Urban Expansion and Industrial Nature: A Political Ecology of Toronto's Port Industrial District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article analyses political and economic practices involved with the production of an industrial form of socio‐nature — the Port Industrial District — during the early decades of the twentieth century in Toronto, Canada. Informed by historical documents from that period, as well as using contemporary concepts from urban theory, we analyse the creation of a major land mass and southern extension of Toronto within a political ecology framework. We explicitly link the concept of socio‐nature with the dynamics suggested by theories of capital and spatial expansion, thereby bringing ‘nature’ into a more central position in understanding urban development processes. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the central organization in this land‐creation process, reflected, we argue, more the ideological preferences and economic interests of local elites than an efficient institutional design for solving a multi‐dimensional ‘waterfront problem’. The harbour commission and its supporters envisioned and promoted the new industrial district, the pivotal section of its 1912 waterfront development plan, as a general strategy for intensifying industrialization and growth of the city. The massive infrastructure project is best understood as a spatio‐temporal fix to productively absorb capital through spatial expansion and temporal deferment. A new institutional arrangement consolidated political and economic relations through practices that made possible the production of a new form of socio‐nature and reshaped the eastern section of Toronto's central waterfront as an industrial landscape. Résumé Cet article analyse les pratiques politiques et économiques impliquées dans la production d’une forme industrielle de socio‐nature, le quartier industriel portuaire de Toronto, dans les premières décennies du XXe siècle. À partir de documents historiques de cette époque et de concepts contemporains propres à la théorie urbaine, est analysée la création d’une zone terrestre considérable et d’une extension du Sud de Toronto dans un cadre d’écologie politique. Nous associons explicitement le concept de socio‐nature et les dynamiques suggérées par les théories de l’expansion du capital et de l’expansion spatiale, ce qui recentre la "nature" dans l’appréhension des processus d’aménagement urbain. À notre avis, les commissaires du Havre de Toronto, organisme central chargé de la création de ce terrain, ont davantage traduit les préférences idéologiques et les intérêts économiques des élites locales qu’un projet institutionnel efficient pour résoudre un "problème de front de mer" multi‐dimensionnel. La Commission du Havre et ses partisans ont imaginé et défendu le nouveau quartier industriel, composante‐clé du plan d’aménagement du front de mer de 1912, comme une stratégie d’ensemble visant à intensifier l’industrialisation et l’essor de la ville. Or, l’énorme projet d’infrastructure se comprend mieux en tant que solution spatio‐temporelle pour absorber des capitaux de manière productive par le biais d’une expansion spatiale et d’un report dans le temps. Un nouveau dispositif institutionnel a consolidé les relations politiques et économiques grâce à des pratiques qui ont permis la production d’un forme novatrice de socio‐nature et qui ont reprofilé en paysage industriel la partie Est du front de mer central de Toronto.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".