All About Cities (old site)

Images archive

2008-06-30T22:04:00.001-07:00

Blog has moved to www.allaboutcities.ca

2007-09-06T21:18:00.000-07:00

Hello,

Although the new blog site is still being tweaked, it's time to relocate.

Please go to http://www.allaboutcities.ca/

and update your bookmarks / favorites!

Thanks for your patience the last month!

Wendy

From industrial hang-overs to global, knowledge and consuming centres

2007-08-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

A few decades ago the worlds bigger cities often looked like they might become irrelevant. Manufacturing was dying, unemployment often growing, and crime and pollution sent anyone who could afford to do so fleeing to the suburbs. New York City was a prime example of this, losing 824,000 people in the 1970s.

In a great article this week, Graham Bowley details in the International Herald Tribune how a combination of globalization, the rise of the knowledge economy, and "consumerist urbanism" (my phrase) have contributed to a renaissance in global cities like New York and London.

Globalization, in Bowley's context, refers to migrants from around the world being able to reach these cities. London's 3rd largest source of immigrants is Poland (after China and Africa, places with much bigger populations). Global cities that function draw in people, while struggling areas (such as parts of Eastern Europe) lose people -- often the best and brightest, but also simply the more adventurous and enterprising.

The knowledge economy has been particularly important for New York, which has a global cluster advantage in the financial sector. But other large, multi-faceted cities are also benefiting. Owing to so much "cross fertilization of ideas." Michael Batty, a professor of Urban Planning at Harvard notes that "the number of inventions and number of Web sites per head grow exponentially as the population of any city grows."

Finally, consumerist urbanism draws yet more residents and tourists to the big cities. As Bowley explains it,

People now want to live in dense areas because dense areas offer what people want to consume - opera, sports teams, art museums, varied cuisine. In France, for example, he and his fellow researchers found a robust correlation between the number of restaurants and the growth of cities.
*****************

Bowley's article intrigued me because it shows three ways that major cities appeal to billions on the planet. As the world becomes more tightly connected, and many individuals are influenced by the same values or inspired by the same ideas. Therefore, certain cities that embody these values seem to attract people from the world over.

Is the city your workspace?

2007-08-21T21:25:00.000-07:00

As the knowledge economy grows, along with the percentage of workers paid to think, create and innovate, how and where people work is also changing.

Ironically, the easier it is to work from anywhere, the more important it has become to interact face to face with co-workers as well as others in the industry.

Cities, therefore, are important as spaces for collaboration. Power lunches at high end restaurants have long been a fixture of the elite business community and the site of mega power brokerage. Today, however, it seems a local cafe, the food court, or the patio of a simple burger joint have also become places where people come to think -- whether alone or with a group, and generate new ideas.

Many companies now allow their workers to be fully mobile. To work from anywhere in the company's leased office space -- or from their house, the park or Starbucks.

Readers, I'm curious ... how many of you regularly use "the city" and its amenities as workspaces?

If you do, are you self-employed? Or, do you work for an employer who offers and encourages this type of flexibility? Where do you like to work? why?

Assuming that this is a long term trend and not a fad, it has implications for urban economic development, and the locations where companies will choose to locate. A city may struggle to attract big knowledge-oriented employers without amenities where employees want to hang out and work. Downtowns may again rule over suburban business parks.

More on this subject soon...

And, e-mail me directly if you want to respond privately

Cities and Longevity

2007-08-19T07:42:00.000-07:00

Residents of New York City today live longer than most other Americans, statistically speaking anyway. Indeed, many studies suggest benefits to urban life.

While other countries -- including Canada -- have noted similar longevity benefits to urban areas, many have assumed that greater access to health care is the reason (despite universal insurance coverage in places like Canada, if you live far from a city you're less likely to see a doctor or specialist because of the travel and time involved). However, a place like New York, where health care isn't universal, suggests it's something else more related to lifestyle.

In an article in New York Magazine, Clive Thompson suggests that dense city life self-selects people who are interested in a healthy lifestyle. They are educated, like to exercise and to walk. Since crime was moved out, this group of creative and type A people have moved in.

While I think this is partially a reason. Looking at the issue of urban longevity more globally, it doesn't explain the whole picture. After all, millions of New Yorkers did not arrive in the past decade -- they've been there for generations and not all are particularly well educated, and many don't have access to health care. Yet, they don't drag down the life expectancy average as much as many of their (arguably wealthier) rural and suburban fellow Americans.

