[EP4 NOTES] Taiaiako’n Historic Preservation Society: https://taiaiakon.wordpress.com/ Books that led me to the listening exercise: Robin Wall Kimmerer’s Braiding Sweetgrass (https://milkweed.org/book/braiding-sweetgrass) and Gathering Moss (http://osupress.oregonstate.edu/book/gathering-moss) On learning from/in “nature”: Brody, Michael. (2005). “Learning in nature,” Environmental Education Research, 11:5, 603-621, DOI: 10.1080/13504620500169809 Tuck, Eve and K. Wayne Yang. (2012). “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1:1, 1-40. Wolfe, Patrick. (2006). “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native,” Journal of Genocide Research, 8:4, 387-409, DOI: 10.1080/14623520601056240 I was made aware of Jacques “James” Baby’s slave ownership through the anonymous artist who posted signs detailing little-highlighted history of areas in Toronto, first seen here: https://twitter.com/IreneMooreDavi1/status/1297127704089722881 TRC Reports: http://nctr.ca/reports.php Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls final report: https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/ 1492 Land Back Lane: https://ca.gofundme.com/f/legal-fund-1492-land-back-lane Donate to Unist’ot’en Camp to support the Wet’suwet’en: https://unistoten.camp/support-us/donate/ “Shrugs greet historic $145M Toronto land claim settlement”: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/06/08/shrugs_greet_historic_145m_toronto_land_claim_settlement.html It is difficult to determine exactly how much of Toronto’s budget comes from development charges, but for an example, the development charges to build a single-oriented dwelling unit add up to $76,830. More here: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/983a-Nov-2019-DC-and-NON-DC-rates.pdf It is important to note that with Bill 108, the Ford government has done away with development charges and have replaced them with “community benefits charge,” the impact of which on city budgets planners are still attempting to understand (2020). Further readings on planning movements: Fishman, R. (2016). “Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier.” In: Fainstein, S. S., & DeFilippis, J. (Eds.). (2015). Readings in planning theory. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-20. Marcuse, P. (2011). “The three historic currents of city planning.” The New Blackwell Companion to the City, 643-655. Friedmann, J. (1987). “Chapter 1: The Terrain of Planning Theory”. (pp. 19-48). In Planning in the Public Domain. From knowledge to action. Princeton University Press. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design is a philosophy that spaces can be designed to deter crime. This is a philosophy promoted by police (see PDF link under “CPTED” heading: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/crimeprevention/ & https://www.edmontonpolice.ca/crimeprevention/communitysafety/cpted). Instead of addressing wealth gaps, lacking social support networks, institutional oppression, and disenfranchisement of poor people, CPTED seeks to place the blame within a hypothetical part of humans that exploits and preys upon weakness. I link this to middle class anxieties around property ownership. This also works from a narrow understanding of “crime” and ignores the largest form of theft, which is wage theft (through unpaid overtime, lost breaks, etc.). Furthermore, it ignores the “invisible” crimes which happen in areas not thought to be “crime-ridden,” such as domestic abuse, tax evasion, etc. Before the Gardiner: https://www.blogto.com/city/2012/04/what_sunnyside_looked_like_before_the_gardiner_arrived/ About the development of New City Hall: https://www.blogto.com/city/2014/03/a_1960s_toronto_photo_extravaganza/ Canada: native-land.ca US: https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fe311f69cb1d43558227d73bc34f3a32
