Introduction The studies on urban political power as the capacity to influence the development of cities have resulted in several theories applicable in different settings. Clarence Stone’s in his fundamental work on the case of Atlanta presented the theory of urban regime as the most powerful model to accumulate economic development and sustain social equity. The main feature of the approach is the emphasis on municipal power as the capacity “to accomplish goals rather than power over others” (Mossberger 2016, 43). Such a model implies that all the actors work together on achieving mutual growth, while the urban environment benefits from this cooperation. Although the theory has been successfully applied for decades, today, it receives significant critique as unable to answer pressing questions. The approach does not include the role of agencies and governmental influence that promote the interests of society. Social equity beyond the scope of economic relationships has been eliminated from the theory making it insufficient in a modern environment and requiring improvements. Nonetheless, the urban regime still provides a basis for politics and can be utilized to its full potential after transformative adaptation to modern-day reality. Overview of Urban Regime Theory Urban regime theory implies the model of cooperation between political and economic forces that reshapes the city and facilitates its growth. The approach has been dominating for several decades, explaining how local actors engage in coalitions to develop neighborhoods. The vision of coalitional power instead of unilateral offers four main categories of urban regimes, including development, maintenance, middle-class progression, the expansion of or lower-class opportunity” (Mossberger 2016, 43). The letter variation is believed to be applicable in the case of equity achievement. However, the theory developed on the example of post-war Atlanta faces significant challenges today. An urban regime based on gaining benefits for all participants fails to notice non-economic problems such as racial discrimination. Many scholars claim that the model “ignores racial inequality as a structuring factor in cities” (Seamster 2015, 1053). Addressing issues of social justice requires substantial efforts from business-government coalitions that are often not justified by economic motivations. The theory is found to underestimate the role of agency and political governance in managing problems that cities face today. Although the urban regime has failed to address these issues, it still has the potential to respond to contemporary challenges after modernization and transformation. Many scholars, including Stone, who has founded the theory, work on its improvement and adaptation to modern-day reality. Public-private coalitions are still seen as the core of urban governance, while the issues of urban governance are paid greater attention (Rast 2015, 139). Thus, the government can create policies that motivate private local actors to engage in current issues, while the cities can still benefit from such relationships. The Background on Race Issues in Toronto The demographic pattern of Toronto is known as extremely diverse, entailing the issues of inclusion and equity. According to the recent census, 52% of the city’s population represents racial minority with the majority of them identifying as people of African descent (“2018 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” 2017). This population group experiences unequal policing, violence victimization, and economic segregation. Census data demonstrates that people are distributed unequally across the city, with the majorit