It may be as simple as the fact that people in New York don't drive. Without a car you naturally walk more, even if you make liberal use of taxis and transit. Cities like New York encourage or even force everyone, rich and poor, to exercise. A suburb or rural area where the only way to get anywhere is to drive, does not do this.

A sedentary life is known for contributing to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. all of which lower the typical age at death.

New York's situation could be taken a step further. People don't drive because traffic is clogged most of the time.

Congestion therefore leads to healthier populations and long life.

Young Entrepreneurs: Consider Middle America?

2007-08-14T21:32:00.000-07:00

Rather than try to launch a new business in an expensive superstar city, 20 something entrepreneurs should look at places like Norman Oklahoma or Cincinnati Ohio. That's the argument of Ryan Healy (of employee evolution) in his regular column Twenty Something on the Brazen Careerist.

Healy makes some excellent points. If you're not looking to start a leading edge business tied to a cluster that only exists in a superstar city (that is, you're not trying to start the next Google), then picking a less expensive city in which to live makes sense. It provides more financial freedom to get the business going. His great example is his friends who started a chain of sandwich shops in Norman.

This advice, however, may just apply to young entrepreneurs -- and maybe just young, male entrepreneurs. Creativity Exchange revealed last week how young women tend to earn more in big cities than their male counterparts. It would be interesting to see if female entrepreneurs do better in smaller, regional cities or big superstar metropolis. I'd guess the latter for the same reasons as women do better in regular paid jobs in big cities.

An alternative to middle America -- especially if you might need to market to clients in a big city -- would be to try a cheaper, satellite city to a major urban area. Maybe Denton Texas instead of Dallas. Or Bellingham instead of Seattle. Or Barrie or Kitchener instead of Toronto. These small cities may offer the low cost-of-living advantages of a regional centre and the proximity to the pricey big cities for marketing your product of visiting clients.

World Cities and Work

2007-08-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

Here's a intriguing quote about how and why "world cities" function:

"As technology shrinks distance, differences [in local laws, language and traditions] persist and are even amplified. To mitigate the resulting polarizations, global businesses prefer "world cities" as locations. These cosmopolitan centers, existing and new, mediate between a global culture and the flavors of each locality. Differences are celebrated and even put to work."
- Andrew Blum, "Work and the Workplace in 2006,"
Dialogue published by Gensler

Assuming Blum's observations are correct, there are several consequences. In particular, the economy of many nation-states will require supporting "world cities" within their boundaries. World cities welcome people from around the world and one could argue therefore that a country could undermine these centers by restricting immigration or starving a city for infrastructure funds.

Reactions?

The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse: Sign of anachronistic times?

2007-08-07T21:06:00.000-07:00

Cities in North America and around the world face decaying infrastructure that is often controlled by other levels of government. The costs of repairing, upgrading and expanding a highway network are high, and beyond the typical budgets -- not to mention political mandates -- of most metropolitan governments.

If the mayor and council are unsuccessful in lobbying for upgrades, the situation can become serious.

Regardless of whether aging infrastructure or a construction crew mistake caused the Minneapolis incident, this same tragedy could have happened in dozens of cities because the highways were not built to last this long without upgrades nor to handle the larger vehicles of the 21st century, as detailed in this New York Times article.

Maybe this will serve as a wake up call across the USA. In Canada, a similar collapse in Montreal in Sept 2006 generated renewed attention on urban infrastructure, particularly in the province of Quebec, but also nationally.

While politicians on both sides of the border scramble to find funds to be seen as doing something, what no one is doing is proposing to give cities the funds to maintain and develop their own infrastructure. Nor is anyone suggesting that cities and metro regions need more control over the infrastructure that allows them to function.

Cities in both countries need a new deal -- a new city-centred relationship with higher governments is required. Cities are now the economic engines of regional and national growth.

Having the national budget control their infrastructure is an anachronism -- or the tail wagging the dog.

Women out-earning men in US hub cities

2007-08-06T15:38:00.000-07:00

Young women in their 20s and 30s in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Chicago and Minneapolis make more than young men. In New York, they earn 117% of men, in Dallas 120%. Women in these age categories nation wide only make 89% the wages of their male counterparts.

This is according to Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer from Queen's College (As reported in the New York Times). And posted today by Kevin Stolarick at the Creativity Exchange in a short review.

Assuming that the statistical sample is large enough for these results to be meaningful, that's a really interesting study for several reasons:

First, it shows how you can't paint the entire USA with one brush.

