Community in Steel: Forging Connections & Ideating Hybrid Spaces

CityLAB Hamilton Semester in Residence - Final Report

1. CityLAB Semester In Residence - Final Report
Proposed By Proposed To
City of Hamilton & Slate
Asset Management
Liam Feldman
Taskin Ahmed Eera
Aiman Dhiloon
Alyssa Francella
Bhavika Nayyar
Christine Pizzoferrato
Forging Connections &
Ideating Hybrid Spaces

2. Table of Contents
1.0 - 1.3
2.0 - 2.7
3.0 - 3.4
4.0 - 4.6
5.0 - 5.2
6.0 - 6.5.2
7.0 - 7.7
9.0 - 9.4
Pg. 99
8.0 - 8.5
Pg. 92
11.0 - 11.4
10.0 - 10.5
2
Executive Summary
Introduction & Background
Our Process
Community Engagement
Risks
Findings in Governance & Funding Strategies
Case Study: The Bentway
Heritage Designations
Potential Models
Waterfront Activation
Recommendations & Conclusions
Appendices
References
Key terms
Pg. 6 - 7
Meet the Steelport CityLab Team
Pg. 5
Acknowledgements
Pg. 4
Land Acknowledgement
Pg. 3

3. We must recognize that the City of
Hamilton is situated upon the traditional
territories of the Erie, Neutral, Huron-
Wendat, Haudenosaunee and
Mississaugas. This land is covered by the
Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt
Covenant, which was an agreement
between the Haudenosaunee and
Anishinaabek to share and care for the
resources around the Great Lakes.
We further acknowledge that this land is
covered by the Between the Lakes
Purchase, 1792, between the Crown and
the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.
Today, the City of Hamilton is home to
many Indigenous people from across
Turtle Island (North America) and we
recognize that we must do more to learn
about the rich history of this land so that
we can better understand our roles as
residents, neighbours, partners and
caretakers.
Land Acknowledgement
3

4. On behalf of our CityLAB Project Team, we would like
to express our sincere gratitude to CityLAB Hamilton
for the opportunity to work on this meaningful project.
We are especially thankful to Randy Kay, Rachel
Johnson, Cameron Murray, Darina Vasek and
Elizabeth Bang for their guidance, support, and
encouragement throughout this journey.
We would also like to extend our thanks to Allison Gilks
and Steve Dejonckheere at Slate Asset Management
for their expertise and collaboration; Mark Michniak
from the City of Hamilton for sharing their insights
and supporting our ideas and Gerry Tchisler from
MHBC Planning, whose expertise helped us navigate
the complexities of this project.
This opportunity to work alongside such dedicated
professionals and organizations has been an
incredible learning experience. Thank you all for your
contributions and for allowing us to be part of this
impactful project. We cant wait to see project
Steelport unfold in the future!
- The Steelport CityLAB Team
Acknowledgements
4

5. Alyssa Francella
McMaster Univeristy
3rd Year Honours B.A
Communication
Studies
[email protected]
Liam Feldman
Aiman Dhiloon
Bhavika Nayyar
Taskin A. Eera
Christine Pizzoferrato
McMaster University
3rd Year Honours B.A
Social Psychology &
Urban Planning
Certification
[email protected]
McMaster University
4th Year Honours B.A
Economics and
Environment and
Society
Certificate in Urban
Planning
[email protected]
McMaster University
5th Year Honours
B.HSc (Biomedical
Discovery &
Commercialization)
[email protected]
McMaster University
5th Year Honours
B.HSc (Health,
Engineering Science
& Entrepreneurship),
[email protected]
5
McMaster Univeristy
4th Year Honours
Bachelor of Arts &
Science
[email protected]

6. Key Terms
Steelport: Residing on Hamilton’s
industrial bayfront area, Steelport is
an 800-acre property that Slate
Asset Management acquired in June
2022. Steelport’s objective is to
preserve Hamilton's industrial
heritage while redeveloping the
property into a world class
employment park
Privately-Owned Public Spaces
(POPS): A particular kind of open
space that is privately owned yet
available to the public. These areas
are frequently the outcome of
contracts or formal agreements
between local governments and
developers, whereby the latter agree
to provide these public areas in
exchange for incentives.
MHBC Planning: An Ontario-based
consulting firm specializing in urban
and rural planning, urban design,
landscape architecture, cultural
heritage, and resource
management. Since its founding in
1973, it has expanded to five
locations with more than 100 experts,
accomplishing hundreds of projects
with an emphasis on creativity, and
customer service.
Hybrid Spaces: A hybrid space is a
multifunctional area designed for mixed usage,
often characterized by a place that involves
shared ownership between the private and
public sectors.

Slate Asset Management: Slate Asset
Management is an investment and asset
management company that focuses on real
estate. It oversees investments in real estate,
real estate securities, and other assets
intending to add value through creative
thinking and active management. Office,
industrial, retail, and real estate debt are just a
few of the industries and asset classes where
Slate specializes in identifying underutilized or
missed possibilities. As the owner and primary
driver of this site, they are mentioned frequently
in this report as “Slate.”
B Corps: These are companies that are verified
by B Lab (nonprofit network transforming the
global economy) to meet specific high
standards of social as well as environmental
performance, transparency and accountability.
6

7. Key Terms
Waterfront: The water-facing area of the
Steelport lands. The area will be
revitalized to improve community access
and connection. Plans contemplate
turning it into a lively, multipurpose area
with parks, walking paths, and
recreational amenities to create a
dynamic link between the shoreline and
the surrounding urban environment.
Pipe Gallery: The Steelport project's
Pipe Gallery features a system of old,
industrial pipelines that were used to
move steam and other byproducts of
steel manufacturing. To create a
"main street" vibe, the reconstruction
will transform this area into an
inventive public space that highlights
its industrial background, that could
introduce smaller-scale pedestrian-
related amenities and new routes.
Coke Battery: A historic industrial building,
the Coke Battery was formerly used to turn
coal into coke - a crucial ingredient in the
steel-making process. In order to preserve
its historical significance while making it a
focal point for future urban revitalization
and involvement, the redevelopment plans
seek to turn this property into a mixed-use
employment area that could incorporate
communal and commercial spaces.
The Hybrid Spaces
Lagoon scape: The Lagoon contemplates
shallow channels for stormwater that can
be activated by surrounding landscaping
and trail networks. A landscape with its
core that combines aesthetic, ecological,
and human components. It outlines a
sustainable environment for managing
stormwater while also improving habitat,
recreation, linkages, ecosystems and
resilience.
7

8. 1.2 Problem Statement
1.1 Project Introduction
Slate Asset Management is preparing to redevelop an 800-acre former industrial site on
Hamilton’s Bayfront to make room for new industry. While the land is currently privately-owned,
Slate plans to integrate community public spaces. This overall plan - integrating new
commercial opportunities with community parks, event venues and other spaces - is called
Steelport. These types of hybrid spaces currently exist internationally and within Canada.
Through this CityLAB project, our team researched, interviewed and completed a
comprehensive review of how these other existing hybrid space's function and the process they
went through from ideation to implementation as it relates to their governance model(s). Given
that these spaces mix public access and private ownership, formation of cohesive and long-
term plans for operation and coordinating this relationship between Slate and the City is a
difficult task. Our goal is to envision Steelport’s operation, while crucially incorporating the
needs and priorities of the community into our process.
8
The Steelport Project represents a transformative approach to hybrid
spaces that blends private ownership with public accessibility. This report
outlines the historical significance of the site, the alignment with City
priorities, & the theoretical frameworks that guided our community
engagement strategies. Through a robust methodology, including expert
consultations and a dialogue event, we explored innovative governance
and funding models like conservancies and social enterprises, to ensure
sustainable and inclusive development. Key findings also emphasize the
importance of accessibility, transparency, and diverse programming,
culminating in a vision for activating the Hamilton waterfront as a vibrant
community hub.
Opportunities for heritage designation were also analyzed, with pathways at municipal, provincial,
and federal levels offering potential to preserve the site’s legacy. Coupled with actionable insights
into waterfront activation, governance structures, and funding mechanisms, this project lays the
foundation for turning the Steelport vision into a reality, fostering innovation and engagement in
the heart of Hamilton.

9. The governance framework for Steelport should adopt a hybrid model
that includes a central not-for-profit corporation and registered charity,
along with two distinct trusts: a Heritage Trust for the Coke Battery and a
Waterfront Trust for the waterfront area. This structure would allow for
site-specific autonomy in programming and fundraising, while keeping
operational processes simple. Pursuing UNESCO designation for the
Coke Battery aligns with community priorities for creating affordable
and accessible spaces. Meanwhile, the Waterfront Trust can focus on
more commercially oriented activities. Transparent management,
regular communication, and community involvement through resident
committees are essential for building trust and fostering collaboration.
Key findings highlight the transformative potential of Steelport as a
cultural and economic hub. The activation plan envisions a range of
recreational programs, multi-functional venues, and youth-oriented
amenities to attract a diverse demographic. Sustainability and
accessibility are prioritized through clean energy initiatives and
integrated transportation solutions. Addressing the lingering stigma
associated with contamination will require transparent reclamation
efforts, as well as celebrating local culture. These steps are vital for
reshaping public perception and ensuring community support. By
balancing cultural enrichment, economic growth, and environmental
resilience, Steelport can become a model for inclusive urban
revitalization.
1.3 Findings & Recommendations
9
“Cities have the capability
of providing something for
everybody, only because,
and only when, they are
created by everybody.”
- Jane Jacobs
The Death & Life
of Great
American Cities

10. 2.0 Introduction & Background
CityLAB Hamilton is an innovation hub that
brings together student, academic, and civic
leaders to inspire, energize, and build a
healthy, sustainable, and more vibrant
Hamilton by co-creating and designing real-
world projects.
CityLAB is a collaboration between the City of
Hamilton, McMaster University, Mohawk
College, and Redeemer University.
The Steelport CityLAB SIR team worked
alongside partners from Slate Asset
Management, MHBC Planning, and City of
Hamilton staff.
2.1 CityLAB
10

11. In 1910, the Canadian steel company Stelco
was established during a major transition, it
merged with Montreal Rolling Mills and The
Hamilton Steel and Iron Company. It was the
outcome of a daring collaboration that
foresaw new difficulties and mapped out a
course for opportunities to improve the
country, while also gaining notoriety for
exceptional product service. As generations
of Stelco employees have made important
contributions to their communities and
country, the company's resilience has been
primarily known for innovative and forward-
thinking vision. Although the history of the
steel industry is complicated and full of both
good and bad effects that have sparked
differing viewpoints, the diligent steelworkers
have left a lasting legacy of resiliency and
communal strength. 
As the steel industry changed over time,
many of Stelco's businesses were moved or
closed down, leaving most of the site
unoccupied and under-utilized. Stelco's
present activities include; the cold rolling
steel mill, which is meant to stay in place for
the time being, and the one surviving Coke
Battery, expecting imminent relocation.
2.2 History & Heritage of Stelco in Hamilton
11
In 2022, Slate purchased the subject
lands with the goal of transforming it into
a contemporary, master-planned work
zone. The crux of Steelport will be a new
industrial, manufacturing, and creative
hub in Hamilton. Alongside a new
industrial sector, Steelport plans to
introduce four varieties of 4 new large
public spaces spread throughout the
property.  Workers are an integral and
important part of Hamilton's history, but
Stelco itself contributed both good and
bad.
In 2024 during the four-month CityLAB
Semester in Residence program,
students from McMaster University and
redeemer University collaborated to
address urgent issues that our society
faces now and in the future. This
curriculum enables us to push students
to use all their program skills and apply
them to our project scenarios, both
academically and personally. This year,
our team had the opportunity to
collaborate with Slate to carefully
evaluate the site’s opportunity to be not
just an industrial hub, but a shared
community space for all of Hamilton.
During this work, we must take action to
meaningfully commemorate the site's
legacy where Stelco employees formerly
and currently worked. The CityLAB team
will be sharing our results and the
community suggestions received
throughout the semester on how to
improve accessibility and equity in this
area .
Figure 1: Stelco Lands

12. Hybrid spaces are multifunctional spaces that are on a scale of shared public and private
ownership and are often mixed use. These spaces have become the drivers of social, spatial and
economic transformation in cities worldwide. Unlike the mono-cultural spaces in the 21st century,
hybrid spaces promote the convergence of enterprise, culture, recreation, and ecology in the
public realm, creating new possibilities for cooperation and growth.
There are many examples of hybrid spaces around the world, but specifically in Ontario, two
well-known examples include The Well and Evergreen Brick Works. The Well is an inside-out mall
used for pedestrians to move between three streets that delineate the property. The internal
lanes have no doors, and the passageways function as publicly owned private space (POPS), a
type of hybrid space but on a geographically small scale. Similarly, Evergreen Brick Works was a
development led by DTAH, a private design firm, in partnership with the City of Toronto and the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and is now a multipurpose public space. These sites
provide valuable insight into how these spaces have the potential to be developed and
governed, allowing Steelport to draw upon these examples when developing their own hybrid
spaces.
2.3 Introduction to Hybrid Spaces
The map of the Steelport property, including its four planned hybrid spaces, is depicted in
Figure 2. These hybrid spaces will be incorporated through the 4km Steelport Loop of (1) The
Lagoon Scape (2) The Pipe Gallery (3) The Coke Battery (4) The Waterfront.
2.4 Steelport’s Hybrid Spaces
Figure 2: Steelport Landscape Plan including the four hybrid spaces (The Battery, The
Lagoonscape, The Pipe Gallery, The Waterfront) (Slate Asset Management, 2024)  12

13. The Battery, an iconic steel production landmark, and the Pipe Gallery, a linear park scaling
“Main Street”, are retained industrial structures infused with unique and diverse public
amenities. The Lagoon Scape, a stormwater management site, and The Waterfront which is
the natural shoreline of Hamilton Harbour, are regenerated landscapes with recreational
and ecological value. Each hybrid space offers unique open spaces that layer in green
infrastructure, recreation, as well as cultural and entrepreneurial opportunities. The unique
dialogue between these layers enhances the identity and experience, creating the
attraction to move along this 4km route.
The Waterfront
The Battery
The Pipe Gallery
The Lagoon scape
Renewal of Hamilton Harbour
natural shoreline with public
access
Preservation of Stelco’s
iconic steel production
landmark as a hybrid park
A linear hybrid space scaling
“Main Street” with smaller sized
industrial and linear spaces
A regenerated biodiverse
ecological landscape for
stormwater management
13

14. Bayfront Industrial Strategy
The Bayfront Industrial Strategy, demonstrates the City’s emphasis on revitalizing Hamilton’s
waterfront and industrial areas to contribute to the City’s long-term vision for urban
development. The Steelport Project aligns with this strategy by focusing on the adaptive reuse
of industrial lands, promoting sustainability, and fostering economic and community
resilience.
A key element of the Bayfront Industrial Strategy, is to improve Hamilton's economic health
while balancing environmental and social considerations. The Steelport project contributes to
this goal in several ways. First, it revitalizes former industrial lands by transforming them into
dynamic, mixed-use spaces that can support both community engagement and economic
development. By introducing hybrid spaces, the project ensures that these areas remain
accessible to the public while leveraging private investment to maintain and enhance their
quality. This model strikes a balance between economic pragmatism and social equity,
aligning closely with the Bayfront Industrial Strategy’s vision.
The integration of waterfront access into the Steelport project is particularly significant.
Historically, much of Hamilton’s waterfront has been inaccessible to the general public,
dominated by private industrial operations. By opening up these spaces, the Steelport project
reconnects residents with the waterfront, creating new opportunities for recreation, cultural
events, and social interaction. This improved access fosters a sense of community ownership
and pride, addressing a key priority in Hamilton’s waterfront revitalization efforts.
Furthermore, the project incorporates sustainable design principles, including green
infrastructure and environmentally friendly construction practices. This commitment aligns
with the Bayfront Industrial Strategy’s emphasis on sustainability and environmental
stewardship, ensuring that redevelopment efforts do not compromise the ecological health of
the waterfront or its surrounding areas.
2.5 Alignment of City Priorities
14
The redevelopment of the Stelco lands under Steelport
aligns cohesively with the City of Hamilton’s strategic
goals and priorities, particularly through the Bayfront
Industrial Strategy and City Council’s broader policy
objectives. The project represents a cornerstone of
Hamilton’s efforts to transform underutilized industrial
sites into vibrant, inclusive, and accessible urban
spaces that serve the community while driving
sustainable economic growth.

