The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Re-enacting the Disaster of Toronto's Smart City

Episode Date: December 14, 2024

"The Master Plan" is a play about the failure to build a city of the future along Toronto's historic waterfront. This satire of the messy drama between Google's Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto is currently running at Soulpepper Theatre in Toronto's Distillery District.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a fractured information environment, isn't it hard to tell what's real and what's not? I'm Molly Thomas, host of a new show called Big If True. We're fighting misinformation one story at a time. Subscribe on YouTube and follow us on Instagram. I'm Matt Nethersole. And I'm Tiff Lam. From TVO Podcasts, this is Queries. This season, we're asking, when it comes to defending your beliefs, how far is too far?

We follow one story from the boardroom to the courtroom. And seek to understand what happens when beliefs collide. Where does freedom of religion end and freedom from discrimination begin? That's this season on Queries in Good Faith, a TVO original podcast. Follow and listen wherever you get your podcasts. The Master Plan is a play about the failure to build a city of the future along Toronto's historic waterfront. This satire of the messy drama

between Google's Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto has been brought to the stage by playwright and featured player Michael Healy and Chris Abraham, director of the show and artistic director of Crows Theater. The play is currently running at the Soulpepper Theater Company in Toronto's distillery district and I am delighted to welcome you two guys here

to this studio, because I've seen it three times and it's fantastic. Oh, that's so kind. It's a great show. No, it's just great. Michael, let's do a little background here. How did this subsidiary of Google, of the parent company of Google, up working with Waterfront, Toronto?

Allegedly to build the city of the future, right? They waterfront Toronto had this idea about how they wanted to exploit this 12 acre parcel of land that they had at the foot Of Parliament Street. They wanted to use it as a lab to test out cutting-edge sustainability and affordability building techniques and they held an open competition to find a partner who can who could execute some of the innovations that they wanted to explore and Sidewalk Labs came out on top in that open competition. This was one of the biggest companies in the world, the richest companies in the world,

led by Dan Doctoroff, a former deputy mayor of New York City. What could possibly go wrong, right? Apparently everything. Now if you go down there today, you will find pretty much the same thing that if you went down there five years, nothing happened. Spoiler alert, the whole thing fell apart. Why did it fall apart? Well, a bunch of reasons. What would be the single most important reason that you think we should pay attention to? I think the most important reason is that is that Toronto has a hard time. Toronto and Canada have a hard time grappling with

innovation of any kind, of a degree of uncertainty in terms of making something new and I think that Waterfront Toronto was unprepared for the kind of backlash that you know that came their way. I feel like Water and Sidewalk Labs was a problematic partner, definitely. They showed up, they saw the 12 acres, they noticed the 500 acres next door that's also being developed over the next 30 years and they said, we'd like that please. And that was absolutely a problem. But for me the point of the play is to ask questions about whether or not we're actually capable of doing, of this kind of innovation in this country. It's interesting that that's your takeaway, because that was mine as well.

But I know, Chris, there are going to be people who will watch this show and they will say, oh, those big arrogant Americans came in here trying to tell us what to do. And of course we sent them kicking and screaming back to New York City where they belong. But my takeaway was when that phenomenon meets, you know, stayed family compact, upper Canada, it's no contest. Yeah. Was that your takeaway?

Well, it was interesting. I, my point of view changed quite a bit over the course of the project's lifespan. I was first sort of came on my radar when I was asked to sit on a cultural advisory group. So I went to one of those big meetings that Dan Dockruff came to town, pitched the stakeholders, cultural stakeholders in the city on what was going to happen down there. And it was an exciting pitch. I could tell as I was sitting around the table with about 50 or 60 cultural and community

leaders that really not everyone felt that way. So there were big questions right at the outset. Then when I read Josh O'Kane's book, I had a very different take. I think because Josh does a very good job in that book of detailing why one would be concerned about the data privacy issues and why one should be concerned about the fundamental IP play that Google was interested in. And I didn't appreciate the scope of what there might be to be scared about

until I read Josh's book. And that gave me pause. But then as you plow into the I read Josh's book. And that gave me pause. But then as you plow into the rest of Josh's book, other questions emerge. And I think that Michael picked up on ultimately what I think is really interesting to notice about the book, which is the culture clash between this big American company and the particular character of Toronto. You do say two things in the play. Number one, you say the play is based on Josh's book.

Yes. And we've had Josh here and we've had great discussions about what he wrote in that book. But then you also take pains right off the top to say, this is fiction. For sure. So what's the truth here? Well I think there's a really interesting tension between taking a piece of nonfiction. Josh's book very carefully reported. He left out things that he couldn't chase down and verify a half dozen different ways.