Second, it reflects how different certain large "hub cities" are becoming from the rest of the nation (and not just in the USA, think Canada, England, etc.) in terms of opportunity, demographics, etc.

Third, I wonder if large hub cities have different pulls for men and women, depending upon their education. Here's my theory:

Educated women see hub cities as a land of opportunity -- full of interesting career possibilities and a large, diverse population that is generally open minded toward women succeeding (as well as gays, immigrants, etc. succeeding). They feel they'll be judged for their brains in a hub city.

Educated men can find great opportunity in any city. In fact, they might do better in a smaller city with significant gender biases. So there is no reason for them to move to New York or LA or Dallas.
Men with less education who are also drawn toward places like New York and Los Angeles may be "impatient" and "eager" to strike out on their own, not wanting to spend time earning a degree. They want life in the fast lane -- now --and go looking
for it in hub cities. Women with less education may be more inclined to head toward a regional city closer to home.
So the result is we have less-educated men heading for hub cities along with more educated women.

There also may be some interesting further evidence on how hub cities function in a national economy.

Celebrating a neighborhood's bohemian and gay heritage

2007-08-04T14:11:00.000-07:00

Today my husband and I watched the "Dyke Parade" down the main drag in our neighborhood and also visited the musical celebration in a nearby park. The lesbians of the city along with friends, family, and a number of gay men were gathered in celebration.

What a blast from the past. When we first moved here, 7 years ago, you didn't need a special event to see two two women (or two men) holding hands or kissing in public. This was a spontaneous, regular occurrence in an area that 10-15 years ago was a well known lesbian neighborhood.

When we moved here, it was also well known as an artistic community -- musicians, painters, sculptors, etc. Prior to the gay and bohemian influence, the area had been Italian from the 1950s onward with the cafe culture well developed.

The blending of bohemian and Italian influences meant a combination of musicians and independent cafes. Great music could be heard spilling onto the streets every day. That was what really attracted us to the neighborhood -- it was so alive, and there was scarcely a global chain to be seen. Almost every storefront was a family-run business -- and still is. In fact, Subway is now gone unable to compete with family run donair, taco and sushi places as well as bakeries and delis and the coffee bars. Local artists could (and still can) often display their paintings or play their music in these places, making deals with their friends and neighbors who own and operate the businesses.

Inexpensive prices for fixer-upper character houses originally built in the 1910 era also attracted us to the neighborhood.

So much has changed. House prices have doubled, at least. Some have even tripled in value. The lesbian and gay community is much smaller, and there are fewer artists sitting in parks playing music or sketching a scene. The average income of people living in the area has risen substantially -- however saddled with mortgages on $500,000 townhomes or $900,000 detached houses may mean that their disposable income isn't that different from that of a "starving artist." Everyone still seems to appreciate the "family prices" at many restaurants.

As several economists, real estate watchers, and Richard Florida have observed in cities around North America, the bohemian-gay culture is often the vanguard of a community renaissance. They make a struggling area interesting, attracting open-minded and appreciative non-bohemians (at least in their careers) and heterosexuals. And then the rents and house prices go up.

I've watched this first hand in my neighborhood. Fortunately, the newcomers continue to embrace the independent spirit and support the family-run businesses. Indeed people from around the region come here to shop and socialize.

But I worry that at some point many of the independent, small family businesses will get pushed out by high rents. And that some new comers will fail to appreciate the community's heritage -- from English, German and even Japanese to Italian and Portuguese to gay-bohemian.

Today was an interesting day to reflect -- as many lesbians returned to the neighborhood, celebrated their lives, and enjoyed a cappuccino.

Does a city need to be "fun"?

2007-07-30T19:25:00.000-07:00

Mexico City's new Mayor has many bold new plans for the giant metropolis. Crime reduction and decreased pollution are tops on his list. But so is making the city fun again.

When I lived in Mexico City for six months in the mid 1990s, I loved it. The city felt fun to me -- especially on weekends when families came out to public places like the Zocalo, Chapultepec Park and the Paseo de la Reforma. But economic hard times led to increased crime.

The new Mayor, Marcelo Ebrard of the left-leaning PRD, has taken some bold steps detailed in the New York Times this week. He has created urban beaches of sand around public pools and is screening movies outdoors in public parks. These fun things to do encourage people to gather and share an event.

He has also opened downtown promenades, such as the Paseo de la Reforma, to bicycle use on Sundays, banning cars. This he hopes will bring families back to the historic areas of the city, thereby reducing crime as well (more eyes, and displacing criminals).