15. Economic growth is another key priority for Hamilton, and the Steelport project contributes
meaningfully to this goal. The redevelopment of the Stelco lands stimulates local economic
activity by attracting new businesses, encouraging tourism, and creating employment
opportunities. From construction and maintenance jobs  to longer-term positions in retail,
hospitality, and event management, the project provides a multifaceted economic boost to
the region. Moreover, by enhancing the area’s appeal, it helps to attract investment and
talent, strengthening Hamilton’s position as a competitive urban centre.
Sustainable development is also central to Hamilton’s strategic priorities, and the Steelport
project embodies this principle through its commitment to adaptive reuse, environmentally
conscious practices, and long-term resilience. By transforming an industrial site into a
multifunctional urban area, the project demonstrates how cities can balance development
with ecological responsibility, setting a precedent for similar initiatives in the future.
Beyond its alignment with the Bayfront Industrial Strategy, the
Steelport project reflects several of the City of Hamilton’s broader
priorities, as identified in City Council’s strategic planning. One of
the City’s core objectives is to enhance community well-being
by fostering inclusive, accessible, and livable neighbourhoods.
The Steelport project directly supports this objective, by creating
new public spaces that encourage community engagement and
social interaction. These spaces are designed to be inclusive,
catering to diverse demographics and needs, and provide an
environment where residents can connect, relax, and thrive.
15
Enhancing Community Spaces
Economic Growth
Urban Connectivity
Finally, the project contributes to improved urban connectivity, another key
priority for the City. By enhancing waterfront access and creating spaces
that link Hamilton’s neighbourhoods to the waterfront, the Steelport project
fosters greater physical and social connectivity. This integration not only
improves residents’ quality of life, but also strengthens the City’s social
fabric which makes Hamilton a more cohesive and inclusive community.
In summary, the Steelport project’s hybrid spaces represents a
transformative initiative that aligns closely with both the Bayfront Industrial
Strategy and the City of Hamilton’s overarching priorities. By repurposing
industrial lands, promoting sustainable development, enhancing public
access to the waterfront, and fostering economic growth, the project
contributes to a vision of Hamilton as a vibrant, inclusive, and forward-
thinking city. Its alignment with the City’s goals ensures that the project will
serve as a model for successful urban redevelopment, benefiting residents
and stakeholders alike for generations to come.

16. Summary of Alignments
16
The Steelport project aligns closely with Hamilton’s vision for sustainable urban
development and inclusive community spaces. The Bayfront Industrial Strategy
emphasizes transforming former industrial sites into sustainable, vibrant, and
economically beneficial areas. The redevelopment of the Stelco lands embodies this
vision by:
Revitalizing Industrial Lands: Repurposing underutilized or vacant spaces into
dynamic, accessible environments fosters economic growth while respecting
Hamilton's industrial heritage.
Improving Waterfront Accessibility: By creating privately owned public spaces
(POPS), the Steelport Project ensures the integration of the waterfront into the city
fabric, reconnecting residents to previously inaccessible areas and fostering
community interaction.
Sustainability & Resilience: Incorporating green infrastructure and prioritizing eco-
friendly designs, directly addresses the strategy's call for environmental
stewardship and long-term viability of industrial site redevelopment.
Community Well-being & Engagement: By introducing public spaces that are privately
managed, the project promotes shared responsibility while enhancing community pride and
interaction. This supports the City’s goal of inclusive urban spaces that benefit all residents.
Economic Growth & Job Creation: The transformation of the Stelco lands stimulates local
economies by attracting businesses, fostering tourism, and creating jobs linked to
construction, maintenance, and event programming.
Sustainable Development: The project prioritizes sustainable practices, including the reuse
of industrial land and waterfront revitalization, aligning with the council’s goals of balancing
urban growth with environmental health.
Urban Connectivity: Improved waterfront access enhances connectivity within Hamilton,
creating new opportunities for recreation, mobility, and integration with adjacent
neighbourhoods.
Council priorities for Hamilton emphasize fostering livable, sustainable, and
inclusive communities. The Steelport project supports these goals by addressing
key focus areas, such as:
The Steelport project represents a pivotal step in Hamilton’s journey toward a
more connected, vibrant, and sustainable city.

17. 2.6 Inclusion & Democratic Deficits in Public Spaces
In the context of Steelport, addressing the democratic deficit is
critical to ensuring that the proposed hybrid public spaces
foster inclusivity, equity, and active participation. This report
will use the concept of democratic deficits and true equity as a
lens to evaluate the governance, funding, and programming
models proposed for the project, with the goal of identifying
strategies that promote shared stewardship and empower
diverse voices within the community.
2.7 Values Guiding our Research & Recommendations
Throughout the course of this project, in our academic and applied learning, as well as
co-creation workshop, we have identified 4 pillars that we found to be recurring themes.
These values guided us in our CityLAB journey, from dialogue, to research to
recommendations.
17
HERITAGE &
STORYTELLING
EQUITY IN
GOVERNANCE
CONTINUITY &
FEASIBILITY
TRANSPARENT &
TRUE COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
A democratic deficit in public spaces, refers to the gap between the ideals of democratic
participation and the realities of unequal access, representation, and decision-making in
these spaces. Public spaces are important centers for civic engagement, free expression,
and community building, yet many fail to uphold these democratic principles. This failure is
often characterized by the exclusion of marginalized groups, market creep, and the lack of
meaningful community involvement in the governance and programming of these spaces.

18. The team was invited to conduct a site visit of the Steelport property on October 2nd 2024,
where we could make a range of observations and better understand the potential and
scope of the four hybrid spaces. After this, we began our process of investigation by
researching hybrid spaces and governance models around the world, to see if these
examples could be applied to Steelport specifically. The research we conducted included;
An analysis of other hybrid spaces to identify their approach to governance and funding
Which partners are in charge of what? Who is in charge of the operation? How is it
coordinated? How is revenue generated for programming and maintainance?
The body of articles discussing the strengths and weaknesses of different models,
especially given its relationship to community accessibility
Examining features of governance and programming of existing hybrid spaces
worldwide that currently exists, to identify reasons for successes and failures.
3.1 Exploration & Environmental Scan
Our Process: How an Equity Lens can be
Applied to Hybrid Space Projects
18
Figure 3: Our Team

19. The concept of social inclusion ensures that engagement processes are accessible to all,
regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, or ability. Drawing on Amartya Sen’s (1999)
Capability Approach, this framework prioritizes enabling full participation and benefit from the
redevelopment. This is operationalized through targeted outreach, multilingual communication,
and the provision of accessible public forums.
19
Social Inclusion
Placemaking
Placemaking is about making a space into a place. It emphasizes the importance of creating
spaces that reflect the identity, aspirations, and needs of the community. The Steelport project
adopts a placemaking approach to transform the Stelco lands into vibrant, multifunctional
environments. Key elements include fostering a sense of belonging, promoting social interaction,
and creating spaces that are both functional and inspiring.
Ideating a strong and economically self-sufficient structure of operation often butts heads
with the assurance of meaningful accessibility. To navigate this tension, we consulted a
variety of planning frameworks that underscored our research. Importantly, self-sufficient
governance and full accessibility are not equals. Instead, the latter is carved onto the
masthead as a prerequisite for the imagination of the former.
Participatory Urban Planning
Participatory urban planning emphasizes the involvement of community members in
shaping the development of their environments. Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen
Participation serves as a foundational model, outlining levels of engagement from
tokenistic consultation, to meaningful partnership and citizen control. Steelport’s project
aspires to operate at the higher rungs of this ladder by fostering collaboration and
empowerment, allowing community members to have a tangible influence on the
outcomes.
3.2 Theoretical Framework for Community Engagement

20. 3.2.2 Strategic Pillars of Community Engagement
The theoretical framework for the Steelport project is structured around three strategic pillars that
operationalize the principles of participatory planning, social inclusion, and placemaking:
Community-Centered Design
Conducting workshops with residents to co-create designs for public spaces.
Incorporating feedback loops to ensure that community input directly influences decisions.
Prioritizing the integration of cultural, historical, and environmental narratives in design
elements.
Inclusive Engagement Practices
Hosting accessible public meetings and using digital platforms to reach broader audiences.
Engaging with local organizations and advocacy groups to ensure the voices of
marginalized populations are heard.
Employing tools such as surveys, focus groups, and participatory mapping to gather diverse
perspectives.
Sustainable Collaboration Models
Establishing long-term partnerships with community stakeholders, including local
businesses, schools, and non-profits.
Developing stewardship programs to involve residents in the maintenance and
programming of public spaces.
Creating mechanisms for ongoing feedback and adaptation to ensure spaces remain
relevant as community needs evolve.
20
By embedding this theoretical framework into the Steelport planning and execution phases, the
redevelopment efforts will not only achieve physical transformation but also foster a deeper
social impact. Community engagement becomes both a process and an outcome, ensuring
that the Steelport serves as a model for inclusive, sustainable urban redevelopment.
3.2.2 Strategic Pillars of Community Engagement
3.2.3 Anticipated Outcomes
The implementation of this theoretical framework is expected to yield the
following outcomes;
Enhanced Community Ownership: Residents feel a strong sense of
connection and pride in the redeveloped spaces.
Equitable Access & Use: The spaces cater to a wide range of needs &
demographics, ensuring inclusivity.
Resilient & Relevant Spaces: Continuous engagement ensures that
spaces evolve with the community’s changing needs.

21. 3.3.1 Philanthropic Meeting with Sutton Associates
The team engaged in a strategic meeting with Sutton Associates, led by founder
Susan Sutton, to develop funding strategies and create a compelling case for
attracting philanthropic contributions. Discussions centred on key themes such as
impact investing and corporate responsibility. It also highlighted innovative
financial structures, including venture philanthropy and B Corps. A significant
focus was the exploration of forming a separate entity from Slate, potentially
structured as a public-private-nonprofit consortium or land trust, with an
emphasis on community involvement and accessibility. Establishing strategic
partnerships for tenants and identifying potential donors, such as private family
foundations, were identified as key priorities. The potential development of a film
studio was also discussed to enhance donor engagement and broaden funding
opportunities.
The team conducted consultation with Spruce Labs, emphasizing the
importance of prioritizing Indigenous and First Nations access and autonomy.
This consultation is referenced in Section 10 Prioritizing Indigenous Access and
Autonomy (as outlined in the Pier 8 case study), underscoring the
commitment to ensuring inclusive and equitable development strategies.
3.3.2 Consultation with Spruce Labs
3.3.3 Invest Ontario Support
An email consultation with Invest Ontario provided the team with access to the
Business Benefits Finder platform, which proved instrumental in identifying relevant
grants for socially-oriented projects like ours. This resource aligns with the broader
funding strategy by enabling the team to leverage public-sector support effectively.
21
3.3 Expert Consults
A key facet of our research was our
professional consultations with different
organizations with experience navigating
complex, socially-oriented projects like ours.
These consultations gave us a blueprint for
the different options and structures that
helped detail the how of hybrid spaces, or
provided templates for better engagement
and community incorporation.

22. On October 21st 2024, two of our team members were
invited to Steelport’s Community Advisory Meeting
(CAC) at the Cotton Factory to present our project on
behalf of CityLAB and speak to community members
invested in Steelport’s hybrid spaces. Slate had
formatted this meeting with a short presentation, and
then two following discussion questions to allow
community members to provide input. The discussion
questions were: (1) “What kind of programming and
activation do you envision in these spaces?” (2) “What
models and mechanisms can support and implement
these hybrid spaces?”
This meeting was more for informing community
members about these hybrid spaces rather than
discussion, as it mostly operated as a formal Q&A period
between Slate and the community groups.
The discussion provided meaningful information to
advise next steps among City and community.
3.3.5 The Steelport
CAC Meeting
The team participated in a meeting with Engage Hamilton, which is
detailed in Section 3.4. This meeting reinforced the importance of
community engagement, highlighting the need to incorporate
diverse stakeholder perspectives into the planning process to
ensure the project's alignment with local needs and aspirations.
3.3.4 Meeting with Engage Hamilton
Figure 4: Steelport CAC Meeting at
The Cotton Factory
22

23. On November 11th 2024, the CityLAB project team hosted a
Community co-creation workshop (to be referred to as a
‘Dialogue Event’) at McMaster’s Centre for Continuing
Education on 1 James Street North, Hamilton, ON. We
called this event ‘Community Led Workshop: Building
Steelport’s Hybrid Spaces Together’. It was a productive
evening full of grassroots learning and vibrant, unfiltered
discussions about what the community envisions for well
designed, equitable spaces for public use.
While the Dialogue was specifically targeted towards
Hamilton locals, residents of the industrial districts and
members of grassroots community organizations based
in Hamilton, it was open to anyone.
This section details our community engagement efforts during and surrounding our dialogue
event. The lessons learned from the event, combined with our general research into the
common concerns around ‘public accessibility’, makes up our findings regarding community
priorities and accessibility requirements.
4.1 Our Dialogue Event
The Dialogue Event consisted of the following;
A quick presentation by the CityLAB team,
explaining our project and the nature of our
partnership with Slate, MHBC and The City of
Hamilton.
A series of 3 moderated round table co-
creation discussions, facilitated by the project
team. This section began with a collaborative
brainstorming activity and led to vibrant
roundtable discussions.
A moderated feedback session, that presented
attendees with an opportunity to share their
perspectives on the community engagement
process for the project.
The Purpose of this Dialogue Event
was to:
Identify opportunities for local
consultation in The Industrial
District
Gain Insight into community
needs and priorities
Encourage transparent, candid
conversation between
facilitators and attendees
Inform recommendations for
the funding, governance, and
programming
23
4.o Community Engagement

24. 4.2.1 Target Audience: Why Engage Locals &
Community Organizations?
Our partners already have ongoing community engagement efforts for the Steelport
project. As mentioned above, the CAC meeting is one of them. Our team identified that the
absence of residents at the CAC meeting was a significant opportunity for our Dialogue
event. It was also our intention to avoid redundancies in community engagement.
Therefore, city staff and community groups that were already presented too were not our
central target audience.
Engaging residents and community organizations, is essential in ensuring that Steelport’s
hybrid spaces truly address the needs of those who live and work in the area. The
industrial districts and surrounding neighbourhoods are notably underserved in terms
of greenspace and affordable, accessible gathering spaces, which indicates an under-
provision of community resources. By actively seeking feedback from residents, the project
can identify the specific needs these hybrid spaces should fulfill and the gaps they have
the potential to address. By centering local voices, the project can achieve meaningful
revitalization that balances economic growth with equitable community impact.
4.2 Dialogue Plan and Facilitation
24
Figure 5: Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index
census data showing the
warmest and least green
area of the City of Hamilton is
the industrial area close to
the lakeshore.

25. The project team took various measures to consider Equity, Diversity and Inclusion for
the Dialogue Event. The measures included:
Promoting the event by canvassing and postering in various organizations that
serve equity-deserving communities (such as the YWCA, religious establishments,
childcare facilities, community kitchens, thrift stores and laundromats) in the
Industrial Districts and nearby neighbourhoods.
Making posters specific to canvassing, with additional information for the
layperson.
Reaching out to residents via Facebook, to be visible to communities that are hard
to access in person or via email/instagram/X.
Asking participants to share accessibility accommodations and dietary
restrictions in emails.
Offering a variety of food options, including vegan, gluten-free and dairy free
options.
Hosting the event in an AODA compliant building.
Going fully analogue! All interactive activities were fully engaged on paper and in
person and were easily accessible without technological skills. For instance, every
roundtable discussion was facilitated via sticky notes and pens.
For those interested in coming to the dialogue event but unable to make it, we
developed short online surveys per hybrid sites to gather feedback.
25
4.2.2 Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI):
Event Considerations & Practices
Figure 6: Official
Poster of Dialogue
Even

26. The project team used simple analogue tools to aid with the facilitation of the
co--creation workshop. These included sticky notes, hand drawn posters and
an easel. There was a brief slide deck presented to attendees, but it was quick
and informal, as the goal of our workshop was only partially to inform, but
predominantly to share the process of creation.
Facilitation strategies used by the project team include:
Setting an affable tone by asking an icebreaker question. One such
question was, ‘What is your favourite soup?’.
Round Table small group discussions: Breaking participants into smaller
groups for focused discussions, which often lead to deeper conversations
and greater participation from quieter attendees.
Visioning Exercises: Encouraging participants to imagine future
possibilities and develop shared goals for the community or project (E.g.
what would make you want to visit this space?).
Visual Facilitation Tools: Utilizing easels, posters, and sticky notes to
capture ideas visually, making discussions more dynamic and inclusive.
The project team used simple analogue tools, to aid with the facilitation of
co-creation workshop to avoid distractions from notifications.
4.2.3 Facilitation Tools & Techniques: Creating
the Right Atmosphere
26
Figure 8:
Roundtable
Discussion
Figure 9: Taskin
Eera recording
input form sticky
notes

27. 27
The project team set out to establish a clear tone
of respect and nonpartisanship, creating a
welcoming and safe space for open dialogue. We
showed active listening by attentively
summarizing and reflecting on participants’
contributions, making sure everyone felt heard
and valued. When more charged opinions came
up, we stayed neutral, validating different
perspectives without taking sides to keep the
environment balanced and respectful. We also
allowed for pauses and moments of silence,
giving participants time to process and share their
thoughts fully. To keep the discussion on track, we
practiced gentle timekeeping, redirecting
conversations when needed while maintaining a
supportive atmosphere. Most importantly, we
encouraged everyone to participate, ensuring a
diverse range of voices were included and making
the dialogue as inclusive and meaningful as
possible.
Figures 10: Our Dialogue Event Handbook & Agenda
sent to attendees