And so his piece of journalism, I wanted to make sure that people understood that we were inventing scenes. These are real people in that people understood that we were inventing scenes, these are real people in these scenes, but we were inventing dialogue, we were making up scenes, we were, and describing a kind of particular point of view. I wanted it to be a complicated piece of art. I wanted people to not necessarily have a single opinion walking out, but I also wanted to express my point of view,

which is that you know sidewalk labs complicated trouble people rightly anxious about the data suck that was going to occur but we also need to be asking questions about how are we going to house all of the people who are showing up here if if the Keysight project was a failure and I think it was, then obviously it was, we need a hundred failures like that, and we needed them 20 years ago. That's really the kind of perspective that I wanted to kind of bring to it. So I didn't want people to come in expecting documentary.

I wanted people to kind of let go of that and understand that we were going to be having an awful lot of fun. There's no fact or piece of history that I wouldn't jettison in the service of a good time. You know, people, they're spending a lot of money, they're coming all the way down to, well, the distillery now to see the show, and my first job is to make sure it's entertaining. So I wanted those things to be upfront.

Mission accomplished on that score. But since you're talking about real people and you're putting words in the mouth of real people that may or may not have been there, has anybody sued you yet? No, no. Thank you. No.

Were you fearful they might? No, it's interesting. I've done a lot of work doing different kinds of documentary theater over my career. And I think now almost everyone, with the exception of Dan Doctorov, I think almost everyone has been to see the show. Yeah, everyone who's in it.

Who's portrayed the show most multiple times. And my experience is, well, theater does two things, which I think is why I love theater, is that it can't help but humanize. So it takes the facts, and then an actor has to understand why someone does something. If an actor doesn't do that work, they're not very good, and the audience can tell,

and the character doesn't live for real. You actually have to get under the skin of what motivates someone to do something in the world, and you have to take the vantage point that they motivates someone to do something in the world. And you have to take the vantage point that they're doing it for reasons that they believe are the right reasons. And so a play, whatever play you're doing ends up advocating for that. So I think when real people come to see the show, I think they see a group of people from

different vantage points, ideological positions, and objectives, trying to do what they think is going to make, is going to contribute to a better future. So you weren't sued, Michael, but have you heard back from people portrayed in the show saying, you got that right, but you might have missed your, I don't know, any feedback like that? We've had plenty of feedback, and almost all of it positive. People like the complicated nature of the storytelling.

But most people at this distance recognize that there were, you know, that their side had shortcomings, that the other side, you know, was imperfect as well. Well, let me give you an example. Mayor John Tories portrayed in the play. Yes. Former Mayor Torry. Did you hear from him? No, I haven't heard from John Tory yet. Because I think a woman played him the first time I saw the show.

Yes, and the second time. Both the first times, yeah. Yeah, right, right, right. I think something that we've heard repeated back to us from folks that were involved is that it captures, I think, an extremely painful period of time in all of their lives. Everyone that walked away from that project was in it for reasons that were, to an extent noble, I think,

and experienced a devastating career failure. Yeah, for sure. And so they share that in the play because it does move towards a kind of tragedy of a city and a group of people trying to do something big for the future, that I think they feel that. And I think somehow they feel recognized and seen

in that it mattered, that they tried to do it, and it mattered that it didn't happen. Let's hear from the original protagonist in this whole thing. Josh O'Kane, I mentioned, was on this program when this was all hitting the fan. And he talked about the fundamental differences between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs.

Sheldon, if you would. Google is an enormously ambitious company that wrote the rules of the internet economy. And the real life world of cities and democracies is a lot more rigid and messier than that. And that fundamentally was what the greatest misalignment was, what multiple people from all sides of this refer to as the original center of the project was,

this was this sort of boring bureaucratic Canadian tripartite government agency up against, you know, this sort of brand new side project of one of the most maverick-like companies ever to exist. So we do see the misalignment there. My question actually for you, Michael, is this. They were trying to launch something at a particular time in history when people were understandably deeply concerned about the privacy implications of this the Cambridge Analytica scandal was brewing around the

same time what if they had tried to plant their flag now instead of then what do you think would be different I don't know I think I think if they had approached things differently they they waited a very long time before they, before it seems to me they waited a very long time before they became comfortable with the partner they were working with. They came in as Josh describes kind of guns blazing and with very little interest in figuring out how Toronto works. And so I think I think definitely Sidewalk Labs approach could have been different. I think Waterfront

Toronto's approach could have been different. I think they made a mistake in terms of consulting so widely with the public prior to having any kind of concrete ideas to show people. Because in the absence of any kind of strong ideas, people were rightly anxious about the data, the privacy issues. And they projected their worst fears on the whole thing. Exactly. And the people who organized and were opposed to the project, it seems to me, they weaponized our anxiety about the data

suck. And they used that very effectively to describe why you know people should reject the project. Chris, it's interesting because most, well, many projects that we have all covered over the years get into trouble because there's not enough public consultation and these guys ironically got into trouble because they's not enough public consultation. And these guys ironically got into trouble because they did so much public consultation. They wanted to consult the hell out of this thing, and that ended up boomeranging on them. It's kind of unfortunate, isn't it?