Bringing back fun is part of his plan to make Mexico City a Latin American model for urban renewal. A primary goal in making the city fun is to change how residents view both their city and themselves -- to give them more pride in being from Mexico City (chilangos).

In many ways Ebrard sounds like a left-wing version of Rudolf Giuliani -- and like Giuliani, Ebrard apparently has presidential ambitions.

Elsewhere in the world, many city mayors have also recently began considering the role of "fun" in making their city great - deciding that there is more to governing than reducing crime or re-paving streets.

As cities strive and compete to attract and retain workers who in turn support good employers, it appears that ensuring there are fun things to do is becoming more important. In Vancouver five years ago, restoring fun became a key issue in the civic election with many residents fed up at discontinued public events (such as Canada Day Fireworks), shortened liquor serving hours, and tight bylaw control regarding many fun activities (in a most extreme case, a restaurant was fined because they allowed a couple to dance at their 50th wedding anniversary -- dancing was against the terms of the liquor license at the restaurant). The "no fun" crowd was not re-elected (although other factors were at play as well).

What constitutes fun is certainly subjective. Cranium creators and Money Magazine ranked US cities for their fun factor in 2003, looking at the existence of professional sports teams, toy stores, restaurants and the percentage of the city budget spent on recreation. Minneapolis came out on top, Orange County second, Chicago fifith while Houston was 32nd, Boston 42nd and New Oreleans came 50th.

Somehow going to an outdoor screening of films in Mexico City sounds like more fun than visiting lots of toystores in Minneapolis. But that's just me.

What makes a city fun for you?

And is it important for economic development?

Parking rates, transit use and commute times

2007-07-30T12:44:00.000-07:00

It will cost you over $1000 per month to park a car in downtown London, England, around $700 per month in Tokyo or Sydney. By contrast, the average unreserved monthly parking rate in Dallas is only $85, in Reno only $45.

These are some findings from Colliers International's annual survey of global parking rates, released last week. The average median rate among the surveyed US cities was $152, and the Canadian cities C$207 (about $194 USD).

12 most expensive cities in North America...

New York, $630
Boston, $460
San Francisco $350
Calgary, $328
Philadelphia, $297
Chicago, $285
Toronto $281
Montreal, $246
Washington, $240
Sacramento $205
Charleston, $200
Vancouver, $196

So what do these rates reveal?

The first thing that caught my attention is the strong correlation in the US between parking rates and transit usage, as there is in Canada. This suggests that in cities struggling to increase transit ridership, that higher parking rates might help.

If we were to look at commute times as well, there may be a connection. From a quick look at US 2002 census figures for commute times, it seems that average commute times, higher parking rates and higher rates of transit usage all go together-- although the correlation is less strong between commute times and parking rates than parking rates and transit usage.

It may be that once there is no time saving in driving, that people will take transit. Some studies suggest that people are valuing their time, more than their income (money) -- so this would make sense.

I would take transit if it were faster or even slightly slower (not 3 times slower as it is for me now) - would you? And, if we added in extreme parking rates, I might accept an even longer trade off.

If there were good statistics on the number of people who telecommute 1-2 days per week (as far as I know, the only good statistics are on people who work from home all or most of the time), we might also find a correlation between this growing trend and parking rates, transit usage and commute times.

It may bet that the higher the time, money, and energy costs become to have employees commuting, the more likely a company or organization will consider other options -- especially given the technologies that exist and the growing number of people who work in knowledge-oriented jobs.

I'd like to read a super-study looking at all of these factors and what they mean. Anyone know of one?

Can a few skyscrapers feed a city?

2007-07-28T08:38:00.000-07:00

The world's population is moving to cities. Urban citizens are becoming more interested in buying local in order to reduce the pollution and ecological impact of transporting goods -- particularly foods -- over vast distances.

Feeding urban populations currently requires a vast amount of land, around the world, from which everything from wheat to blueberries is grown, harvested, and transported globally.

Maybe there is a more sustainable way?

What about farming in high rise buildings? Apparently this is not science fiction -- it's doable.

Here are some advantages taken from the website: How stuff works: vertical farming.