28. Outreach and Promotion
The team began promoting the
Dialogue Event approximately three
weeks before the day. Our
promotional materials included
social media graphics, email blasts,
a canvassing poster, as well as an
official poster. An Eventbrite form
was created for attendees to
register in advance. The names,
organizations, and emails of
attendees were collected and used
to reach out with emails about the
event later.
4.3 Event Logistics
28
The outreach process was an especially fulfilling
aspect of the project. We were deeply invested in
getting as many residents from the Industrial
Districts as well as the nearby Stipley and
Crownpoint neighbourhoods, so we visited multiple
community catalyst centers, such as the YWCA,
union offices, churches, bars, local coffeeshops,
restaurants and even a community kitchen. We
spent time socializing with the patrons of these
establishments and the employees. What
surprised us, was the sheer extent of immediate
interest that was sparked just from our canvassing
efforts. People were quite eager to tell us all about
their experience interacting with the former Stelco
Lands, and many were eager to share stories and
concerns.
Two Significant Venues for our Outreach were:
Eva Rothwell Centre: We spoke to parents who
were dropping off/picking up their children, about
the Steelport Project. This community centre is
located at the heart of the Industrial District
Pamoja at The Permaculture Lab: We attended a
gathering of long time Hamilton environmentalists
and urban agriculturists, to promote the Dialogue,
and many from there showed up to the event!
Figure 11: Our Dialogue Promotion Venue:
Eva Rothwell Center
Figure 12: Our Dialogue Promotion Poster

29. 29
4.4 Dialogue Activity: Co Creation Workshops 
Room Setup
The classroom was set up to have three round tables with chairs arranged around them,
with a projector and whiteboard facing the front. The three tables were arranged so all
participants could easily face each other while conversing. Each table had an
accompanying interactive board with photographs and mockups of each site, where
open-ended questions were written down. Food was laid out buffet style in the back of
the room.
A co-creation workshop is a structured session where stakeholders work together to solve
problems and generate ideas for a product or service. The goal is to create a mutually
preferred outcome by aligning participants and combining their expertise and viewpoints.
We concluded that this was the right format for our dialogue, as co-creation was able to bring
future users of the hybrid sites directly into the design process, giving them creative freedom
over the solutions they hoped to see, and have conversations with each other.
Our dialogue event was a lengthy process involving extensive discussions within our team to
identify the most effective method for implementing our conversations. Initially, we held a brief
presentation to explain the project and provide an overview of Steelport for those unfamiliar
with it. Then, we divided into three groups, each comprising eight to ten attendees from the
event, focusing on specific sites: the Waterfront, The Pipe Gallery, and the Coke Battery. Each
group spent twenty five minutes at their assigned station. Attendees answered questions we
had prepared for each site while sharing their insights, raising concerns, and asking questions.
Finally, we concluded with remarks and invited participants to ask additional questions or
share their comments about the event.
Figures 13: Images from our Dialogue Event and group sticky note activities

30. The Pipe Gallery discussion highlighted several key insights and opportunities for the
site’s development. Participants emphasized the importance of creating a site or historic
monument to honor the legacy of Stelco workers, preserving their contributions to the
community. Suggestions included repurposing old elements from the site to design
interactive features, such as a walking tour that showcases the area's industrial history.
Accessibility emerged as a significant concern, with many attendees expressing a
preference for bike lanes to connect the site with other key areas. The example of
Bayfront Park’s interconnected trail system was cited as a model for creating seamless,
comfortable, and accessible pathways.
There was also interest in incorporating heritage icons, such as listing the names of
former workers, similar to Veterans Park, to personalize the space and deepen its
historical significance. Questions were raised about Slate’s overarching intentions for the
site, particularly regarding inclusivity and the elements that would make the space a
place people want to visit repeatedly. One unique opportunity identified was creating a
space where grandparents who once worked at Stelco could bring their grandchildren,
offering a tangible connection to their personal history and enriching the community’s
understanding of its industrial past.
30
4.6 Key Learnings from Dialogue Event
The Pipe Gallery Roundtable
Figure 14: The Pipe Gallery Sticky Note Activity Group at Dialogue Event

31. The roundtable discussion on the future of Hamilton’s decommissioned coke battery
revealed a range of community perspectives, highlighting both shared priorities and
points of tension. Below are the key findings from the event, capturing the
community’s vision and concerns in their own terms.
31
4.6 Key Learnings from Dialogue Event
Accessibility and Community Spaces
The Coke Battery Roundtable
While some participants were drawn to the aesthetic features of the coke battery,
there was a strong consensus around the lack of truly accessible gathering spaces
for the neighboring communities. Many saw the potential for the site to become a
unique destination, blending its industrial history with spaces that foster community
engagement. Playable spaces for children and educational programming were
frequently mentioned, with ideas ranging from hands-on learning exhibits to school
field trip opportunities. Public art spaces and makerspaces, were also highlighted as
valuable additions that could make the site more inclusive and vibrant for a diverse
audience.
Historical Preservation & Memorialization
For our attendees, the most significant
priority, by far, was preserving and
memorializing the contributions of
Hamilton’s steelworkers. Participants
emphasized the need for a truthful and
nuanced retelling of the coke battery’s
history, rejecting superficial or “fluffy”
interpretations. Instead, they envisioned a
space that would honestly confront the risks
and toxicity of the work while celebrating
the steelworkers’ role in shaping the City.
Suggestions included creating an
intersectional museum with cohesive
storytelling through plaques and displays.
Figure 15: The Battery Group at Dialogue
Event

32. 32
Several participants proposed exhibits that
show how steel rods were made—past,
present, and future—alongside
programming related to clean steel
technologies. They also drew inspiration
from the Workers’ Arts and Heritage Centre,
suggesting displays of union posters, safety
equipment, uniforms, and old photographs.
There was strong enthusiasm for making
this deeply personal by inviting Hamilton
families to share artifacts like letters, work
IDs, pay stubs, and photographs. The
project team agrees that this can be an
exemplary way to build a relationship
between Steelport and the Hamilton
community. A former steelworker
specifically mentioned preserving the
beautiful office building on Wilcox Street, as
part of the site’s historical legacy.
Participants expressed concerns about the
risk of “history loss,” noting that forty years is
a long time for stories to fade. Simply
preserving parts of the battery or
machinery without explaining their purpose
was seen as a missed educational
opportunity. Several participants were
excited by the idea of making industrial
processes visible to the public, offering
insights into machinery and workflows that
are typically hidden.
Concerns About History Loss
There was also apprehension about how
historic preservation efforts might alienate
local working-class populations. Steel and
labor have often been at odds in Hamilton,
and this redevelopment must navigate
these tensions carefully to ensure
inclusivity.
Feasibility and Remediation
The feasibility of transforming the site into
a sustainable community asset raised
significant concerns. Participants
questioned whether there would be
enough resources not only to build the
facility, but also to maintain it over time.
Figures 16: Dialogue Event Introduction & Conclusion

33. One of the primary pieces of feedback we received was how concerned how accessible the
Stelco land is going to be and how people are going to be able to access the site if they don’t
drive, particularly those relying on public transit or cycling routes. The renewal strategy has
shown maps of what currently in the area is around when it comes to accessible routes
pictured below:
Figure 17: Map of Accessible Routes - Image Credit: Story Maps
(Singh, Bayfront Industrial Area Renewal Strategy 2022)
As shown in the picture, there are few cycling routes or multi-use pathways in the area. The
Steelport site is located on Burlington Street East. There's only one small multi-use pathway,
and aside from that, there's no accessible way to reach the site, which is marked in red.
This is an issue the City of Hamilton needs to address, possibly by collaborating with programs
like bike share to gauge public comfort regarding biking and to facilitate walking or running on
this busy street to access the Stelco site. The industrial area lacks adequate cycling routes.
In contrast, Bayfront Park offers accessible routes for bikers and walkers, extending all the way
to the Princess Point trail, connecting to the Bayfront Loop and Pier 4, Guise Street, and Pier 8.
This model could serve as a great reference. Slate plans to establish a 4km connected loop
surrounding the four spaces, which is crucial for site accessibility.
Additionally, several concerns and questions have emerged regarding parking, such as
whether it will be free and if there will be a shuttle from Burlington Street East to the site. A lot of
these concerns were addressed in Slate’s Transportation Impact Survey (TIS).
5.1 Accessibility (Transportation & Equitable Programming
5.0 Risks
33

34. Figure 18: This image depicts the potential opportunities for design improvement
showing the work that the city is willing to implement. This is important to see that
work is already being done to make the site more accessible.
Image Credit: Story Maps (Singh, Bayfront Industrial Area Renewal Strategy 2022)
34

35. 5.2 Whose Story Gets Told?
35
From our dialogue event, the majority of our learning centred around the idea of “whose story
gets told”. The Steelport lands are historical grounds in Hamilton and the production of steel,
steelworkers, their families and surrounding communities are tied very closely together. It is
important to revitalize these lands in a manner that respects these workers and their
contributions, as well as understand that these lands historically posed a negative impact on
the surrounding community due to pollution. This directly ties to our CityLab SIR theme of
“storytelling”, where the story of the historical users of the Steelport lands should be the
centrepiece of the development of each of the hybrid spaces. This was demonstrated in our
dialogue event when we invited two past Stelco employees who directly worked on the
Steelport lands, who provided incredibly valuable insight into how these spaces were
previously used and how the development of the hybrid should be directed to be best
interpreted by local Hamiltonians and the surrounding community. Not only does this provide
homage and respect to these workers, but it allows Steelport to develop hybrid spaces that
best represent Hamilton, the city’s Complex identity, maximize users and leave a positive
impact on the local community.

36. Unsurprisingly, Steelport’s context necessitates unique frameworks
that fit the site’s needs. When evaluating other hybrid governance
structures, we kept foremost in mind:
1. Slate cannot guarantee ownership and funding and therefore is
looking to alternative structures for the creation of hybrid spaces and
their long-term operation.
2. City of Hamilton budgets are limited (City of Hamilton, 2023), which
should be kept in mind alongside expectations of funding support.
3. The size and scale of the hybrid spaces require unique
considerations compared to many other, more simple spaces.
4. Slate’s continued ownership of the land after it is opened to the
public raises concerns about liability, but generates opportunity
when negotiating partnered funding opportunities.
5. The historical risks to accessibility and the meaning of ‘public
spaces’ must be taken into consideration throughout our research.
This section is an amalgamation of our general research on governance structures and
funding. Here, we dive into the elements needed to understand this multifaceted challenge.
While this section is more technical, our approach is informed by our community
engagement and priorities discussed above. Beyond general frameworks (Section 3.2) for
site design, we were particularly conscious of our feedback from the dialogue event when
investigating potential frameworks for governance and funding.
6.1 Introduction
Analyzing these factors is important for the evaluation of different models. Many hybrid space
frameworks are inapplicable, due to the embedded financial burden that is impractical for
our partners’ circumstance. Amidst low budgets for publicly funded community projects
means (City of Hamilton, 2023; van Melik & van der Krabben, 2016) – unless the City commits
to massive long-term investments – operation by either Hamilton or Slate would be
exceptionally costly (eg. POPS). Further, many examples have modes of government either too
simple for the size and scale of Steelport (eg. Evergreen Brickworks), sacrifice accessibility
(Galkowski, 2018), and / or are unable to attract the outside funding necessary for this project.
36
6.0 Findings in Governance and Funding Strategies

37. Therefore, we found that most comparable hybrid spaces will introduce some level of
third-party influence. Beyond design teams and consultations, partnerships are frequently
leveraged between conservation authorities, community organizations, and others for both
development and operation (DCM A & B, 2018a; De Magalhaes, 2020). Our discussion
typically involves the possible partnerships between Slate and the City, considering
different options for third-party participation - either by the joint formation of unique
entities, or by partnership with existing ones
6.2 Third-Party Governance
Third-party governance refers to operation of the site by an entity other
than Slate or the City of Hamilton – typically a form of non-profit. Third-
party governance broadly encapsulates a substantial portion of hybrid
spaces, acting as an efficient medium for the management of otherwise
complex partnerships (De Magalhaes, 2020; van Melik & van der Krabben).
Agreements between only the City and Slate appear to be inadequate for
the size of this project. Third-party governance is pursued for several
common reasons:
Firstly, the addition of a third-party creates a neutral, separate medium
for governance. Outlining the precise roles of the City or a for-profit
company in the management of these spaces makes for a complex and
awkward situation. For Slate, this would mean the addition of jobs such as
gardeners, security and event managers to a company focused primarily
on asset management. For both, it is difficult coordinating responsibility for
different sections. By adding a central form of governance to direct
resources towards, it defines a distinct entity with an individual purpose,
rather than trying to shoehorn this purpose into established entities. This
also creates a focused and dedicated staff and executives who are
comfortable in the sole objective of their work within an independent
entity. 
Secondly, creating a third-party, non-profit organization allows for more diverse streams of
funding. This includes the large pool of grants available for non-profits focused on
community goals, normal and venture philanthropic donations, fundraising, and unique
sources of federal and provincial funding (HR & A, 2016). It also creates room for a well-
established body to retain and manage site funding and expenses, rather than a more
complicated arrangement between the City and Slate.
37

38. Thirdly, a non-profit can provide much more limited liability for Slate. Many of the non-
profit options provide limited liability for donors and operators. In general, outlining the
third-party as a separate body responsible for operations and maintenance provides a
level of security for Slate for accidents happening on their land.
Finally, these sites provide options for community engagement in governance. The boards
of directors and joint committees foster welcome integration with community leaders, City
Councilors, business owners, and more diverse stakeholders who can accurately represent
the needs of the city. Community-centered design, Inclusive engagement, and sustainable
collaboration can be better incorporated by a new entity that acts as a ‘blank slate’.
The rest of this section will outline relevant information and the considerable options for
forging these third-party partnerships.
Firstly, understanding third-party governance necessitates a conversation on the
distinction between Non-Profit Organizations, Non-Profits, and Charities. While non-profit
entities take on a variety of forms, there are three overarching categories that most fall
into. Each has distinct structures, advantages and operations, and can overlap. The
categories we discuss later on (eg. Trusts, POPS, Special Purpose Entities) fall into these
categories, and can often be any or multiple of these depending on their design
(Government of Canada, 2024).
6.3 Nonprofits & Charities
38

39. A not-for-profit corporation is a type of incorporated entity rather than a legal status,
whose goal similarly cannot be to obtain profit for its members. While they must direct
efforts and funding to outlined goals as NPOs do, not-for-profit corporations are not
necessarily tax exempt, as these goals do not need to be socially beneficial (Nonprofit Law
Ontario, 2024a). They can, however, similarly apply for NPO or charitable status just like non-
incorporated organizations. A not-for-profit corporation is a type of established business,
while an NPO is a status, and thus an organization can be both. In both cases, the
organizations, nor the members, can profit (2024a). Not-For-Profit corporations are formed
simply by a process of legal incorporation, but have stricter and more defined board
structures under Ontario’s Not-For-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA). These structures include
(Nonprofit Law Ontario, 2024b) are listed below:
39
6.3.1 Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs)
Non-profit organizations (NPO) describe a legal status granted for an organization
designed to accomplish core social goals other than profit. While they can engage in
revenue-generating opportunities, and members can be salaried, none of the members
can make surplus revenues or earnings. It is foremost a classification for any organization
that meets certain requirements and therefore receives specific privileges - notably tax
exemptions. The status of NPO need not be applied for as long as the organization meets
the criteria (Nonprofit Law Ontario, 2024a).
Strengths and Weaknesses:
NPOs are the most general, and therefore most flexible model. Membership structures offer
the most diversity, requirements for legal status are not onerous, and they typically have
fairly holistic tax exemptions (NLO, 2024a). For hybrid governance, this flexibility allows for
the easiest process of formation. However, this lack of structure can be a disadvantage, as
there is the least legislation outlining protocols for structure, dispute resolution etc.
6.3.2 Not-For-Profit Corporation:

40. Strengths and Weaknesses:
Not-For-Profit Corporations' more comprehensive structural framework is their strength
and weakness. Choosing to incorporate means greater legislation for dispute registration
and managing problems, but less flexibility for the organization. However, it is important
that while they are not necessarily tax-exempt, they can easily fall into the category of
charity or NPO, thus generating the beneficial status of either. Also, they need not be
exclusively dedicated to social benefits if they do not have charitable or non-profit status,
further creating a more flexible framework.
40
Structures:
Open Membership
Semi-Open Membership
Hybrid Membership
Representative Membership
Anyone can become a voting
member
Bylaws restrict membership to
certain stakeholders
Contains voting and non-voting
members
Voting class of directors, and other
voting classes from relevant local
stakeholders (eg. youth, local
businesses etc.)

41. 6.3.3 Charities
41
Charities, like NPOs, are a legal status for any entity.
However, they must have an exclusively charitable
purpose, whereas NPOs, while socially directed, can
have a broader purpose. For example, an NPO could be
a ‘social organisation’ while a charity could not be (NLO,
2024a). Charitable status must be applied for through
the Canada Revenue Agency, for its special privileges.
Charitable status leads to blanket tax exemption
(unlike NPOs, which sometimes pay certain taxes) and
can be exempt from GST on purchases (Government of
Canada, 2024b); however, they do have more stringent
requirements. For example, directors cannot be paid,
and their work with intermediary businesses is more
scrutinized (NLO, 2024a).
Strengths and Weaknesses:
Charities have the greatest benefit with the strictest guidelines. They require exclusively
charitable activities in order to receive these benefits, which could restrict certain
commercial operations. Further, greater scrutiny of intermediary partnerships could be
important given the many partnerships necessary for this sort of governance.
However, there are still revenue-generating opportunities, and a charitable status still
includes a wide variety of services. The Bentway Conservancy is a great example of a
charity able to still run a variety of paid events while maintaining its status (Bentway
Conservancy, 2024a).