Yeah, I mean, I think Michael's written an amazing scene where we get to see a pretty faithful, although with more jokes, depiction of a moment of public consultation. I love that scene in the play because I think it really captures the dynamic of the dynamic that was present in this project, which is not a lot of information. And a public that comes to one of those community meetings with a really, really, I mean, in this case, rightfully, with a lot of fear.

Yeah. And I think. And unsatisfiable. Unsatisf case, rightfully, with a lot of fear. And I think- And unsatisfiable. Unsatisfiable fear. Really, at a certain level. Didn't matter what Sidewalk Labs was going to say, they were not going to get that box checked.

It was really interesting. They spent a lot of time talking about privacy and a lot of time talking about data before any of the decisions about what data were going to be collected, how stored, how used, before any of that decisions about, you know, what data were going to be collected, how stored, how used, before any of that had been determined. And they spent an awful lot of time

trying to get ahead of that. And any time Waterfront Toronto would talk about any other aspect of it, here's what a building is gonna look like, here's how garbage is gonna get taken out, they would be accused of trying to avoid the subject of data and privacy because they were attempting just briefly to talk about some other aspect of the project. While we were working on the project, Ezra Klein, who has a podcast which I'm sure you know, is writing a book about getting big things done in America and the problem of getting things done. And I think that's his sort of coverage of like the questions of like why bureaucracies, why governments are having such a hard time getting big infrastructure projects built

and approved remains of great interest, I think, to the two of us. And that was certainly a dimension of the kind of question that we were asking around a project like Keyside. What does this say about how we in Toronto and how we in Canada think about some of the big challenges ahead we have as cities? Well, it does say you can't get big stuff done anymore, and I think that's been a well-known theme throughout Canada for a very long time. And you reference this in the play, I think, about Robert Moses, who got huge things done in New York City, admittedly, you know, multiple generations ago, and at significant cost to a lot of people who didn't have a lot of power.

But I guess he was Dr. Roff's muse at a certain level. Is that fair to say? Yeah, I think so, probably. It comes up in, he wrote an autobiography that I got to use. One of the great things about having his autobiography out was I could actually just take aspects of his own character that he admitted to in the book and use them in, you know, to our satirical ends in the show.

But you're right, I think he did see Robert Moses as a kind of complicated figure, but a person who was able to grab hold of the levers of power and get things done in New York City back in the day. So he really, Dan Doctoroff was, is a very interesting and complicated man, you know, and interesting character. He was sitting in that chair during the whole thing.

We had a great conversation. He went on an amazing charm offensive. After the thing was over, he said, oh, that was wonderful. We've got to get together at some point, have lunch. Of course, I never heard from him. But he's charming. He's impressive. I mean, he was Giuliani's deputy mayor?

Who's deputy mayor was he? He was Bloomberg's. Bloomberg, sorry, Mike Bloomberg's deputy mayor. And tried to get the Olympics for New York City and Now what's happened to him you want to tell well? He's but was diagnosed with ALS and so he's he's dealing with the progress of that illness and raising money He's raised. I think last we checked about 250 million dollars to fight ALS And beyond that I'm not I'm not up to the minute

on what's going on with this right now. No, Josh Seirifman, his deputy, is coming up to see the show bringing a bunch of people from New York on Tuesday. And so I'm going to ask him about Doctoroff's progress. But that's who Dan Doctoroff was. He is the guy who contracts ALS, starts a foundation immediately,

and raises a quarter billion dollars for, like that's who that guy is. I must confess, after I saw the play, I thought to myself, this is going to be a hit in Toronto because we, I mean, it's such a great story for us. But then I thought, I would love New Yorkers to see this play too, because I wonder if they have any clue, they don't know the story like we do, obviously.

Could this play play on Broadway? Yes, yes, absolutely, Steve. Do you think it will? We're trying. We're hard at work to try to give further life to this production, we're hoping to bring it to the States. Okay, you made an interesting decision in the course of this, not just to write this thing, but to be in it. You made an interesting decision in the course of this,

not just to write this thing, but to be in it. You're an actor in this play. Yes, I am, yeah. How'd you like that? Oh, God, it's been great, Steve, it's been fantastic. So I haven't been on stage in about a decade, and there's a muscle there that hasn't been used in some time.

And so we need to, from last year's production to this year's production, replace three of seven cast members. And we decided to be fun if I took one of the parts. And I started months before we got into rehearsal to learn the material. There's nothing more humiliating than failing at remembering the lines that you wrote.