By converting from "horizontal farming" to vertical farming, humanity would never have to worry about running out of arable land.
By operating indoors, crops could be grown all year, free of concerns about bad weather, drought or natural disasters.
If the building is sealed and carefully monitored, there would be no need for pesticides to eliminate invasive insects or parasites, a particularly devastating problem in the developing world.
All food would be organically grown without fertilizer and free of disease.
Vertical farmers wouldn't have to worry about conflicts over land, water and other natural resources or contend with genetically modified foods, unwanted strains of plants or wandering animals.
These farms would also be located in the urban areas where most of the Earth's population will be living. The result is that agriculture becomes more of a closed system -- food is grown, transported, eaten and waste disposed of all in the same metropolitan area.
In a major city like New York City, where almost all food must be flown or trucked in from miles away, the difference is tremendous. Vertical farming would largely eliminate the pollution generated as food is trucked, shipped and flown across countries to reach its desired markets.

One study reports that a single, 48 storey building could feed 50,000 people. Therefore, to feed a city of 1 million people you need 20 large buildings. As cities become denser, this is a fraction of the number of buildings dedicated to office use and residential condominiums. Plus, these food buildings could be located on the edge of town, or in an area not suitable for residential / office use.

Or, as Worldchanging.com reports, to feed all of Canada would require only 600 buildings. That's are area the size of 25 city blocks by 25 cities blogs -- the equivalent of about one small town in land area, feeding the entire country.

For the United States, the figure would be 6000 buildings. But, the equivalent of only 10 small towns feeding the entire country.

I'd certainly like to see a vertical farm in action before I'd say it could save the planet. But, when you think about it -- vertical farming combined with city living could solve a lot of world problems.

I'm sure it will generate its own issues along the way.

And, I doubt vertical farming would replace all farming. For example, I couldn't find much discussion in these articles about animal farming: chickens, pigs, cows, etc. I guess you could have free range chickens on the 4th floor of a building... but cows? And I'm sure certain crops wouldn't take to buildings as well as others.

But still, thinking ahead 50 years, maybe we'll all be eating locally grown fruits and vegetables, cultivated in a high rise building.

Pedestrian - Vehicle Conflicts

2007-07-23T19:09:00.000-07:00

Many people are attempting to walk more, whether for their own health or to help the environment. Others are sending their children outside to play. City planners are trying to insist that new developments and the refinement of existing communities encourage people to walk, cycle and/or take transit.

The problem is, the North American economy and society is still heavily reliant on the automobile.

Conflicts can result. Collisions and fatal encounters are obviously the most serious resulting problem. For example, 170 pedestrians were killed in New York last year - 48% of all motor vehicle collision deaths (by comparison only 12% of motor vehicle deaths nationally are of pedestrians). In Boston, 3 pedestrians are injured each day in collisions with automobiles.

But conflicts between neighbors and among citizens over automobile use in certain neighborhoods is another source of tension. Those trying to give up automobile use often resent drivers speeding through their neighborhoods -- others just want their children to be safer.

In greater Boston, residents concerned about speeding traffic through communities began a campaign a few years ago, placing fluorescent yellow plastic figures along side the roads with the message to slow down. According to Peter DeMarco in the Boston Globe, only some drivers took these warnings seriously. Most found the plastic figures amusing or annoying, but not as reasons to slow down.

Indeed, they have almost become a joke to many drivers:

One by one, the figures met an unkind fate. Pranksters stood them on their
heads, buried their red warning flags in the flower bed, and dumped them in the
garbage. Others were run over by passing cars.
... Cox, of Tir Na Nog Childcare in Natick, said that while drivers definitely noticed the little men, they also kept smashing them to pieces.

Parents, neighbors, schools and daycares all purchased these figures and tried to slow traffic. Didn't work. Clearly, as many North Americans and city planners attempt to bring more people to the streets, reducing driver-pedestrian conflict is essential.

Passive little yellow plastic men won't do it.

I expect that in the coming years there will be calls from citizens for higher speeding fines in pedestrian-oriented communities and near schools and daycares. there will also be opposition from drivers and their lobby groups. There will be calls for more speed bumps, traffic lights and other calming measures from residents -- and frustration from drivers who will attempt to evade them.

The conflict between automobiles and pedestrians in North America is only in its infancy.

What makes a great city to visit?

2007-07-21T19:36:00.000-07:00

Why have you loved visiting certain cities?

Travel and Leisure magazine recently revealed a list of travelers' favorites cities, reprinted here. Because this was a survey of Travel and Leisure readers, who probably have a lot more disposable time and income than I do, the qualities of the top picks tended to be either having a great luxury hotel right next to a historic monument, building or district -- or, having great high-end shopping.

Shopping and sleeping for the wealthy are not usually what I look for in a city, or what has made visiting memorable for me.