42. Now that the overarching categories above are defined, we will discuss more specific types
of entities below. These entities can often be in the form of NPO’s, not-for-profit corporations,
and charities in different ways depending on the design. On the other hand, these three large
categories need not fit into one of the more specially defined organizations listed below, and
can simply just be an NPO, Not-For-Profit corporation, or Charity. Amidst a puzzle of
overlapping categories, each of the following entities have a legal or contextual significance
that gives them unique potential for hybrid space governance.
6.4 More Specific Entities and Options
6.4.1 Privately-Owned Public Spaces
42
While Steelport would be a Privately-Owned Public Space (POPS) in a literal sense, the term’s
common use might not accurately depict the fact that the Steelport hybrid spaces were
opened voluntarily. Privately-owned Public Spaces (POPS), beyond the strict definition of the
term, are typically negotiated exchanges of land for benefits, such as meeting Parkland
Dedication Requirements (City of Hamilton, 2024). Amidst declining park budgets, POPS are a
popular framework for private owners to contribute to a city's available accessible space.
They have a variety of requirements for their creation, including safety, regular maintenance
from the owners, and signage indicating their ‘publicness’ (City of Waterloo, 2019). These
have the most direct engagement of owners in the project, in charge of the operation of the
spaces themselves.
Strengths:
POPS are well-documented and simple to set up, creating an easy option for governance
and structure. Slate could take the lead on all operations and maintenance, while the City
would remain mostly in advisory and ideation (2019).
Weaknesses:
POPs are typically smaller infill spaces, not necessarily an ideal model for a project of
such scale.
POPS require an unreasonable financial burden from Slate given a project of Steelport’s
scale.
They do not fully leverage public-private partnerships to their availability, and they leave
Slate open for liability for accidents that could happen on-site.
Significant research (Galkowski, 2018; De Magalhães, 2020) has labelled POPS as a prime
example of ‘public’ spaces that often feel inaccessible, either by location or lack of
adequate advertisement.
While many sites have public-private collaboration throughout the design, delivery, and
management of POPS (Lee & Scholten, 2022), Slate would typically be shouldering all the
real responsibility, and are typically only used for spaces much smaller and less-
complicated than Steelport.
Note: For the above reasons, the framework typical for POPS is not considered a strong option

43. While trusts and conservancies are often used as interchangeable terms in the context of
land protection, there are key differences. Conservancies are not an official status, as
much as an approach to conservation usually taken on by a non-profit or charity. Land
trusts on the other hand, have a particular legal framework, complete with requirements
and legal privileges.
Land trusts are essentially non-governmental entities, usually charities, that conserve land.
These organizations rely on community backing through memberships, donations, and
volunteer efforts. Their scope can range from local to regional, provincial, or even national,
focusing on preserving natural landscapes, scenic areas, recreational spaces, agricultural
lands, and properties of historical or cultural significance. One can form several types of
land trusts in Canada, including:
Farmland trusts.
Community land trusts.
Historical trusts.
Land conservation trusts.
The Coke Battery, for example, could be designated under a historical land trust,
recognizing its cultural and historical significance. Meanwhile, the establishment of an
independent Waterfront Trust, separate from the existing Hamilton Waterfront Trust (HWT),
could effectively manage both the commercial and recreational areas of the waterfront,
ensuring balanced and sustainable oversight.
Land trusts employ diverse strategies to achieve their conservation goals, including
purchasing threatened lands, accepting land donations, and managing properties to
ensure their historical or ecological integrity while letting property owners retain
proprietorship. They often secure conservation easements, which protect key landscape
features permanently without requiring direct ownership, and transfer lands to appropriate
agencies, such as government parks or historical societies, for long-term stewardship. This
is an important consideration for Slate, which does not wish to retain long- term ownership
of Steelport’s Hybrid sites. The formation of the land trust allows for transitory
proprietorship, with the intention to transfer ownership once each site has been developed
into more productive assets.
6.4.2 Trusts and Conservancies
43

44. Strengths:
A heritage trust has the benefit of enforcing legal protections, such as restrictions or
covenants, to protect designated builds and structures of The Coke Battery.
Heritage Trusts are often qualified to levy government grants.
Land Trusts are flexible enough that their governance and operation can be tailored in
accordance with their needs and goals. For instance, if the board of the trust determines
that it is imperative that the Coke Battery run academic programming, it can be signed
into its agreement as a focus of the Trust upon creation.
Additionally, Land Trusts are highly independent, meaning swift decision-making sure
the best interest of communities or assets can be prioritized.
Weaknesses
Conversely, it is the independent nature of land trusts that make them difficult to
coordinate and align with the city and Slate. In the event that four separate trusts of
varying types (Coke battery and Pipe Gallery - Heritage Trust, Lagoon scape - Land
Conservation Trust, and a Steelport Waterfront Trust), it will be very difficult to coordinate
between all four.
There is no centralized control, which may lead to mismanagement of resources,
fragmented decision-making and inequitable resource distribution.
A Land Trust’s focus limits the options for programming at each site. For example, if a
Heritage Trust were established, you could not design a waterslide on that site. While
there are still considerable options for revenue generating opportunities within Trusts,
they must be aligned with the land’s goals.
44

45. 45
6.4.3 Friends Groups
Affiliated entities - often referred to as "Friends Groups," advisory councils, or foundations -
play an essential role in supporting nonprofit and governmental organizations. These
groups provide critical financial and programmatic support while fostering community
connections. Importantly, friend groups do not need to be incorporated, making them a
flexible and accessible resource for fundraising efforts and volunteer labor. Their structure
allows them to adapt to the needs of the organizations they serve while creating
opportunities for community engagement and donor cultivation. 
Establishing a Friends Group for the Coke Battery, particularly following the creation of a
conservancy or charitable organization, would offer multiple advantages. These groups
enhance development efforts by encouraging broader participation from the public and by
strengthening relationships with constituent groups.
Strengths:
By forming a Friends Group, the Coke Battery initiative can tap into vital
financial and volunteer resources while fostering a deeper connection
with its community. Such a group would not only support ongoing
development efforts, but also serve as a foundation for sustainable
growth and engagement, ensuring the long-term success of the
project.
Weaknesses:
Friends Groups do have some weaknesses that manifest depending on
the degree of oversight from their principal organizations. For instance, if
friends groups serve the whole body of an organisation and not just a
specific arm of the organisation (i.e, the whole conservancy as opposed
to a single trust), the friends group may be able to achieve economies
of scale and generate a high revenue volume for the principal
organisation as a whole. However, the Friend Group may be unable to
assist with the unique programming needs of a specific site (e.g.
academic and historical tours for the coke battery as opposed to
consultations with indigenous communities for the waterfront).

46. 46
Example: Coke Battery Museum
A Friends Group dedicated to a Coke Battery
‘museum’ can be leveraged to perform a variety
of functions. These might include hosting donor
recognition events, general fundraising, raising
funds for specific purposes like acquiring items for
a collection, subsidizing newsletters, and
organizing exhibit previews. Additionally, the
group could provide volunteers for various events
and programs or even manage a museum shop,
thereby supporting the museum's daily
operations and long-term goals.
Support for the museum, facilitated through a Friends Group, could be tied to a range of
benefits. Members might enjoy invitations to exclusive events, private previews of
exhibitions, discounts, access to special publications, and participation in other unique
activities. In many cases, membership in the group may be tied to specific donation levels,
offering an additional incentive for supporters to contribute generously. In some cases,
leveraging "academic diplomacy" - running community academic programs - may be an
effective approach, provided the Coke Battery is registered as a non-profit charity or
conservancy. This designation would allow for structured collaboration with academic
institutions and other partners, further enhancing the organization's credibility and reach.
Figure 19: The Coke Battery from Steelport
Site Visit
Image credit: DTE Vantage, 2024

47. A Special Purpose Entity (SPE), also known as a Special Purpose Vehicle, a Bankruptcy-
Remote Entity or a Single-Purpose Entity, is an entity created to fulfill a particular and
limited role. While often used in the private-sector to balance financial risk, they can also
be used to create a focused, mission-oriented staff dedicated to a singular focus, isolating
and managing the specific assets of its charge (Hayes, 2024). Typically, these entities
cannot incur debt, and, as a trade-off, are more limited in the activities which they can
engage in. However, examples demonstrate that these activities can be designed widely
enough that they can adequately handle complex operations, as long as it stays to an
individual focus. They are run, like most entities, by a board of directors with an executive
director and managers (HR & A, 2016). This allows for an entity under direct ownership, but
fully separate, that can operate the site. Documents are typically formed upon the creation
of the entity that refine its purpose and operation (Hayes, 2024).
6.4.4 Special Purpose Entities
47
Strengths:
The SPE’s restrictions give it a safety net and
mission-oriented focus. It leverages
oversight of stakeholders through its
connection, while remaining a separate and
controlled entity itself.
Weaknesses:
SPE’s restrictions means it would struggle to
operate effectively by itself given the long-
term, more diverse visions of the site. It is a
useful tool alongside another entity that can
be in charge of site vision, funding, and other
sources.
SPE’s are less independent than other
models. This both sacrifices autonomy while
creating a more complicated dynamic given
a shared ownership structure with the city.
However, it is not uncommon that SPE’s have
shared ownership (Hayes, 2024).
Figure 20: Special Purpose Entities
Image credit: CFI Team, 2022

48. The broadest category, social enterprises, are typically businesses whose primary objective
is to achieve a certain social objective (Estevez, 2024). This category is the broadest
because there is no official status for it in Canada, and thus a number of entities can
operate like a social enterprise (Government of Canada, 2024c). Typically, social
enterprises refer to for-profit businesses that reinvest the majority of their profits towards a
social good; for example, Warby Parker is a glasses shop that donates a pair for every pair
sold (Estevez, 2024). On the other hand, Evergreen Brickworks is an NPO that considers itself
to be run like a social enterprise. Given that it's a broad category, many sites, even many
options we’ve already mentioned, could be considered social enterprises. The
distinguishing factor of a social enterprise by our understanding is not its structure, it is a
market-oriented approach to solving social problems. When we consider it for the purpose
of this document, it will typically be referring to this market focus, and less so general
charitable practices, even if they have some revenue generation.
While social enterprises are not an official structure themselves, they are still categorically
recognized by organizations like the Social Enterprise Council of Canada; an alliance of
social enterprises leveraging their network to better achieve their collective goal of social
improvement (SECC, 2018). Further, a variety of funding exists tailored to these businesses
(GoC, 2024c). 
6.4.5 Social Enterprises
48
Strengths:
Having essentially no rigid definition,
social enterprises offer an effective
framework for capital-oriented
governance. Both the Pipe Gallery and
Waterfront have been discussed
extensively for their long-term
commercial potential. Just like Evergreen
Brickworks, the framework provided by
social enterprise offers a blueprint for
equitable governance of commercial
spaces.
The unofficial status is still recognized for
certain benefits (TorontoStarts, 2024).
Weaknesses:
Social enterprises is not itself a ‘model’ and
would have to be based on other entities.
Market-oriented design, both in our dialogue
event and in research more broadly, have
been criticized for their ‘commodification’ of
otherwise community spaces (Galkowski,
2018).
Social Enterprises could lose out on certain
advantages provided by more defined social
frameworks depending on the approach
(however they can still qualify as charities
and nonprofits. The framing of what is meant
by ‘social enterprise’ is important).

49. What is it? A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an
agreement from two or more parties that outlines the goals,
direction, and roles for an upcoming project. It is often seen as
the starting point to a larger project, and an indication that
people are willing to move forward. It can outline things like the
responsibilities for initial funding, initial tasks for the
implementation of a project, and what can be expected from a
party (Kenton, 2024). 
Why is it important? In the case of hybrid governance, MOU’s
are a crucial starting point for outlining the sometimes complex
interactions between the private and public, and creates
grounds to work towards a more significant project. MOU’s are
preferred because they’re quick and easy starting points. 
This acts as an important safety net for a few reasons:
1. It guarantees timely action from each party to fulfill certain
responsibilities. This helps to maintain accountability during the
crucial ‘ramp-up’ stage (2024). 
2. It secures guarantees for funding, rather than being
piecemeal throughout, it can make sure initial commitments
are laid out years in advance (DCM A & B, 2018a). 
3. While not necessarily legally binding, it can be written to
protect the individual interests of each party, and can therefore
support reclamation for any losses from these processes, for
whatever reason, going unfulfilled (Kenton, 2024). 
During our environmental scan, we identified two key documents we
believe are crucial to understand for the creation of a hybrid space.
Each helps break the ambiguity of joint-partnerships by clearly defining
roles and expectations for partnerships, and long-term operation.
6.5 Critical Documents
6.5.1 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
49

50. How is it applicable?
For this project, our partners can secure specific city funding targets, rather than
vague, circumstantial contributions. It can also detail steps for the creation of
third-party entities that are to be jointly run, and details about its operation. This
ensures that there are no uncomfortable gaps in the collaborative process, even
before everything is up and running. Importantly, this could be the stage where
much of the city's initial investments will be negotiated. 
This document can be entered into long before there is significant development
on the site, and it could be a chance for Slate to leverage their significant
contributions to the redevelopment of the land itself to engage city funding. In the
case of the Bentway, the city’s significant investments were agreed to ‘match’
those donated to them by the Judy and Will Matthews foundation (DCM A & B,
2018a).
In a similar vein, emphasizing Slate’s initial investment in redevelopment as part
of their role might inspire similar investment from the city. This could be a useful
way to frame this agreement, rather than waiting until Slate’s done its significant
redevelopment to then outline shared responsibilities.
50

51. What is it? While an MOU can outline a starting point that ensures collaboration and a
shared direction for initiation, many hybrid spaces, such as Quayside and the Bentway,
transitioned to more formal agreements that can outline the specific roles and
responsibilities of various parties within hybrid governance. These agreements can have a
variety of names, but will be called here simply as ‘Use Agreements’. These documents are
written to outline the conditions for one party’s use of another’s land. In the case of the
Bentway, it was contracted for $1 per year to the Conservancy (DCM A & B, 2018a).
Why is it important? This is a crucial document to ensure written accountability for the
operation of the sites. The Bentways ‘Use Agreement’ is a useful guide. This document
represents simply an official binding document that details the condition on which the
space can be used (2018a).
6.5.2 Use agreement
51
How is it applicable? In this case, Slate would enter into a
shared-use agreement with the city and / or the third-party
entity, outlining the conditions for the operating body to work on
their land. This would include restrictions for the use of defined
tasks such as programming and maintenance work, right of
access and easements of the owner / City, and defining general
principles. As well, it outlines the protection of revenues and
ensures a right to full accessibility. Use agreements can be
specific to who is in charge of things like washing facilities,
garbage pickup, event coordination etc (2018a).
Officially outlining the responsibilities and the restrictions of land
is crucial for liability purposes. This document can not only act
as a standard of conduct to be referred to, but can require
insurance to be purchased by the organization themselves for
operation (2018a). In the event of accident or damages, this
document could define cases of negligence (of most concern
regarding liability), the document could demonstrate how the
negligence was breach of contract, thus applying the legal
standard of care to the entity running the site itself rather than
Slate or the City.

52. 7.0 - The Bentway: Case Study
52
Figure 21: The Bentway
Image Credit: The Bentway Conservancy, 2022
The Bentway is a critically informative example of many of the concepts discussed above.
This section will describe the governance and operation of the Bentway to help
contextualize Steelport’s own challenges.
7.1 Summary
The Bentway is a growing hybrid space stretching under the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto.
Its motivations, challenges, and process of implementation make it a critically informative
project when considering Steelport’s design. This section will lay out a detailed description of
The Bentway’s activity to provide a useful guide on the technical aspect of hybrid space
design (The Bentway Conservancy, 2024a). Many lessons from their experience are crucial
for our project.

