members of Parliament have been feeling the pressure from the many constituents who have been appalled by Doug Ford’s efforts to inflict jets on Toronto’s waterfront.
We’ve seen a number of lengthy responses from them, often quite similar to each other.
What is notable in those responses is the repetition of talking points that are based on incomplete or even wrong information.
It is surprising that they do seem to take Nieuport lobbyists’ word without ensuring what they are being told by the lobbyists can be relied upon.
Here’s our effort to ensure the jets debate is founded on fact: what those MPs need to know.
7: Is the current “balances of uses” sacred?
MP Danielle Martin recently wrote:
I do not support a reduction in green space or community amenities at the waterfront or on the Islands. I know how important these spaces are for Torontonians and the people who use the waterfront. These are integral features of the "balance of uses" principle that has guided waterfront planning since 1988, and these principles must be upheld.
MP Karim Bardeesy wrote something similar:
For decades, we’ve preserved the balance of uses principle on Toronto’s Harbourfront that has been championed by former Toronto Mayor David Crombie. As a result the airport … has been able to exist alongside all of the other activities of the Harbourfront that draw people around the world … to it. … I’ll be looking for a clear, evidence-based business case … that preserves that sacred balance of uses principle.
Any purported “balance of uses” is subject to change – sometimes drastic change.
On Toronto’s waterfront, we’ve seen a drastic worsening of noise, pollution and traffic resulting from the expansion of Island Airport operations since Porter’s inception in 2005.
The “balance of uses” that existed before 2005 was discarded. Voices calling then for “balance” were ignored.
In Chicago, no argument for “balance of uses” prevailed when, in 2003, Mayor Daley bulldozed its downtown airport, Meigs Field, converting it to valued parkland.
And, contrary to the “balance of uses” supposition, other cities have converted, or are converting, their downtown airports to parkland and housing, including Santa Monica, Edmonton, and Berlin – see the details at the bottom of this article.
Downtown airport land is far too valuable to be used for aviation.
How do we address the infliction of unacceptable levels of dangerous ultrafine particles on surrounding communities that, University of Toronto researchers found, come from the Airport’s flight operations? Doesn’t that call for (at least) a drastic reduction in flights?
There is nothing “sacred” about the current “balance of uses”. They are subject to change, where the public interest demands it.
The “balance of uses” supposition is entirely a creation of the Port Authority and J.P.Morgan/Nieuport to forestall a proper debate on the Airport lands’ future.
The Island Airport is the waterfront’s last remaining noxious vestige of its industrial past delivering noise, pollution and threats to our natural environment, our health and quality of life.
The continued operation of the Island Airport is incompatible with the rejuvenation and development of Toronto's waterfront.
So, no, the current “balance of uses” is not sacred. And insisting that the current “balance” of uses is sacred, when it isn’t, is just an attempt to foreclose the debate on our waterfront’s future that we need to have.
Our Ask
This debate needs to be based on facts, not lobbyists’ talking points.
We ask that those Liberal MPs confirm now that the federal government will
continue to honour its pledge in 2015 to reject jets at the Island Airport and
continue to ensure City’s participation as a full party to the Tripartite Agreement, notwithstanding Premier Ford’s efforts to usurp the City’s role.
More things Liberal MP's need to know
A list of some recent and proposed airport closures.
1. Tempelhof Airport: Tempelhofer Feld, Berlin, closed 2008
Tempelhof’s central location meant flight noise affected vast residential areas, and its short runways couldn’t accommodate modern aircraft. After closure it was transformed and reopened as a community park, garden, and nature reserve in 2010 — now a haven for skateboarders, cyclists, and picnickers who value the vast greenery in a dense city. On an average day around 10,000 Berliners use the space. (Medium, Berlin Beyond Borders)
2. Edmonton City Centre Airport, closed 2013
Redevelopment plans called for a community of approximately 30,000 people – described as a walkable, sustainable, holistic community with a retail sector. This one is Canadian and directly relevant as a precedent. (Global News).
3. Chicago Meigs Field
On the night of March 30, 2003, Daley ordered city crews to make the runway unusable by bulldozing large "X"-shaped gouges into the runway surface in the middle of the night. This resulted in several aircraft being stranded on the ground at the airport; these were later allowed to depart from Meigs' 3,000-foot (910 m) taxiway.
Daley stated during a news conference on March 31, "To do this any other way would have been needlessly contentious." Daley defended his actions by claiming it would save the city of Chicago the effort of further court battles before the airport could close. He also claimed the closure was due to safety concerns, particularly the post-9/11 risk of terrorist-controlled aircraft attacking the downtown waterfront near Meigs Field
Northerly Island is now a park that features prairie grasses, strolling paths and a giant pond. In 2005, the 7,500 seat Huntington Bank Pavilion, which hosts music concerts in the summer, opened on the site. The island also has a modest beach named 12th Street Beach (Wikipedia)
4. Santa Monica Municipal Airport
It has been one of the world's foremost general aviation airports (at one time, the busiest single-runway airport in the world). The airport is scheduled to close on December 31, 2028.
In 2009, with jet traffic increasing at SMO, studies by UCLA and the South Coast Air Quality Management District warned that SMO was a source of abnormally high air pollution in the area, particularly for ultrafine particles that threatened the health of children and the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. In neighbourhoods downwind of the airport, ultrafine particles were measured at 2.5 to 10 times the normal amount. The FAA attempted remediation by controlling the timing of engine run-ups and positioning of aircraft, but some residents complained that the measures failed to resolve the problem.
In 2017, the FAA agreed to let the city shorten the runway from 4,925 feet (1,501 m) to 3,500 feet (1,100 m) – effectively blocking most jets from using the airport – and allowing the city to completely close the airport by December 31, 2028 (Wikipedia)
5. International Airport Central Park neighbourhood, Denver, closed 1995
The project generated billions in economic impact and employed thousands in high-paying jobs. The land was redeveloped into a thriving urban community of 35,000 residents, now held up as a model for urban redevelopment initiatives. The redevelopment was built on three principles: economic opportunity, environmental responsibility, and social equity. (Denver Urban Renewal Authority – Stapleton Urban Land Institute Case Study)
6. Burke Lakefront Airport, Cleveland, proposed closure, 2024 study
A current, directly comparable case – downtown waterfront airport with jet service. A city-commissioned report found that redeveloping Burke with mixed uses – hotels, recreation, and open spaces – could generate up to $92 million per year in new economic activity, concluding that closure “would permit investment that would ultimately have greater economic activity than currently occurring” at the airport. (Cleveland Magazine, Sept. 2024)
Comments