But, the article made me think - why have some places been particularly special.

Here are some attributes of the favorite cities I've visited:

1. Located at a crossroads of several cultures, societies or religions.

2. It has a complex history, visible in the architecture, markets, people, local lifestyle etc.

3. It hasn't been taken over by generic global brands (they can be there, but not in a dominant way -- blend in, or maybe in a suburb or one neighbourhood and not everywhere).

4. In traveling there, you have to (or easily can and want to) adapt to local customs, language, food, ways of getting around. That is, you experience life differently while there.

What have been my favorite cities to visit?

In no particular order (too hard to rank them)

Mexico City
Puebla (& Cholula), Mexico
Krakow, Poland
Istanbul, Turkey
Kashgar, "China" -- and Turpan in the same region.
Havana, Cuba

Hmmm... no US or Canadian cities are on this list. Maybe not enough history or cultural mingling -- or too close to being at home.

Please post your favorite places to visit or criteria for what makes a great city to visit...

Congestion pricing - is it a question of political will?

2007-07-17T22:46:00.000-07:00

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York boldly pushed the state legislature to approve measures that would allow the city to charge motorists for driving in the city -- and receive a $500 million federal grant to implement the plan (that also involved expanding bus service).

The media is reporting that the legislature refused to consider the required legislation, thus ending this current opportunity.

Bloomberg himself is accusing politicians of being cowardly.

"I heard a lot of talk about the politics of congestion pricing ... and all I kept thinking about was -- some people have guts and lead from the front and some don't," the mayor said, taking particular aim at Silver and Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans).

Bloomberg's conflicts with state and federal politicians also further illustrates how the needs of cities seem to get lost in national and regional political battles -- where the overall success of cities themselves don't matter that much to politicans seeking reelection in a narrow district. This is not unique to the USA. It's happening in democracies everywhere.

Importance of Park Space

2007-07-13T20:48:00.000-07:00

"If the 20th century was dedicated to buildings, the 21st will be about the spaces between them."

Christopher Hume of the Toronto Star wrote a great column this week about the role of park space in cities. It's well worth the read for many thought provoking and astute statements as well as his observations about the history of parks and new innovations in public greenspace.

The article focuses on what Toronto needs and is doing in its waterfront revitalization, along the way examining urban green space in New York, Chicago, and Seattle for inspiration or lessons. Here are my favorite passages...

...But with these growing urban populations comes growing need for communal spaces. Keep in mind, too, that many new urbanites live in highrise condos so small they barely have room to breathe. As a result, they look to the city to provide many of the features house-owners take for granted. In this sense, life in Toronto has become more European; we no longer just live in the city, we inhabit it. The city is where we eat, drink, sit outside, meet friends, or simply watch the passing parade.

...unlike green spaces of earlier generations, today's facilities are not
passive lands intended for communing with nature. They seek to engage us,
intellectually and physically.

What makes an urban park special? City planners and communities will likely be engaging this question more and more as density increases and park space becomes more precious and more utilized.

Hosting the Olympics and Economic Development - Reality Check

2007-07-12T19:43:00.000-07:00

Olympic host cities since 1984 have generally benefited from the Games. They have created jobs, attracted employers, and given many cities a "can do" spirit. Because they often usher in an era of transformation to a city, some residents have trouble adjusting. But this does not mean as a whole they are bad for the host city.

The world's urban population is growing because city offer hope and economic opportunity -- given a choice of being poor in the countryside or poor in the city, increasingly people select the latter. And, given a choice of moving to a city with a stagnant economy and very little happening, or a city booming with many dynamic industries and employers, again people rich and poor tend to choose the latter.

The Olympics -- in conjunction with other policies -- typically provide a significant long term economic boost to the host city.

I've been following and researching this topic since 2002. I'm blogging today to counter the myths, incorrect assertions and poorly interpreted evidence posted today on Planetizen . Here's the opening quote:

Cities continue to compete with each other over the opportunity to host the next Olympics, despite repeated examples showing that the games lead to bloated housing markets, lost jobs, debt and repressive social policies.

The first comment, bloated housing markets, is perhaps overstated but is also the least inaccurate comment here. Housing prices do often rise in host cities.