53. The Bentway was initially conceived from a 25-million-
dollar donation from the Judy and Will Matthews
Foundation (JWMF) towards the creation of
community spaces (The Bentway Conservancy,
2024a). This initial funding kickstarted a larger
initiative by the city and its partners towards new
capital investments in a new hybrid space under The
Gardener. The City of Toronto used existing
government plans, such as the Forestry and
Recreation plans or the current construction of the
Gardiner Expressway, to tease out funding and
leverage support for their operations (DCM A & B,
2018a).
The partnership began as an MOU signed between the Judy and Will Matthews Foundation,
Waterfront Toronto – a partnered city corporation made up of a tri-governmental board of
directors – and the City of Toronto. The MOU outlined these three bodies as the Executive
Steering Committee, and then primarily: laid out the funding contributions from each, their
shared responsibility to identify the board of directors, plans for the creation of an
independent, not-for-profit corporate entity to run the show, and its application for
charitable status among other things. It had further commitments that parties would
negotiate specifics upon completion of the plan (2018a). After the formation of ‘The
Bentway Conservancy’, the City of Toronto entered into a ‘Use Agreement’ (2018a), outlining
the conditions for which The Bentway Conservancy could operate on the city property. It
laid out the contract’s term limit and a plan for extension, the Bentway’s restriction of use to
programming and related activities, the responsibilities of each party regarding operation
and maintenance, and the necessary easements for joint rights of access. It also
necessitated the purchase of insurance by The Bentway Conservancy for its operations
(2018a).
7.2 Origin
53
Figure 22: The Bentway Traffic
Image Credit: The Bentway, 2020

54. Even before the foundation of the Conservancy, the ‘Executive Steering Committee’ relied
on Artscape – a non-profit organization experienced in urban development – to act as
managers in charge of ideation, operations, and providing a blueprint for the initial 18-
months, at which point relationships would transition to more informal ties. They worked
closely to assist with incorporation of the Conservancy, recruitment of the board, branding,
building funding capacity, and much more. (DCM A & B, 2016b).
Importantly, the city's movements were decided on throughout by the city council, not any
particular department.
54
7.3 Structure of Governance & Operations
The Bentway offers a skating rink that becomes a rollerskating rink in summer, an event stadium,
and a variety of rotating community activities year-round. The operation and management of
sites, revenues, and general maintenance is somewhat divided, though mostly rests upon The
Bentway Conservancy (The Bentway Conservancy, 2024a). 
The Bentway is responsible for general operations, including community activities, the washroom
facilities, as well as more general tasks including landscaping, lighting, and water. In addition,
they are in charge of enforcing municipal bylaws, collecting and managing relevant revenues, as
well as ideating methods of streamlining maintenance and revenues with the city for more
efficient practices. The city mainly involves itself in activities it is clearly better equipped and
more established to do, especially as it remains relevant to the upkeep of the Gardiner
Expressway. This mostly includes general construction. These cycles are coordinated by the
many joint committees between the City and Conservancy, notably the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC), made “for capital improvements, but crucially for ongoing operations, upkeep,
and long-term stewardship” (DCM A & B, 2018a, The Bentway Conservancy, 2024a).
Figure 23: Skating Rink at The Bentway
Image Credit: The Bentway Conservancy, 2022

55. The conservancy is registered as a charitable not-for-profit corporation (despite its
ambiguous identification as a not-for-profit organization). It is made up of a multi-
sectoral board of eleven directors and nineteen members. The board is made of current or
former corporate executives with a background in management, finance and design, while
the membership has particular emphasis on urban designers, planners, and
programmers. They further have two sub-committees: The Capital Projects Committee
and Neighbourhood Development Committee – particularly focused on ideating and
shaping the expansion of the project – and a dedicated Finance and Audit Committee
(The Bentway Conservancy, 2024b). The membership of each subcommittee overlaps with
the general membership and board of directors. Unlike the initial plan outlined in their early
reports (DCM A & B, 2016b), however, this does not currently include ward councillors.
7.4 Structure of the Conservancy
55
Figure 24: The Conservancy Structure
Image Credit: HR & A Advisors, 2016

56. The Conservancy is primed to receive a variety of different types of funding (see figure 25).
Beyond the catalyzing investments from the city and the JWMF, the Conservancy finds
diverse streams of continued funding. The largest portion of revenue is generated through
donations. These donations likely take the form of small, individual donations, and more
large-scale, foundation-based funding. Government grants represent the continued
funding coming from the government, much less than its earlier years (DCM A & B, 2018a).
We stress here the significance of particular staff dedicated to identifying and
campaigning for funding in order to fulfill this role. The Bentway Conservancy (2024b) puts
a significant portion of their work and budgets into finding and attracting these funding
opportunities. This includes attracting individual donors, identifying existing funding, or
realizing funding “through alignment with existing programs and project initiatives, such as
transportation or transit improvements” (2024a, p. 93). For example, expansion of the
project is in part funded by the creation of the Ontario Line, where they successfully
incorporated their objectives conveniently into the plan itself. Forging these opportunities
requires dedicated staff (2024a).
It is also worth noting that the revenue generating funds, from ticketed events, skate
rentals, and other on-site fees, make up a fraction of their overall funds, less so than
corporate sponsorship of many of these same events and site programs. Compare this to
the Evergreen Brickworks revenue streams (figure 26):
7.5 Funding
56
Figure 25: Revenue Breakdown of the Bentway Conservancy
Image Credit: The Bentway Conservancy, 2024

57. Evergreen (including Evergreen Brickworks and other affiliated organizations) generated
significantly more revenue from events and sales, running as a social enterprise. This creates
much better funding opportunities, but proportionally makes activities less accessible to many
who cannot afford them. Third-party programming further risks commodification, as these
programs are not necessarily bound by the accessibility frameworks of nonprofits, and an
emphasis on retail can take resources away from more inclusive events. Low revenue from
sales is a requisite cost of accessibility, outlined and emphasized as the primary goal of The
Bentway itself (The Bentway Conservancy, 2024a). Too many ticketed events or paid activities
sacrifices accessibility.
57
Given the risks we have discussed, The Bentway has taken certain efforts to guarantee that the
site is fully accessible, while not displacing vulnerable populations such as people
experiencing homelessness (something especially important given its location). This has
included unhoused consultation (outlined below), and collaboration with City Encampment
services (The Bentway Conservancy, 2024a). Further, the Bentway’s events have included a
number of activities detailing the experience of unhoused individuals. Consider the “a
wandering” audio tour made in collaboration with SKETCH Working Arts, leading an
educational tour for viewers on the experience of houselessness. It navigates the difficulties of
constant displacement and social barriers that perpetuate this process, while shedding light
on the cultural and artistic contributions of unhoused communities in Toronto (Sketch Working
Arts, 2024).
7.6 Accessibility Initiatives
Figure 26: Revenue of Evergreen
Image Credit: Evergreen, 2024

58. 1. Community Advisory Committee
The Bentway CAC is made up of a majority of residents organized by a civic lottery. For the
upcoming expansion, members will participate in two meetings; sharing feedback and priorities,
and receiving an honorarium for their time. The open nature of this committee is its strength.
Residents with no affiliation to the project are encouraged to apply and participate.
Incorporating truly local voices is a key part of their role in transparency, and the civic lottery is
an orderly way to find these voices (Bentway Islands, 2024).
2. First Nations and Urban Indigenous Engagement:
The Conservancy collaborated with Nbisiing consulting to engage with First Nations
communities – notably the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and Six Nations – to help
shape the project with First Nations’ priorities in mind. Further, the Conservancy has an
Indigenous Design Advisory, and is planning community meetings composed of Indigenous
people living in Toronto for later consultation on the project's expansion (2024).
3. Unhoused Engagement
The Bentway Conservancy seeks direct engagement with people experiencing homelessness in
the area around the Bentway, and perhaps residing in areas for planned expansion. These
efforts are made in collaboration with Toronto’s City Shelter & Support Services (2024).
58
7.7 Community Initiatives
Figure 27: Bentway CAC Meeting
Image Credit: Bentway Islands, 2024

59. Discussion:
These key committees represent The Bentway’s efforts to engage directly with the
community. Rather than arms-length ‘tokenistic’ engagement that stops at surveys and
newsletters, the difficult task of this more dedicated engagement is taken. For unhoused
engagement, talking to individuals provides a level of context often obscured even by well-
meaning engagement that brings dialogue only to representative community advocates.
Regardless of expertise, local feedback gives an accurate depiction of local priorities and
experiences. Attygale outlines how community engagement is often viewed as ‘doing for’
the community when it ought to be ‘doing with’ them, and this is a key first step to shifting
the conversation from the former to the latter (Attygale, 2017).
However, engagement is never ‘completed’ or adequate. Hess & Stevenson-Blythe argue
that urban reuse projects insufficiently consider unhoused displacement, where
“conceptualizing the Bentway as taking place in “lost space” obscur[es] its impact on a
space associated with homelessness” (2022, p.1). The Bentway and the City have taken
certain substantial considerations, but there will always be more to do.
Note: This section does not describe an exhaustive list of The Bentway’s partners,
structural specifics, or committee organizations, but the most relevant information to
Steelport’s own vision. For more information on the many general public and private
partners, see Appendix C.
59

60. 7.2: Origins of the Bentway
A Use Agreement can maintain ownership of a site while shifting
liability to the site operators;
Pre-existing organizations like Artscape can be leveraged and
integrated into the project.
7.3: Structure of Governance & Operations
Divided responsibilities are frequently coordinated through joint
working committees of the different organizations.
7.4: Structure of the Conservancy
Even with the restrictions of charitable not-for-profit corporations,
the well-curated structure of the conservancy itself demonstrates a
fair amount of flexibility within this model;
Committees on different boards can frequently overlap, allowing
for key figures to maintain proximate communication.
7.5: Funding
Despite several revenue-generating opportunities available to
hybrid spaces, the Steelport project should not count on it making
up a majority of funding if it wants to remain an accessible space.
7.6 & 7.7: Accessibility & Community Initiatives
Commitment to principles of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and
Accessibility (IDEA) does not stop at stakeholder meetings but is an
ongoing process engaging consultation, education, and
incorporation;
Specific Indigenous and First Nations-led consultation is key for
meaningful engagement;
This project articulates the potential for meaningful consultation
but also the potential for educational integration of IDEA
concepts into site programming itself. In the Steelport context,
this integration could be tailored towards a meaningful
engagement with the site’s Steel heritage – the good and the
bad;
Community committees can be meaningfully incorporated.
60
7.8 Key Findings

61. 5.0 Risks
The steps to become a UNESCO national site, in summary, include:
National Nomination: A site must be added to Canada’s Tentative List by
Parks Canada, the entity responsible for World Heritage nominations.
Dossier Preparation: Comprehensive documentation detailing the site’s
significance, value, and management is compiled.
Advisory Body Evaluation: Organizations like ICOMOS (International
Council on Monuments and Sites) review the application.
World Heritage Committee Review: The final decision is made at the
committee’s annual meeting.
8.1 Introduction to UNESCO Designation
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) designates World Heritage Sites based on their outstanding
universal value and adherence to specific criteria related to cultural, natural,
or industrial heritage. Designation is a multi-step process requiring national
nomination, a rigorous evaluation by advisory bodies, and final approval by
the World Heritage Committee. Sites must demonstrate global significance,
integrity, authenticity, and robust management plans to qualify.

62. 8.2 Case Study: Sault Ste. Marie Canal National Historic Site
The Sault Ste. Marie Canal National Historic Site is a UNESCO-designated industrial heritage
landmark in Ontario. Opened in 1895, the canal exemplifies an innovative balance between
heritage conservation and community development. The site’s historical significance,
including its status as the world’s first electrically operated lock, was preserved through
extensive restoration efforts. Parks Canada played a pivotal role in leading this
transformation, integrating heritage buildings and natural landscapes into a multifaceted
recreational destination (Parks Canada, n.d.).
Comprehensive Planning and Adaptive Reuse
The canal’s redevelopment emphasized adaptive reuse, ensuring historical elements were
maintained while the site was made accessible and engaging for modern use.
Recreational facilities such as walking trails, bicycle paths, and interpretive programs were
implemented to cater to diverse audiences. For Steelport, adopting similar principles—such
as restoring industrial structures for public or cultural use—could create multifunctional
spaces that celebrate Hamilton’s industrial heritage (Parks Canada, n.d.; UNESCO, n.d.).
Stakeholder Collaboration
The Sault Ste. Marie Canal’s success was driven by extensive stakeholder collaboration,
which included local governments, Indigenous communities, and federal agencies.
Stakeholder involvement ensured diverse perspectives shaped the project’s trajectory and
outcomes. Steelport could mirror this approach, fostering partnerships with groups such as
the City of Hamilton, local businesses, and Indigenous nations to ensure that the project is
inclusive and reflective of the community’s needs (UNESCO, n.d.).
Opportunities & Challenges
One notable advantage of the Sault Ste. Marie Canal’s UNESCO designation is the
increased recognition and funding opportunities it provides. This designation not only
enhances global awareness but also positions the site as a model of industrial heritage
conservation. However, the site also faced challenges in securing consistent funding and
ensuring community engagement in programming. Steelport could mitigate similar
challenges by pursuing diversified funding sources and engaging residents in site
programming and maintenance through initiatives like “Friends of Steelport” groups or
heritage-based educational programs (Parks Canada, n.d.).
By reflecting on the successes and challenges faced by the Sault Ste. Marie Canal National
Historic Site, Steelport can develop a comprehensive strategy for preserving Hamilton’s
industrial legacy while transforming the Stelco lands into an inclusive, vibrant community
asset.

63. Municipal
Municipal heritage designations in Ontario are governed by the Ontario Heritage Act. Local
governments can designate properties and districts of cultural heritage value or interest,
providing protections and incentives for preservation (Parks Canada, n.d).
Opportunities
Local Context: Municipal designations reflect and protect Hamilton’s unique industrial and
cultural identity.
Flexible Integration: Designations allow for adaptive reuse, integrating heritage into
modern urban designs.
Community Engagement: Engages local stakeholders in preserving shared history.
Limitations
Limited Funding: Municipal resources for heritage conservation are often constrained.
Political Challenges: Decisions can be subject to local political pressures and opposition.
Restricted Scope: Municipal designations focus primarily on localized value rather than
broader significance.
8.3 Levels of Heritage Designations: An Analysis
Provincial
Provincial designations, also under the Ontario Heritage Act,
recognize sites of provincial significance. This designation
typically involves collaboration with the Ontario Heritage Trust
(Parks Canada, n.d).
Opportunities
Stronger Protections: Provincial designation offers robust
legal protections for heritage sites.
Funding Support: Opportunities for grants and financial
support from the provincial government.
Broader Recognition: Elevates the site’s significance
beyond the local context.
Limitations
Bureaucratic Complexity: The process involves multiple
layers of approval and compliance.
Competing Interests: Provincial priorities may not always
align with municipal redevelopment goals.
Usage Restrictions: Designation may impose constraints
on site modifications.

64. Federal
Federal heritage designations, managed by Parks Canada, identify sites of national historic
significance. The designation process evaluates the site’s role in shaping Canada’s history
(Parks Canada, n.d).
Opportunities
National Prestige: Federal designation increases the site’s visibility and historical
credibility.
Access to Resources: Designated sites can access federal funding and expertise for
conservation.
Economic Benefits: Attracts national and international visitors, boosting local and
regional economies.
Limitations
Federal Oversight: Greater federal involvement may reduce local control over site
management.
Resource Intensity: Achieving and maintaining federal designation requires significant
investment.
Broader Focus: The focus on national significance may not fully capture local historical
and cultural narratives.

65. 9.0 Potential Models
First, inspired by the Bentway’s Conservancy model, a single non-profit
governance represents the simplest feasible form available (See figure
below). While we use the term conservancy, as stated, a conservancy is not a
legal status and thus offers a fair amount of flexibility. The term is convenient
because it describes a type of non-profit align with our goals. Essentially, this
model contains what operations would look like if a non-profit were to run the
site by itself. We recommend that this ‘Steelport Conservancy’ apply for
incorporation, and then apply for charitable status. Incorporation would
provide definition for the conservancies structured, while the charitable
status would have the highest degree of benefits. 
This Conservancy would be totally independent, but could have board
representation from Slate and the City of Hamilton among others. We would
suggest including relevant City Councilors and community groups such as
the Bay Area Restoration Council or Hamilton Conservation Authority. In
terms of non-board members, designers, planners, and artists are crucial for
ideating a long-term vision and identity, while other community interest
groups can also play a role. Also, similar to The Bentway, we recommend a
committee dedicated to fundraising and finance. It is cost effective for
Conservancy employees to spend resources pursuing the large amount of
funding available to this model.  Uniquely, however, the complexity of this site
would necessitate four subcommittees within the structure dedicated to the
operation of each site. These members, while part of the body as a whole,
would focus their efforts on the unique identity of each of the 4 spaces.
5.0 Risks
65
This section outlines what we consider to be potential, informative examples for how
hybrid governance structures could look. While our more specific recommendations
are discussed in section 11, the examples in this section are already curated to those
that we thought did not significantly step on our community engagement priorities
(eg. frameworks in which cost creates a barrier for participation, or ownership
creates ambiguity regarding public access such as many POPS).
9.1 Single-Conservancy Model

66. 66
Board of Directors:
Diverse stakeholders in
creating community
group representation
City of
Hamilton
Early Stage
Short term
partnership
Existing non-
profit
‘friends’ of the
steelport
conservancy
Fundraising
grants
Function
fundraising
public
discussion +
participation
academic
diplomacy
Only provides
institutional knowledge
and admin capacity
Steelport
Conservancy
Function:
operation
maintenance
capital
planning
fundraising
programming
Joint
maintenance
task force
Figure 28: Single Conservancy Model Breakdown
Steelport Conservancy
Structure

67. 67
This structure would also be formed through a ‘Use Agreement’ that Slate enters into with
the City and the Conservancy directly. This Use Agreement should outline the responsibility
of Slate, the City and the Conservancy for maintenance, operation, and management.
Further, it should be used to outline acceptable and unacceptable uses of space to ensure
a liability buffer that Slate and the City of Hamilton can refer to. 
The areas of responsibility can, theoretically, be divided into 4 categories. It is notable that
the City of Hamilton and Slate would primarily be responsible for the built-capital
construction and safety in the ‘Capital Requirements’ section, while the Conservancy is
largely responsible for programming, fundraising and governance. 
The CityLAB project team also recommends short-term partnerships with existing
nonprofits at tearlier stages of the project that have past experience and competencies in
running a conservancy-style governance. For instance, Artscape was quite hands-on with
the Bentway in its early stages (HR & A, 2016). Steelport can form a similar partnership with
the Bentway. Other viable partnerships can include Evergreen or the Distillery District. We
also recommend the formation of a  ‘Friends Group’ of the conservancy, which should
perform fundraising and recognition events, recruit and coordinate volunteers, and host
engagement related programs.
Overall, responsibilities for the Conservancy include:
1. Capital Requirements
This includes financial planning, applying and negotiating public funds and the subsequent
allocation of said funds. Fundraising and fund management is likely to be the responsibility
of the conservancy, its strategic partners and their Friend Group. It would also include first-
stage capital construction. For the Coke Battery, however - which could include
decommissioning of running operations, safety audits and renovations on declining
infrastructure - this should be managed through a joint effort between Slate and the City,
not the Conservancy.
2. Implementation of Vision
This is the ‘identity development’ stage for the newly formed Conservancy. This stage will
involve the creation, design and conduct of major programming efforts of the Steelport
Conservancy, with a focus on its anchor initiatives. For instance, one of The Distillery
District’s signature programs is its holiday market. This identity can be developed through
community engagement and programming available/open to the public.