It's a particular kind of ridiculousness. So I spent months doing that by myself. And then I get into rehearsal, confident that I know everything, but he has us move around a little bit. You've seen the show, you actually have to walk around and talk to people. And so the adding of the moves and the actual acting

really kind of messed things up for me for a little while. Anyway, I'm fine now. We're having a lot of fun in the show. But everybody else in the show, these are extremely accomplished people that we've all been working with for decades. And to watch real actors take this material, it's really, it's humbling and it's amazing

because as I say, I only act occasionally. And so these guys, to work with Tonya Jacobs and Mike Schera and Ben Carlson and Pippa Domville, these are thoroughbreds of the Canadian theater. And it's been just amazing to watch them. You're pretty good too, Secretary, I gotta say. You're very kind, thank you. Not bad, not bad.

One of the things that I found interesting about the play is that you two really do stay honest brokers all the way through. It would be very easy to kind of, in the final act of the play, pick a side, frankly, and say, here's what I think they should have done, and here's how it should have all worked. You don't do that.

And you really allow the audience to walk away from this, making up their own mind about whether this was a missed opportunity or whether we made the right decision. But if I'm hearing the two of you right now, my inference that I am drawing is, you think we blew it. You think we should have done this thing. Now, OK, people will make their own judgments

when they see the play. But OK, Chris, what about that? Did we blow it by not building this? You know, I always have a hard time answering that question because I think we probably made the right decision. But I think it's what the decision says about our habits of behavior as a city, as a democracy, how we process big opportunities. That's the part that I

think that Michael's play really lights up is the processes by which we evaluate and engage with big ideas and there's some problems there. In the particular instance of this project it's really hard to say what would have happened. But I think I walked away with sufficient concern around the IP play, what Google might have done had they gotten their teeth into the city, and maybe the precedent, the precedent around a big company moving the levers of power to do something.

Although I do still go back to the prospect of transit along the port lands that they were willing to build, and they had a tax diversion scheme that they were going to do to get that done. It's hard to say what could have been. But so I have mixed feelings. How about you? I think that this, I think it probably deserved to fail. But I think this was rejected so hard, so completely,

and so thoroughly that there is no public agency whose purview is housing that is now going to step a toe outside of its lane in terms of innovating on sustainability or affordability. And that's a sad commentary. Yes, I think that that's the problem here. As I say, I think we need 20 failures like this or we need 100 of them because there's, you know, hundreds of thousands of people are coming to live in this region in the coming decades. The climate crisis is only gonna get worse.

We need to address these and we need to address them in radical ways, not incremental ways, but radical ways, and we needed to start a couple of decades ago. Okay, in our last couple of minutes here, this is not the last time you two are gonna collaborate, right, you are in the throes of another drama that we know all about, and in fact we've had the author of the book, Rogers vs. Rogers, on this program as well. And okay, give us a flavor of what you're planning there.

So Alexander Prasadzki wrote an amazing TikTok of the, I don't know if you remember, when the Rogers family kind of blew up in public. What do you mean, you don't know if you remember, when the Rogers family kind of blew up in public. What do you mean, you don't know if we remember? Well, I don't know if your viewers, particularly, if they remember when that happened, but it was extremely a public thing, and it happened while Edward Rogers, the board chair, and Ted Rogers' son,

decided that he was going to remove the CEO of Rogers and install his own CEO against his family's wishes, against most of the board's wishes. And they were trying to do this at the same moment as they were attempting the largest merger in Canadian corporate history. They were trying to take over Shaw Communications. For tens of billions of dollars. Right, right. Massive. And I find the psychological place

that you have to be in to attempt to do both of those things at the same time to be a very interesting place to write a play from. So we're going to explore that narrative and see what happens. Will it be required viewing for any actor who wants to appear in this production to watch Succession, the HBO show? Everyone's seen Succession. If you haven't seen Succession, you don't exist.

Exactly. Because that's, I know everybody thinks that's the Murdochs, but in fact it could be the Rogerses, couldn't it? Yeah. Well, it could be. They did a very good job of keeping themselves out of the newspaper, unless they wanted to be in the newspaper, right up until, as I say, Edward Rogers decided

to kind of blow up his family and blow up the corporation. At this very interesting moment, he was attempting to execute his father's legacy by making Rogers a truly national company. So I think we're going to have a lot of fun exploring the kind of self-sabotage that is possibly going on in somebody's mind when they kind of blow things up in that way.

Michael, get a good lawyer. Get a good lawyer on this one. Get a good lawyer on this one. Get a good lawyer on this one. That's all I'm going to say. I think any lawsuit will really just help the box office. Let's be clear. OK, we'll see. That's Michael Healy along with Chris Abraham.

They are the masters behind The Master Plan. And it's a terrific show through January now, isn't it? Playing through January? Through January, yeah. Through January at Soul Pepper in the Distillery District in Toronto. Don't walk to go see it. Run to go see it. You'll have a great night at the theater.

Thanks, Steve. Thank you so much.