First, the economic boom before the Olympics generated in part by construction activity that attracts job seekers -- and not just construction workers but engineers, architects, accountants etc. More people looking for housing often drives up prices.
Second, Olympic host cities often become the "flavour of the month" for global jet setters, who will outbid the locals for prime real estate, pushing the local wealthy to outbid upper-middle class residents for other urban real estate (similar to what is stated in this entry at Creativity Exchange).
Finally, thousands of temporary workers affiliated with The Games come to the city for 12-24 months, filling rental accommodation which can drive up rental rates.

Depending upon what else is happening economically and in employment growth, these prices may or may not be sustainable. In Sydney, my recollection is that house prices dropped, but not until 2001 (a year later), coinciding with a global recession -- and house prices in many global cities dropped at that time, so you can't blame it all on the Olympics.

Lost jobs? The second comment above. Where do they get that from? Most Olympic host cities run into labour scarcity -- too many jobs, not enough workers. Okay, maybe after the construction and the Games are finished not all jobs remain. But good government policy can mitigate this somewhat -- for example, in Australia the state and federal governments postponed government funded infrastructure projects to coincide with the ending of Games construction. The same is planned for Vancouver. And, it's hard to argue that a city and its residents are better off not to have had jobs at all, rather than to have had some jobs that were not permanent that gave people experience and a chance to hone skills they otherwise never would have done. Moreover, from the broader business attraction and development that occurs, thousands of new permanent jobs typically emerge in conjunction with hosting the Games.

Debt. Yes, Olympics tend to cost money and unforeseen costs are rather typical, unfortunately. But, in many cases the federal and regional governments are the bodies who agree to take the debt risk -- not the city itself. And, since the Los Angeles Games of 1984, Olympic Cities and organizers have done a tremendous job covering costs through leveraging corporate sponsorships.

Repressive social policies. The Olympics do not cause repressive social policies. A government is either repressive or it isn't. The laws of a country either work for all citizens or do not. The Olympics cannot change this. The article may well be accurate in detailing abuses in Beijing. But with or without the 2008 Olympics, I'm sure we could find examples of abuses in Beijing and China.

On the long term economic and employment growth. The governments of New South Wales, Australia and Sydney managed to attract 214 new international companies to Sydney. Employers such as Deutchbank and Oracle. The majority came after the Games. Atlanta experienced a decade-long economic boom generating an average of 76,000 jobs per year in the 1990s.

Hosting the Olympics -- combined with good public policy and creativity from the business community -- contribute significantly to economic growth. Sometimes, even often, this growth is so robust that it brings growing pains -- such as housing shortages (which can drive up prices and displace the poor from low-income housing), which critics often focus on.

But again, if you ask the poor whether they would rather be in a city with so little economic activity and so few jobs that there is lots of cheap housing -- or in a city offering hope and promise -- most go for the latter. They vote with their feet and move to where the hope is. That's why millions of poor people around the world relocate from small towns and countrysides each year to cities. That's why places like Atlanta struggled so hard with the poor and homeless in the 1990s -- and Vancouver is facing a similar struggle.

Yes the Olympics can create tensions and growing pains and everything that goes along with great transformations in a city. But that doesn't mean they are not something worth competing for, as so many world city leaders will attest.

Lesson for Condo Developers around North America?

2007-07-09T19:04:00.000-07:00

Planners and real estate developers in several North American cities have been actively trying to mimic the vibe and success of high rise living in downtown Vancouver. Here are some notes of caution.

As construction and home ownership costs rise in Vancouver, the only market softening appears to be for these generic high rise condominium apartments, according to Jennifer Podmore of The Trac, a condominium market research and consulting firm.

While I was writing my previous post about "high rise sprawl," Trever Boddy from the Globe and Mail was sumarizing Podmore's presentation to the Vancouver chapter of the Urban Development Institute.

Based on her detailed tracking of construction and sales trends, Podmore is noticing a trend away from what Boddy calls "condominiums as commodities." That is, developers themselves are noticing a softening in the demand for the generic.

Moreover, with construction costs escalating and mortgage rates rising, the prices developers now require to make a project profitable may require a more sophisticated product. Or, as Podmore puts it, "innovative design for the smart consumer."

She has noted increased buyer interest in "exterior details, architectural finishes, interior features and building and neighborhood character."

As a result, savvy developers seem to be switching to wood frame construction (which is cheaper than concrete, the latter typically used for buildings over four storeys). They are giving more attention to architectural and design details.

So a lesson for places like San Diego and Seattle, and a lesser extent Portland -- where there has been some talk of trying to learn from Vancouver -- may be to think long term when approving high rise designs and projects. The generic works in a hot market, supported by declining interest rates and strong economic and employment growth. Developers get to make money and people keen to live downtown get to own homes.