68. 68
3. Public Relationships
Act as a key intermediary and oversee relationships with municipal, provincial, and federal
governments, as well as with local non-profits, cultural communities, and private
stakeholders. Once again, it is the responsibility of the conservancy itself
4. Day to Day Operations
Ensure the project's ongoing operations and maintenance through routine tasks, either
managed directly by the entity or outsourced via service contracts with established open
space management organizations. Additionally, the Conservancy will coordinate and
deliver foundational programming for the hybrid Spaces, including recurring events like
food truck festivals, fitness classes, and children’s art or play activities. Certain heavier
maintenance activities (e.g. road maintenance, concrete resurfacing) might still be best in
the hands of the city with the experience and tools to make it happen. Rather than hiring
the city for repairs, this can be negotiated in the Use Agreement, providing proper
easements. In a Use Agreement, Slate would maintain ownership of the land and would
maintain low liability for any accidents from visitors, as long as the Use Agreement outlines
it as City responsibility. A lease to the city instead of a Use Agreement could be an extra
buffer, but there is no significant concern (DCM A & B, 2018a).
Structure of Commerce:
Under this model, there are two primary ways that retail, or visitorship revenues, can
operate:  
Simple shops and concessions run by Conservancy staff, generating revenues for the
Conservancy
1.
In this scenario, funding restrictions would undoubtedly mean there are simpler,
more basic establishments, such as concession stands and basic products
available.
a.
Outsourced investment for retail and infrastructure2.
In this scenario, non-affiliated third-parties introduce for-profit businesses. The
potential for profits would likely drive in larger-scale enterprises. In this case, given
that Slate is the owner, they would be involved in negotiations directly.
a.
As frequently articulated, our engagement and research leads our suggestion to say
that the introduction of for-profit businesses be dealt with carefully. Potential tenants
follow the framework of a Social Enterprise, while we should encourage local
businesses. This option, long-term, could provide potential revenue streams.
b.

69. Funding:
As discussed, the charitable status opens avenues for a variety of funding. Beyond tax
exemption, staff hired for the purpose of fundraising and finances may collect money in a
number of ways:
69
The ‘Friends of the Conservancy’ could support these objectives. They could take on some
programming initiatives, such as handling historical programming (management of
museums, development of education resources like multimedia walking tours) and
fundraising efforts (donor recognition events, merchandising, fundraising for unexpected
expenses and general fundraising). 
Advertising campaigns can attract donations to the space from users of the
space and other locals. Also, larger foundations can be contacted
individually to find opportunities for existing grants and other support. This
includes City, Provincial, and Federal funding available for these sorts of
community spaces (examples discussed in section 10).
Also, venture philanthropy can be an effective mechanism for securing
funding for the Steelport Conservancy by integrating investment strategies
with social impact objectives. This approach attracts capital from donors
and investors who prioritize both financial return and measurable social or
environmental outcomes. By offering a blend of grantmaking, equity-like
investments, and active support, venture philanthropy can provide the
Conservancy with not only financial resources but also strategic guidance
and capacity-building. Such funding models are particularly well-suited for
initiatives like the Steelport Conservancy, where long-term sustainability,
scalability, and community impact are key considerations in attracting
diverse funding sources and ensuring the viability of Conservation efforts.
Lastly, revenue will be generated through whatever commerce ends up
available. Ticketed events, food and beverage, or even rental fees for
products or from retail tenants in the long term are realistic ways of
generating funds.

70. 70
Strengths:
This site is defined by the simplicity and
flexibility of its structure. Compared to the
options we present below, it contains the fewest
organizations involved in management and
allows everything to be centralized. It is simple
where funds are to be directed, who is in charge
of most site activities, and which body the city,
Slate, and others operate through. Its status as
a charitable conservancy attracts a maximum
amount of donations. Further, incorporation in
this model allows for a well-structured
‘representative membership’ (6.3.2), where
each voting member votes on behalf of their
representative organizations on a key issue.
This not only leads to greater impact but also
higher levels of accountability.
Weaknesses:
The complexity of the site itself is a large
difference compared to other hybrid spaces like
the Bentway, that use this single-conservancy
model. The diversity of community services
provided by each site and the geographic
separation might make it hard for a single body
to adequately govern them all or give specific
attention to the individual character of each. Even
with staff dedicated to specific sites in the
Steelport Conservancy, the framework and
resources may be insufficient to fully ideate the
individual identity of each. Without separating the
sites, certain funding opportunities and legal
benefits specific to site services (eg. heritage for
the Coke Battery) could be missed. Also, there is a
slight risk that charitable status could restrict
certain revenue-generating opportunities
(Government of Canada, 2024a), but most within
reason should be acceptable.

71. Another option would be the incorporation of a Special Purpose Entity alongside a leading
not-for-profit corporation. In this case, the Special Purpose Entity would be created by the
city for the purpose of operating and managing the hybrid spaces. Unlike the last model,
the SPE would not be completely independent, but rather an extension of the City. As
proposed to the Bentway by HR & A consulting (2016), this would divide responsibilities as
follows: 
Steelport Conservancy: In charge of fundraising, programming, and envisioning future
design, events, and amenities. 
Special Purpose Entity: Operations and maintenance.
Both: capital planning and financial management, construction and public
engagement.
The SPE will leverage city expertise for the purpose of general maintenance and carrying
out programming that is ideated by the Conservancy. Rather than create new roles from
scratch in the Conservancy, the City’s operational capacities and experience would make
them well-equipped to expand their operations into an SPE. This would allow the
Conservancy to focus on design and fundraising, of which their membership is better
equipped for in the above model. The SPE board of directors would contain exclusively city
representatives with experience in event operations and management. 
Significant coordination would be required between the two governing bodies. This could
be facilitated by cross-appointment of boards of directors and collaboration on hiring and
job descriptions for each point. Many subcommittees could easily be formed when
necessary (HR & A, 2016), whereas in many ways the organizations would exist like a single,
cohesive entity.
71
9.2 Joint-Conservancy-SPE model

72. 72
Joint Conservancy- SPE Model
City of
Hamilton
SPE Board of
Directors
Steelport
Conservancy Board
Advisory Board members
Can include ooverlap and evolve from
Steelports current CAC
Special Purpose Entity
(SPE)
Community Director
Functions:
fundraising,
programming,
realization of ‘vision’
and brand building
Steelport
Conservancy
Functions: operations &
maintenance, funds
management, capital
planning
Chief Steward
Operations
Lead
Programming
Lead
Programming &
Development Staff
Fundraising Lead
coordination
Income
Administrative
Staff
Collaboartion
Friends of
Steelport
Conservancy
design, construction,
branding, activation,
Community
Engagement, political
relationship
Figure 29: Joint Conservancy SPE Model Breakdown

73. 73
Friends of the Conservancy will have the same function as Model 1, but will likely shoulder
minimal responsibility for the programming, and can focus more on fundraising efforts,
academic diplomacy and historical programming. They can also cooperate with the
Conservancy to conduct community engagement activities and provide volunteers and
manpower.
For this particular model, we suggest the inclusion of historical societies, humanities
faculties and guerilla archivists in the board or the Friend Group, as well as non-profits
experienced with fundraising.
Commerce:
The potential for commercial activation of the sites would be similar to the model 1.
Leveraging the city's operational skills could make internally run, simple-style shopping a
more appealing model to focus on. 
Funding:
While funding streams would be similar to Model 1 in this scenario, a couple noticeable
differences include:
The Steelport Conservancy, in charge of fundraising, would be supplying earned
revenues to both itself and the SPE (along with City support)
1.
The City would have a larger role in this scenario, taking on a majority of the funding
themselves, and this would likely come with greater capital costs. 
2.
Note: It would also be possible for Slate to jointly create this SPE with the city for a stake of
their own (Hayes, 2024). This strategy uniquely allows Slate to be directly connected to the
Sites while – given privileges provided by SPE structure – maintaining low liability for the
operations themselves. In this scenario, Slate would also take on a greater financial burden,
at least initially. It also might risk charitable donations, given that the operation of the site is
overseen by a primary corporate stakeholder, and thus the Conservancy's support of it
would not necessarily be totally exclusive (Government of Canada, 2024a).

74. Strengths :
This model better leverages city oversight and experience, making the difficult ‘ramp-up’
years much easier. It also maintains low liability, even for the city, due to the privileged
status of SPE’s.
Weaknesses:
This model gives the site less autonomy than the previous option, as the SPE is not totally
independent from the City. This puts more strain on the City’s operational capacity. We
don’t feel, however, that this lack of autonomy threatens the Site’s accessibility, as long as
Participatory Urban Planning is still promoted within the partnered conservancy. 
Another option would be the formation of 4 separate trusts for each hybrid site. In this case,
each site will apply for its own non profit status independent of each other, with no
oversight unifying them. The board of each trust may have overlap, but it will not be a
requirement. 
This model would consist of:
Heritage Trusts for the Coke Battery and Pipe Gallery, each with its own set of
preservation, activation and socioeconomic charters. 
The creation of a Steelport Waterfront trust, which would be responsible for both the
commercial and recreational sections of the Waterfront. It must be noted that the SWT
would be independent of The Hamilton Waterfront Trust for the sake of greater
autonomy and in the interest of retaining Slate’s ownership.
A Traditional Land Trust for the Lagoon Scape for the programming and operations of
remediation, followed by long-term environmental protection.
74
9.3 Decentralized Trusts Model

75. 75
Strengths:
The size, but also the diversity of services provided by each site makes them exceptionally
unique. In order to leverage the best outcomes for each site, this model could be
promising, as the boards of each trust could tailor a strategy that is best for each site
without extensive input from others (OLTA, 2018). Additionally, each trust would have its own
Friend Group - meaning fundraising, community engagement, and commercial
programming would all be tailored to each principal trust.
Weaknesses:
The lack of overarching central management may lead to operational challenges and
redundancies. It will be difficult to coordinate a unifying project between the sites in these
circumstances. While these challenges may be somewhat mitigated by resource sharing
agreements (OLTA, 2018) and certain board members being quadruply represented, the
model remains significantly inefficient. 
Additionally, the friend groups of each trust will have difficulties achieving economies of
scale in matters of fundraising and production of community resources.

76. The most complex option would be some combination of the models described above. In
this model, a non-profit organization could exist alongside a variety of trusts and / or
individual Use Agreements made between the City and central Steelport Conservancy.
While complicated, this could be reconciled through careful coordination and cross-
appointment of board members. Further, this example is important to explore given that
operating with UNESCO heritage for the Coke Battery (discussed in section 9)
necessitates consideration of a centralized Non-profit alongside a special land status,
regardless of if the others are considered trusts. While not directly applicable, Evergreen
is an example of a not-for-profit corporation that works through a number of separate
non-profits, including Evergreen Brickworks (Evergreen Brick Works, 2024). 
Trusts are expected to work independently, meaning each site would have to operate
with an individual board of directors and membership. They would also be the primary
stewards of the land as outlined above. However, by creating a cohesive system
between the different boards, these different sites could function as one entity, therefore
combining the benefits of site-specific governance with central control. 
Each trust would be formed independently in the most applicable form to the site itself –
as in model 3 – and creates a small board of directors and membership. The not-for-
profit conservancy opens the same as it did in model 1. In this model, the hiring and
board membership of each of the trusts would be coordinated by the central party, and
would overlap widely. While each trust might have some unique members, most from
each would also be members of the central conservancy. The Use Agreements created
would outline the central conservancy as the primary body for carrying out and
managing events and general operations, while the city would be in charge of its more
high-level upkeep as discussed in model 1. The role of the individual trusts themselves
would be charged with ideating programming for the site. Each of the board members of
the trusts would also sit on the boards of the conservancy, and thus would be able to
easily coordinate site plans for operation. 
76
9.4 Hybrid Models

77. 77
The central body would be in charge of most of the site fundraising, but pursuit of site
specific grants and funding would be dealt with by each individual trust. Any revenue
generated would also go back to the central conservancy to be handled. Essentially, the
trusts would exist to create a unique legal status, and for more site specific planning.
Additionally, these scenarios would not necessitate four unique trusts if the model seemed
less applicable to certain sites (eg. 2 are made trusts and 2 are not), they can instead be
fully run by the central conservancy as in Model 1 under Use Agreements.
Strengths:
This model provides the most personalized and comprehensive structure of governance
available, while guaranteeing a sense of identity for the individual sites itself. It also creates
bodies, beyond the central governance, able to generate fundraising. 
Weaknessees: 
This is the most challenging model logistically, and could lead to disputes with no clear
path of resolution. Further, it would likely be the most costly, as it would probably have the
highest number of salaried employees to support the complex structure. It also might not
necessarily be significantly more effective than model 1 – in which site specific councils are
made within the central body – at generating a sense of identity for each site.
Figure 30: Evergreen Brickworks in Toronto, ON

78. While we have talked in general terms about ‘operation’ and ‘programming’, this section aims
to build on these different models and take a closer look at the the particular opportunities
available for the operation of the Waterfront. Our team chose to spotlight the Waterfront to limit
our scope, and after special interest shown from community members and engagement
groups on the development of this hybrid space.
Activation of the waterfront refers to the process of transforming the space into a vibrant,
dynamic hub that serves as a focal point for community engagement, economic growth, and
cultural enrichment. This involves leveraging social enterprises to ensure that programming
and operations align with community priorities while fostering sustainability and inclusivity.
Activation is not just about creating physical infrastructure but also about developing a diverse
range of activities and opportunities that attract and engage people across demographics. By
integrating recreational programming, cultural events, and social services, the waterfront can
become a catalyst for urban revitalization, supporting the city’s goals of economic
development, environmental sustainability, and enhanced quality of life for its residents.
10.0 Waterfront Activation
78
10.1 Recreational Programming
Figures 31: Steelport’s Existing Waterfront
Seasonal Programming
Quarterly events and seasonal markets can significantly
boost foot traffic. These events could include farmers'
markets, pop-up festivals, and art shows that highlight
local businesses, similar to successful models like the
Distillery Christmas Market. By offering discounted booth
rates for Steelport-specific businesses, this approach will
foster community participation and economic growth. To
ensure the space is functional and inviting, the design will
minimize hostile architecture and prioritize inclusivity
(Project for Public Spaces, 2008). Features like designated
bike lanes connecting all three hybrid spaces will improve
accessibility, while clean energy-powered water taxis will
reduce water pollution.
Figure 32: Toronto’s Distillery
Christmas Market

79. 79
Arts and Culture Programming
A key component of the waterfront activation could be the creation of a multi-functional
venue, similar to Bridgeworks in Hamilton, which serves as an arts, music, and community
hub. Also referencing AvidXchange Music Factory in Charlotte, North Carolina, this would be a
good model to follow when creating this entertainment venue as it has over 10 spaces that
incorporate hubs for music, entertainment and nightlife as well, with options to attend music,
comedy and nightclub events all in one complex (Mahoney, 2024). The Steelport venue can
host local, Canadian, and international artists for live music, cultural events, community
gatherings, and nightlife events and contribute to the area’s overall vibrancy and cultural
landscape. By drawing both locals and tourists, such venues can become anchor
destinations, increasing foot traffic and stimulating nearby businesses like restaurants, cafes,
and shops, thus boosting the local economy. Furthermore, waterfront venues offer versatile
event spaces that can seamlessly integrate indoor and outdoor activities, such as open-air
concerts, community markets, and festivals, adding dynamic appeal to the area.
This type of development also supports urban revitalization, transforming previously
underutilized or industrial waterfront areas into cultural hubs that align with sustainable
urban development goals (Gregory, 2021). In addition to enhancing community engagement
and wellness, the activation of the waterfront can attract future development, such as hotels,
by drawing tourists and creating a reason for visitors to stay in the area.
Figure 34: AvidXchange Music
Factory in Charlotte, North Carolina
Figure 33: Bridgeworks in
Hamilton, Ontario
Filming and Media
The development can also draw inspiration from Toronto’s
Port Lands, where the Toronto Basin Media Hub—a $250
million film and television production complex—was
developed in partnership with Hackman Capital Partners
and The MBS Group (Davis, 2021). By including a film studio
along the waterfront, Steelport can become a dynamic hub
for creative industries. To achieve this, Steelport should form
partnerships with global media companies like Hackman
Capital or The MBS Group, collaborate with developers such
as Slate Asset Management, and engage with municipal
and provincial governments for tax credits and subsidies.
Funding for building film studios can be sourced from
initiatives like Business Benefits Finder, Sustainable
Development Technology Canada, Ontario Place
Development Fund, and Hamilton Economic Development’s
Creative Industries Sector.
Figure 35: Toronto’s Port Lands

80. 10.2 Inclusive programming
A well-designed waterfront activation plan should prioritize child-friendly infrastructure to
ensure safety and engagement for families. For example, protective barriers near water
areas would prevent children from falling in, making the space welcoming for all ages.
‘A prime example of this approach is the planned Biindigen Well-Being Centre by Spruce
Labs, which will serve as a multi-use community facility centred on Indigenous-led
collaborative care and learning. This innovative space offers services like training medical
students and teaching Indigenous languages while incorporating family-friendly amenities
such as a childcare center adjacent to a grocery store (McPherson, 2024). This holistic
approach to design underscores the importance of creating a waterfront that caters to
diverse needs while fostering community well-being. Accessibility for elders is another
cornerstone of the waterfront plan.’
Features such as wide, easily navigable pedestrian pathways, benches at regular intervals,
water fountains, and ample washroom facilities with ramps can ensure older adults can
comfortably enjoy the area. These thoughtful design elements will promote inclusivity and
encourage multigenerational use of the space. Free offerings, such as access to green
spaces, picnic benches, water fountains, and public washrooms can enhance the
waterfront’s appeal. Additional attractions like cafes, restaurants, and the expansion of the
Hamilton Bike Share Program will encourage both locals and tourists to spend time in the
area.
Ontario offers generous incentives like the Ontario Film & Television Tax Credit, which provides
up to 35% on eligible labour expenditures, and the Ontario Computer Animation and Special
Effects Tax Credit (OCASE), which offers up to 18% on related labour costs (Ontario Creates).
Additionally, the City of Hamilton could introduce municipal tax reductions and offer reduced
land lease rates for long-term creative tenants. Partnering with local agencies such as Ontario
Creates will streamline access to these benefits, while an innovation hub on-site could provide
grants and incubator support for film and digital media businesses.
Collaborating with local institutions like Mohawk College to develop specialized training
programs for film crews will further strengthen the local talent pipeline. This comprehensive
strategy will transform the Steelport waterfront into a vibrant, accessible, and sustainable
community asset that supports economic growth, cultural development, and environmental
responsibility
80
Figure 36: Proposed Biindigen Well-Being Centre in East Hamilton

81. Waterfront activation at Steelport will create a vibrant, multifaceted space that engages
the community through recreation, athletic events, and innovation, ensuring year-round
appeal. During the spring and summer, the plan focuses on creating picnicking areas that
encourage families to visit the waterfront, fostering a sense of community and relaxation.
In addition, athletic events such as 5-10 km walks and runs will take advantage of the 10k
loop, offering a dynamic space for fitness enthusiasts (Hoskin, 2024). The inclusion of
youth-focused areas like a skate park and water park will attract younger demographics,
to bring the water closer to the property. This will serve to generate excitement for the
waterfront, which is situated further back from the development, and encourage a
stronger connection with the waterfront experience.
10.3 Community Focused Initiatives
81
1. The MLSE Foundation’s Community Action
Grant provides up to $50,000 for Ontario-based
organizations that use sport and recreation to
promote equitable communities, making it an
ideal resource to support community events at
Steelport. However, to access this funding, a
partnership with a registered charity or the City
of Hamilton would be required.
2. TD Bank Community Sponsorship Program
can help fund both for-profit and nonprofit
organizations that support community initiatives,
including sports events that promote tourism
and enhance the local economy.
Securing funding and partnerships will be integral
to the success of these initiatives and some
available are (Business Benefits Finder, 2024);
Relevant Grants
10.3.1 Active Recreation

82. 3. Affiliation with Athletics Ontario offers further
advantages, including event promotion, access to
grants, and discounts on event sanction fees. Their
insurance coverage for events can also be crucial for
marathon organizers, providing an added layer of
protection.
4. The Sport Support Program (SSP), administered by
the Government of Canada, offers funding to eligible
organizations for programs that align with the
Canadian Sport Policy, providing additional
opportunities for sport development.
5. Partnerships with national charities like the
Canadian Cancer Society, CAMH, Heart & Stroke
Foundation, Diabetes Canada, and SickKids could
facilitate the hosting of marathons, transforming
Steelport into a central hub for community
engagement. This collaboration would also highlight
the potential need for expanding the loop and
improving accessibility to accommodate larger
events. These collaborations could create significant
opportunities for community involvement while raising
funds for important causes.
82

83. To complement these community-focused initiatives, a
collaboration with McMaster Innovation Hub would
further enrich the development of Steelport. Drawing
inspiration from the MaRS Discovery District in Toronto,
this partnership could foster innovation and
entrepreneurship. MaRS is a successful public-private
partnership that integrates government support,
private investment, and nonprofit collaboration to drive
economic growth and technological advancement. By
providing state-of-the-art facilities, research labs, and
access to funding, MaRS helps scale startups,
particularly in sectors like healthcare, clean technology,
and IT (Silcoff, 2024).
Similarly, integrating McMaster Innovation Hub into the Steelport development would offer
valuable resources, including work-integrated learning programs, grants, and networking
opportunities for entrepreneurs and students. The potential for post-secondary students,
particularly those involved with CEWIL Canada’s initiatives, to engage in high-quality, hands-
on projects could significantly boost innovation and entrepreneurship at Steelport (Ackles,
2024).
83
10.3.2 Innovative Partnerships
This strategic collaboration between academic
institutions, government, and private investors
would enhance the property’s ability to serve as a
hub for research, business development, and job
creation. It would create an ecosystem similar to
MaRS, integrating technological and scientific
innovation with regional economic development.
Through these combined efforts, Steelport’s
waterfront activation would not only stimulate
community engagement but also position the
area as a center of innovation and economic
growth, fostering sustainable development for
years to come.

84. Creating a dynamic and inclusive waterfront activation involves establishing a community
and culture catalyst—a one-stop hub where individuals can access a variety of community
services, including mentorship, entrepreneurship training, and STEAM initiatives. Inspired by
organizations like the Nia Centre for the Arts in Toronto, this hub would also focus on youth
empowerment and leadership programs, providing essential resources such as legal aid,
advocacy, community kitchens, and food banks (Nia Centre for the Arts). The goal is to
create a space that not only meets immediate needs but also fosters long-term personal
growth and empowerment through intergenerational community programs. This activation
would aim to bridge the gap between health, culture, and economic opportunity,
addressing the socio-economic challenges faced by the local community.
Relevant Grants:
To bring this vision to life, several funding sources are available including
(Business Benefits Finder, 2024):
(1) The Mental Health Promotion Innovation Fund
(2) Youth Wellness Hubs Ontario, and
(3) The Ontario Trillium Foundation Grow Grants.
84

85. These funding opportunities support initiatives that promote mental and
physical health, arts and culture, and youth wellness, with specific grants
available for improving accessibility, technology, and infrastructure in
community spaces. Additionally, programs like the Canada Healthy
Communities Initiative and the Enabling Accessibility Fund can be tapped to
ensure the space is inclusive, accessible, and equipped to support diverse
community needs (Business Benefits Finder). Building effective partnerships is
crucial to the success of this initiative. By aligning with established organizations
like CAMH, CMHA, and Nia Centre, the waterfront hub can offer a comprehensive
range of services, including mental health counselling, cultural programming,
and youth engagement activities. Structuring a public-private partnership (PPP)
framework will be essential, with roles defined for each stakeholder:
CAMH and CMHA would provide mental health professionals and program
development, while Nia Centre-like organizations would deliver arts and
mentorship programs.
Developers and private partners would focus on providing physical space
and long-term support, and municipal and provincial governments would
offer regulatory incentives and funding opportunities.
85
A revenue-sharing model could ensure that income from commercial
spaces supports the social programs within the hub. To ensure the hub
meets local needs, a collaborative governance structure, including an
advisory board and community advisory committee, would oversee the
project. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and service agreements
would formalize each partner’s contributions and roles, ensuring clear
expectations and commitments (Kenton et al, 2024). Joint grant
applications and community bond programs can further secure funding,
while pilot programs and performance metrics would allow for continuous
improvement based on community feedback. Launch events, youth-led
initiatives, and ongoing community engagement efforts would build
awareness and support, ensuring the hub becomes an integral part of the
waterfront’s revitalization.
10.3.4 Necessary Collaboration
10.3.3 Wellness Partnerships

86. 10.4 General Sources of Funding
Prioritizing sustainable practices during the Waterfront’s development will align with
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, enabling access to green
infrastructure funding. Incorporating ESG principles is essential for sustainable development.
Revenue-generating activities like district heating and cooling through waste heat recovery
systems and renewable energy initiatives, such as a Hydrogen Hub for green hydrogen
generation, will align the project with modern sustainability goals (Earthjustice). These
elements not only reduce the environmental impact but also contribute to long-term
economic resilience. This could include grants such as the Investing in Canada Plan’s Green
Infrastructure Stream, which supports projects that reduce greenhouse gases and improve
energy efficiency in water and wastewater infrastructure, disaster mitigation, and energy-
efficient infrastructure. Similarly, the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) helps municipalities invest
in projects that enhance environmental sustainability, such as energy-efficient buildings and
renewable energy solutions. Ontario’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act supports the
development of renewable energy infrastructure like solar power and wind energy, while
Natural Resources Canada’s Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities program can
fund renewable energy projects in waterfront areas, further reducing reliance on
nonrenewable energy sources (Business Benefits Finder).
Several funding streams are available for such waterfront projects:
The Community, Culture, and Recreation Infrastructure Stream under the Investing in
Canada Infrastructure Program offers major funding for projects that enhance cultural,
recreational, and community spaces.
Municipal grants, like those supporting the Pier 8 development, align with Hamilton’s
Public Art Master Plan and Recreation Plan, providing funding for public art installations,
recreational facilities, and event programming.
Cultural and tourism grants, such as the Ontario Cultural Attractions Fund, support events
and projects that attract tourists and boost cultural engagement.
Programs like the Ontario Trillium Foundation’s Grow Grant and the Reconnect Ontario
Program help fund community programs, tourism recovery, and local engagement
initiatives.
By activating the waterfront with these initiatives, we can create a thriving, sustainable
community space that enhances the local economy, fosters cultural vibrancy, and supports
long-term development.
86

87. Fostering the growth of small, locally-owned businesses in Hamilton, rather than focusing
on large chain stores, can significantly enhance local economic development by creating
jobs and promoting community-based commerce. To support small businesses in getting
started on local lands, incentives like short-term leases and pop-up spaces could be
utilized. This is especially beneficial for waterfront areas that will primarily be used during
the winter months, creating opportunities for pop-up markets. Additionally, a few anchor
tenants could help stabilize the area, driving foot traffic and encouraging further business
growth. Several applicable grants could be leveraged to facilitate this initiative, such as
FedDev Ontario, which provides funding for projects aimed at boosting regional innovation
and business growth. A partnership with the Start-Up Tenant Attraction Program (SOTA)
would provide small businesses with 0% interest loans to cover initial tenant improvements
and other setup costs (Invest In Hamilton). Collaborations with local incubators like
Innovation Factory and The Forge could offer early-stage business development support,
including mentorship, networking, and startup capital for businesses operating on Steelport
lands (Riehl, 2024).
To reduce overhead costs, coworking spaces could be incorporated, where small
businesses can share resources like meeting rooms, internet, and office equipment.
Drawing inspiration from Toronto's Indigenous Centre for Entrepreneurship, a hybrid hub
model could be adopted, combining subsidized workspaces with business support and
cultural programming. The Government of Canada committed $5 million toward the
creation of this centre, which will serve as the first Indigenous business incubator in
southern Ontario. This funding aims to support approximately 420 Indigenous businesses
and create 500 new jobs across the region, fostering entrepreneurship and economic
growth within the Indigenous community (City of Toronto). Furthermore, a community bond
program could allow local residents, particularly those from the Stipley and Crownpoint
communities, as well as other investors, to directly support development through
investments in infrastructure and business initiatives, fostering a sense of local ownership
in the project.
10.5 Incentivizing & Programming Hamilton-Grown
Commerce
87

88. 88
Additionally, the creation of a business development fund, which could provide microloans
or grants to small businesses, would further stimulate growth. Revenue-sharing
agreements could be established, allowing businesses to repay based on profits, while a
Green Municipal Fund could incentivize businesses to adopt sustainable practices through
grants aimed at enhancing their environmental impact (Green Municipal Fund).
These strategies would promote the development of a more sustainable and diverse local
business environment. It is crucial, however, to avoid the mistakes made by Artscape, a
Toronto non-profit that entered receivership in 2023 due to unsustainable debt levels.
Artscape’s financial difficulties stemmed from overextension, such as taking on debt for
new projects like the $34-million Artscape Daniels Launchpad, and pandemic-related
revenue losses that forced reliance on credit (Kassam, 2024).
Delayed asset sales and high operating costs also contributed to their struggles. To avoid
these pitfalls, it is important to ensure ongoing business support to small businesses which
helps reduce turnover and encourage long-term sustainability, while also being cautious
about overleveraging debt, ensuring that financial growth is aligned with realistic
operational goals.
Figure 37: Hamilton commerce

89. 11.0 Recommendations
1. It leverages site-specific financial advantages for the Coke
Battery and Waterfront
2. This site provides general autonomy for the sites themselves,
fostering a sense of identity for the coke battery and waterfront
3. Community feedback downplayed the importance of
commercial areas and extravagant activities for the Coke Battery,
meaning restrictions from UNESCO status would not impact
community priorities. Additionally, the Waterfront Trust – unlike the
Heritage trust – does not have the same restrictions on
commercial areas, thus allowing for this opportunity where it is
most important.
4. Unlike hybrid models with four central trusts, we picked the two
sites where the label would be more beneficial, while leaving the
others to general operation for the sake of simplicity. This means
that we would only be navigating three central bodies for the
entirety of the site.
Out of the frameworks we mentioned (section 6.7), we recommend pursuing one of the
hybrid models. This model would have a central not-for-profit corporation and registered
charity and would have two trusts; a heritage trust for The Coke Battery and a waterfront
trust for The Waterfront. We would also pursue UNESCO status for The Coke Battery. While
we outlined the challenges of this model’s logistics, we believe the benefits for these 2 sites
outweigh the costs. As outlined in 6.7.4, the central conservancy would be in charge of
management, fundraising, day-to-day operations, and maintenance (alongside the City).
The trusts would each have a small board of directors, which would jointly be cross-
appointed to the central conservancy, and would be in charge of site specific
programming and fundraising. The other sites would simply be run by the conservancy as
a whole, which would form specific sub-committees for the Lagoon Scape and Pipe
Gallery. This model would be beneficial for several reasons:
11.1 Governance Recommendations
This report has outlined a number of key suggestions. This section organizes and summarizes the most
important takeaways from governance, waterfront programming, and community engagement.
89

90. Waterfront activation at Steelport is envisioned as a transformative initiative that
combines recreation, culture, and innovation to create a vibrant community hub.
Recreational programming, including seasonal markets, pop-up festivals, and arts events,
will attract both locals and tourists, boosting foot traffic and supporting local businesses. A
multi-functional venue inspired by examples like Hamilton’s Bridgeworks and Charlotte’s
AvidXchange Music Factory will host diverse cultural events, drawing audiences for music,
comedy, and nightlife. Additionally, youth-focused spaces such as skate parks and water
parks will engage younger demographics, while integrated bike lanes and clean-energy-
powered water taxis will improve accessibility and sustainability. These efforts align with
urban revitalization goals, turning underutilized spaces into cultural hubs that drive tourism
and economic growth. By fostering partnerships with organizations like Athletics Ontario,
CAMH, and Nia Centre, and leveraging funding opportunities such as the MLSE Foundation’s
Community Action Grant and the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Steelport can ensure
inclusive and impactful programming.
The activation plan also includes the development of a film studio along the waterfront,
drawing inspiration from Toronto’s Port Lands Media Hub. Partnerships with global media
companies, municipal incentives, and funding from programs like the Ontario Film &
Television Tax Credit and Sustainable Development Technology Canada will position
Steelport as a creative industry hub. Accessibility is a cornerstone of the plan, with wide
pathways, benches, and water features designed for multigenerational use. A community
hub integrating social services, mentorship programs, and cultural initiatives will address
socio-economic challenges while promoting inclusivity and empowerment. Sustainable
practices, such as renewable energy systems and ESG-aligned infrastructure, will attract
green funding and ensure long-term resilience. By integrating diverse recreational,
cultural, and economic initiatives, Steelport’s waterfront will become a thriving, accessible
destination that fosters community well-being and economic growth.
90
11.2 Waterfront Recommendations
Figure 38: Hamilton waterfront

91. 91
11.3 Community Engagement Recommendations
Given what we heard from the dialogue event, we recommend the following information
be shared:
More comprehensive details on the environmental condition of the land. While
description of site condition is likely dynamic and dense, publishing digestible
information about the specific process of the site's renewal could be key. The living
memory of the Site’s contamination was a large point of discussion, which cannot be
put to rest without transparent communication
1.
In-depth progress updates, especially timelines (whatever is available). Some in the
dialogue thought that nothing would happen for 20 years. Even if this includes specific
challenges, or what factors determine the timeline itself, this provides greater clarity
into Slate’s and the City’s thought process in the creation of the site
2.
These actions could go a long way in developing trust between local communities and the
future Steelport Conservancy. While we see that tremendous potential for economic
activation green spaces in Steelport could bring, policy should centre the community it
spatially serves. For instance, if the longstanding institutional memory of contamination
prevails in the local narrative, negative press and collective memory may impact
popularity and appeal of the destination.
In order to share this information, we recommend:
More large-scale postal drops. This was highlighted to be an accessible form of
information dissemination during the co-creation workshop. The drops could contain
recent updates, and also have information on further efforts
1.
More frequent in-person town halls in convenient locations. Many stated that
convenience is a barrier for their attendance to in-person engagement. Local sites in
surrounding neighbourhoods include
2.
The Eva Rothwell Community Centrea.
Provides a variety of convenient services (eg. childcare) alongside an
accessible space for immediate locals
i.
The Spice Factoryb.
Well known among residents and in close proximity to the industrial districti.
Solidarity Place Workers’ Education Centerc.
Significant experience running community-oriented events and advocacyi.
The email newsletter updates are the easiest way to involve in-depth progress
reports. Discussing challenges, setbacks, successes, considerations, and really
engaging people in the thought process itself
3.

92. 92
The Bayfront Industrial Area Renewal Strategy emphasizes that Indigenous Peoples have
traditionally inhabited and continue to reside around the Hamilton harbour. The Mississaugas
(Anishinaabe Peoples) have occupied this region since the late 17th century, particularly in
the area referred to as ‘head-of-the-lake,’ which was a crucial site for communication and
trade. Following our dialogue event, feedback emphasized the importance of honouring the
land's heritage. Many expressed that while it’s important to remember Hamilton’s steel
history, we should also recognize First Nations communities that came before.
In response, our group conducted further research and engaged with Spruce Labs, an
Indigenous, women-owned planning, landscape architecture, and urban design consultancy.
They focus on solutions that prioritize Indigenous perspectives and local employment. During
our meeting with Spruce Labs (Section 3.3), they provided valuable insights on incorporating
Indigenous and First Nation voices into the future development of the Steelport site. They
clarified that Slate would need to collaborate with a funder or developer throughout the
process. Hamilton has established policies guiding Indigenous engagement, and we need to
identify them.
Once a company like Spruce Labs is hired, they would draft a letter to the community,
particularly reaching out to the Urban Indigenous People of the area, to gauge their interest in
the project and how they would like their voices to be included. This could involve plans for a
healing garden, placemaking signage, or other initiatives, depending on community desires.
We can reference consulting examples such as Archipel Research and Consulting, Firelight
Group, and Rise Consulting, all of which contribute to honouring Indigenous communities
connected to the site. Additionally, the Bindigen Wellbeing Centre, in collaboration with the
City of Hamilton, is currently working on initiatives that could inspire Steelport to utilize similar
resources and extend support throughout this journey.
11.3.2 Residence Committees
The creation of a Resident Committee made up entirely of locals should be
a fixture of any governance structure selected. For the Bentway, a
committee was formed through a ‘civic lottery’ and members were
consulted about their priorities for future development. While this is a
positive example, there is space for Steelport’s version to move from
consultation to collaboration by integrating certain community
representatives from the Resident Committee to the board of directors.
Community consensus in the committee can be given voting power.
11.3.3 Indigenous Engagement

93. 93
Appendices
Appendix A: Relevant Articles on Social Exclusion and the
meaning of ‘Publicness’
This appendix details what we felt were the most key articles informing our understanding
of the tension between development and publicness.
Infrastructural reuse projects, lost spaces, and spaces of homelessness: A Case
Study on the Bentway in Toronto – Hess, P., & Stevenson-Blythe, C (2022)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EArHW2VVIWWRSZYREGHZZXw2F34pnPT0/view?
usp=drive_link
1.
 
This article discusses the idea that redevelopment projects often see their development
land as ‘empty space’, sometimes insufficiently considering the significance and the
context of the land before transforming it. In the case of the Bentway, this had implications
on many displaced encampments. 
2. De Magalhães, C. The governance of urban public spaces in London: In the public
interest or in the interest of local stakeholders? – (2020)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zm_0zyg3d5UYzvhfNDaOUTysLMNaqDe5/view?
usp=drive_link 
This article talks about how the shift from public to shared ownership of community
spaces has altered the meaning of the term ‘publicness’.

94. ArcelorMittal Dofasco Private Foundation
Building Ontario Fund
First Ontario Community Foundation
HCS Foundation Hamilton
Dofasco Private Foundation
Ontario Trillium Foundation (Mentioned a few throughout report)
Capital Grant (To improve infrastructure & increase access to community
spaces)
To be eligible:
Projects must demonstrate a clear community benefit like creating
hybrid spaces or support local businesses. 20% of the budget can be for
development costs like legal/engineering fees
System Innovations Grant
To be eligible:
Projects need to support collaborative efforts that address community
challenges. There must be a formal partnership (Ex: Steelport develops
partnerships with local organizations like Innovation Factory to launch a
business incubator) and the project should align with fostering
economic resilience or supporting marginalized groups
Grow Grant
To be eligible:
Scale up existing programs that show proven community impact. If
Steelport ends up running events like cultural events, this grant can fund
the expansion
94
This appendix details the specific funding opportunities we found that could generate
funds for Steelport, depending on the structure it takes (eg. charity, heritage, types of
programming)
List of Grants & Funding Opportunities:
Appendix B: Relevant Funding Grants & Resources

95. 95
The Business Benefits Finder: https://innovation.ised-isde.canada.ca/s/?language=en_CA
 
This Government database connects businesses and non-profits to funding opportunities
depending on their particular objectives and structures. It was instrumental in the
identification of many funding opportunities 
Patrick J McNally Charitable Foundation
​​National Cost-Sharing Program for Heritage Places: This program offers
financial assistance for the conservation of heritage properties
designated as national historic sites, heritage lighthouses, or heritage
railway stations. Could be used for The Coke Battery if it is designated
UNESCO world heritage.
Ontario Heritage Act Grants: The municipal government provides
grants to support the conservation of properties designated under the
Ontario Heritage Act. These grants can assist with restoration and
preservation efforts, and are applicable to all three of the hybrid
spaces.
​​City of Hamilton Heritage Grants: Offer assistance for the conservation
of heritage properties, including grants for restoration work.
EcoAction Community Fund:
Provides funding for projects that focus on environmental
improvements this can support Steelports stormwater management
initiatives like the lagoonscape
Great Lakes Protection Initiative
Supporting Steelport Lake Ontario Shoreline rejuvenation
Community Museum Operating Grants (CMOG)
If elements like the Pipe Gallery preserve and showcase industrial
heritage, Steelport would be eligible
FedDev
Southwestern Ontario Development Fund
Provides support for projects and investments to existing businesses,
municipalities and not-for-profit organizations for economic
development in southwestern Ontario

96. 96
This section details key resources that provide specific, and informative details on the
Bentway’s governance and operations.
Governance & Funding:
City of Toronto – https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-
94187.pdf
This is a key document detailing the initial divisions of governance and funding
considerations in the formation of the Bentway.
Use Agreement:
City of Toronto – https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-
110758.pdf
This document details the Use Agreement discussed extensively in our report between the
City and Bentway Conservancy.
Consultant Recommendations:
HR & A Advisors – https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-
94594.pdf
This document details the initial recommendations for the governance, operations, and
maintenance possibilities outline to Waterfront Toronto – a key stakeholder getting The
Bentway off the ground.
Overall Public Vision report:
The Bentway – https://undergardinerprp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Under-
Gardiner-PRP-Vision-and-Opportunities-Report_2024.pdf
This document details The Bentway’s own analysis of their current operation and planned
expansion.
Appendix C: The Bentway - Key Documents

97. 97
List of Partners: 
As mentioned, Bentway has many partners not covered in this report. Here is their list of
their most significant partners within their structure:

98. 98
Appendix D: Dialogue Event Resources
Figure A: Official Poster Figure B: Canvassing Poster
Figure C: Dialogue Event Agenda + Handout

99. 99
Appendix E: Culminating Poster
Figure A: Culminating Poster for the
CityLab Showcase

100. 100
References
About - SpruceLab: Landscape Architecture + Planning. SpruceLab. (n.d.).
https://sprucelab.ca/about
About Us - NIA Centre for the Arts. Nia Centre for the Arts - Just another WordPress site. (2024,
October 24). https://niacentre.org/about-us/
Ackles, S. (2024, July 15). Government funding expands access to work-integrated learning
opportunities for students. https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2024/07/government-funding-
expands-access-to-work-integrated-learning-opportunities-for-students/
Attygale, Lisa. (2017). The Context Experts. Tamarack Institute.
https://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/hubfs/Resources/Publications/The-Context-Experts.pdf?
hsCtaTracking=56bc3396-2e91-49d8-8efc-95fa20b82878%7Cbddea62d-6f5b-4aa4-8b0d-
292bbd5c5b9b
Bentway Islands. (2024, November 4). Bentway Islands - a new Bentway site in development. The
Bentway. https://thebentway.ca/stories/bentway-islands-a-new-bentway-site-in-
development/
City of Hamilton. (2023, January 19). Urban design guidelines. https://www.hamilton.ca/build-
invest-grow/planning-development/planning-policies-guidelines/urban-design-guidelines
City of Toronto. (2024, November 1). Section 37 community benefits charge.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-
guidelines/section-37-benefits/
City of Toronto. (2024, November 27). Indigenous Centre for Innovation & Entrepreneurship.
https://www.toronto.ca/business-economy/new-businesses-startups/indigenous-centre-for-
entrepreneurship/
City of Waterloo. (2019, February). Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces.
https://www.waterloo.ca/en/government/privately-owned-publicly-accessible-spaces.aspx
Chin, C. (2024, November 22). Specific types of hydrogen hub projects that could impact your
community. Earthjustice. https://earthjustice.org/feature/hydrogen-hub-types-impacts
Davis, R. (2021, November 17). Toronto to build $250 million studio complex, marking biggest
production industry investment in two decades. Variety.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/toronto-studio-complex-basin-media-hub-hackman-
1235114348/
De Magalhães, C. (2020). The governance of urban public spaces in London: In the public interest
or in the interest of local stakeholders? UCL Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv13xps83.13
(DCM A & B) Deputy City Managers Cluster A & B. (2016b, June 16). Governance and Funding
Options for Project: Under Gardiner and Class Environmental Assessment for Crossing of Fort York
Boulevard. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94187.pdf
(DCM A & B) - Deputy City Managers Cluster A & B. (2018a, January 24). Use Agreement for The
Bentway. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-110758.pdf
Estevez, E. (2024, July 16). Social enterprise: What it is, how it works, and examples. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-enterprise.asp

101. 101
References
Evergreen Brick Works. (2024, November 21). About Evergreen Brick Works.
https://www.evergreen.ca/evergreen-brick-works/visitor-info/about-us/
Gałkowski, M., & Antosz, P. (2018). Privately owned public spaces (hybrid public spaces) and their
function within the city. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 67(1), 119–138.
https://doi.org/10.26485/ps/2018/67.1/6
Gregory, A. (2021, February 21). Toronto is getting a $500 million waterfront venue.
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/toronto_is_getting_a_500_million_waterfront_venue
Government of Canada. (2024a). What is the difference between a registered charity and a non-
profit organization? https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-
giving/about-registered-charities/what-difference-between-a-registered-charity-a-non-
profit-organization.html
Government of Canada. (2024b). General requirements for charitable registration.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities/policies-
guidance/guidance-017-general-requirements-charitable-registration.html
Government of Canada. (2024c). Creating and maintaining a social enterprise. https://ised-
isde.canada.ca/site/ised/en/social-enterprises-canada/creating-and-maintaining-social-
enterprise
Helping municipalities create a sustainable and prosperous future. Green Municipal Fund. (n.d.).
https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/
Hayes, A. (2024, June 25). What is a special purpose vehicle (SPV), and why do companies form
them? Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spv.asp
Hess, P., & Stevenson-Blythe, C. (2022). Infrastructural reuse projects, lost spaces, and spaces of
homelessness: A case study on the Bentway in Toronto. Journal of Urbanism.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2022.2138950
Hoskin, O. (2024, September 10). The impact of the Toronto Waterfront Marathon on Toronto’s
economy and community. https://www.torontowaterfrontmarathon.com/the-impact-of-the-
toronto-waterfront-marathon-on-torontos-economy-and-community/
HR & A Advisors, Inc. (2016, June). Operations & Maintenance and Governance Structure Study.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94594.pdf
Kassam, Z. (2024, January 23). Artscape’s $21M receivership order excludes several studio,
affordable housing assets. STOREYS. https://storeys.com/artscape-receivership-excludes-
studio-housing-assets/
Kenton, W. (n.d.). Memorandum of understanding (MOU): Definition, contents, pros/cons, vs. MOA.
Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mou.asp
Kenton, W. (2024, June 13). Memorandum of understanding (MOU): Definition, contents,
pros/cons, vs. MOA. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mou.asp
Lee, D. (2022). Public space in transition: Co-production and co-management of privately owned
public space in Seoul and Berlin. transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839462324

102. 102
Lovgreen, T. (2016, April 7). North Vancouver shipyards will turn into a dynamic waterfront, says
mayor. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/north-vancouver-
shipyards-waterfront-1.3522877
Mahoney, A. (2024, October 7). Charlotte is becoming a music destination.
https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/10/07/charlotte-music-destination-confluence-
festival-conference-showcase
MHBC: Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture. (2024, January 30).
https://www.mhbcplan.com/
(NLO) - Nonprofit Law Ontario. (2024a, June 18). Different group structures.
https://nonprofitlaw.cleo.on.ca/start-a-nonprofit/different-group-structures/
(NLO) - Nonprofit Law Ontario. (2024b, June 6). Membership structures.
https://nonprofitlaw.cleo.on.ca/run-a-nonprofit/members/structure/
Ontario Creates. (2023, August 24). Ontario Film & Television Tax Credit (OFTTC).
https://www.ontariocreates.ca/tax-incentives/ofttc
Riehl, A. (2024, April 3). Innovation factory and Haltech amalgamate to serve Hamilton, Halton
area startups. BetaKit. https://betakit.com/innovation-factory-and-haltech-amalgamate-to-
serve-hamilton-halton-area-startups/
Seek, A. (2019, December 5). From the Design Quarterly: 6 approaches to waterfront revitalization.
Stantec. https://www.stantec.com/en/ideas/topic/design-quarterly/from-the-design-quarterly-
6-approaches-to-waterfront-revitalization
Silcoff, S. (2024, June 7). MaRS slashes top ranks as government-funded innovation agency looks
to reset mandate under new CEO. The Globe and Mail.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-mars-discovery-district-job-cuts-reset-
business-model/
Singh, T. (2022, April 1). Bayfront Industrial Area Renewal Strategy. ArcGIS StoryMaps.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e268ed1c233841bc9649b8bde5be6d92
Singh, T. (n.d.). Bayfront Industrial Area Strategy. Engage Hamilton.
https://engage.hamilton.ca/bayfrontstrategy
SketchWorkingArts. (2024). A wandering. STREET. https://street.thebentway.ca/experience/a-
wandering/
Slate Asset Management. (n.d.). The newest standard-bearer for modern industry in Hamilton,
Canada. Steelport. https://www.thesteelport.com/
Social Enterprises. SECC. (2018). Working together to advance and support social enterprise in
Canada. https://secouncil.ca/
Sutton, S. (2024, November 22). Philanthropy Wired August 2024. https://ssutton-and-
associates.com/insights/philanthropy-wired-newsletter/philanthropy-wired-august-2024/
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
References

103. 103
References
Tull, D. (2024, June 10). Nonprofit organizational chart: How to build your organizational structure.
TechnologyAdvice. https://technologyadvice.com/blog/sales/nonprofit-organizational-
structure/#:~:text=A%20nonprofit%27s%20structure%20typically%20includes,executive%20directo
r%20manages%20daily%20operations
TorontoStarts. (2024, September 14). Ontario social enterprise grants.
https://torontostarts.com/canada/ontario/government-grants/ontario-social-enterprise-
grants/
Waterfront Toronto. (2022, December 9). Waterfront Toronto and Quayside Impact confirm
agreement to develop Quayside. https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/news/waterfront-toronto-
and-quayside-impact-confirm-agreement-to-develop-quayside
Wassenberg, A. (2024, January 19). The scoop: Update: Toronto Artscape Inc. receivership story
takes a positive turn. Ludwig van Toronto. https://www.ludwig-
van.com/toronto/2024/01/19/scoop-update-toronto-artscape-inc-receivership-story-takes-
positive-turn/
Parks Canada. (n.d.). Sault Ste. Marie Canal National Historic Site. Retrieved from
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/lhn-nhs/on/ssmarie
UNESCO. (n.d.). The criteria for UNESCO World Heritage Designation. Retrieved from
https://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225