But in the long term, the value is in the unique, "character" places. Buyers with one eye on the long term investment potential of their home purchase may also want to keep this in mind...

High Rise Condo "Sprawl"

2007-07-03T15:23:00.000-07:00

What do urban condominium and suburban homes have in common? On the surface, many would say "nothing" other than they provide shelter.

Yet, if we look beneath the surface at what each represents, they have more in common.

Architecture student Dan Rempel's recent blog entry, "The Overspecified Generic" got me thinking more about what I've started to find disappointing about Vancouver's newer high rise neighbourhoods.

Condominium buildings and the units within them have become as generic and monotonous as many sprawling suburban communities. The glass towers with identical corner balconies all start to look alike in the same way that driving through a new suburb offers mostly architectural boredom (sure, at first a design might look interesting, but not once you've seen 1000 nearly-identical houses).

The homes themselves are almost clones. Whether suburban single family houses or a high-rise unit, most homes have nearly identical floor plans and features -- the same granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, and jet tubs.

And, at street level these new communities whether in the suburbs or the inner city tend to offer generic retail experiences. In the suburbs, it's the identical neighborhood strip centre with a grocery store, a Starbucks, and maybe another fast food chain along with a dry cleaner. In condo-ville, it can be unit-after-unit of national or global chains: Starbucks, Subway, a mini-Macdonalds, Booster Juice, Cobbs Bread, Blendz Coffee, Wireless Wave (cell phones) etc.

While, yes there are some innovations -- the smaller, 2 storey supermarkets emerging in Vancouver's high rises are intriguing and clever. But they will soon be popping up all over the place, making them less unique and interesting. Similarly, the Lifestyle Center was sort of interesting and creative, but soon every suburb will have one that will be identical to the version in the next suburb 7 miles down the road.

It may be that these communities will need time for the residents and the new community to take control from the developers. Based on shopping preferences, retailers will change over time. The lobbies and front entry ways of high rises may also change too if some residents make the effort to claim them. The new owners of suburban houses will change them over time -- repainting, re landscaping, and remodelling the kitchen.

After all, 100 years ago there were a lot of "kit" houses assembled in new neighbourhoods. The California Bungalow, and various craftsman and Edwardian specials appeared everywhere. Many are still there, but their series of owners over time have made changes that give each one its own special look and character.

Urban planners and developers perhaps need to rethink sponsoring such generic development.

If cities today are meant to inspire workers in the knowledge economy then a new version of high rise sprawl may not prove good enough -- at least not if some cities can come up with something better and more inspiring.

Certainly once a pattern proves itself in the business realm, it's easier to copy than to innovate. Yet, over time, in a world that is becoming increasingly bland and uniform in so many ways, people will likely pay more to live some place that is truly special and unique - being different could pay off.

Combating City Crime - Car Thefts

2007-07-02T14:05:00.000-07:00

Many world cities -- especially those in North America -- have car theft problems to some degree. In some places most thefts result from questionable owner behaviour like leaving the car running and keys in the ignition while they run into a store. But in many cities, securely locked vehicles continually fall victim to thieves who often then use the vehicle to commit other crimes like residential break ins, bank robberies, etc.

Car thefts are a center piece of many urban issues. But what to do about it?

Newer vehicles have passive immobilizers built into the keys -- essentially, unless the car receives a little signal send from a device in your key, it won't start. But older cars don't and clubs and other devices tend to slow thieves down more that stop them (which can work if there is easier bait near by).

This leads me to the bait car program. In places from Sacramento California to Essex England to the Vancouver BC area, bait car programs have been set up. Commonly stolen automobile makes are equipped with GPS trackers and remote immobilizing equipment and then left in areas where thefts often occur. Sooner or later, a thief steals the car and the police immediate receive a signal. A patrol car is dispatched to follow the vehicle and when the officer feels it is safe, he or she radios for the car to be shut down. Then the engine is killed, and the thief is caught red handed.

This eliminates the need for high-speed chases of stolen vehicles which often injure innocent bystanders. It also allows police to catch some notorious car thieves.

In the Vancouver area vehicle thefts are down 35% in three years with the program.

A side benefit has been that society and the judges in the legal system have been given a glimpse into the culture of car thieves. These bait cars have hidden cameras and the police periodically release the videos. The often-drug-induced behaviour of these drivers is frightening.

Since I normally blog more about economic and social development issues, some of you may be wondering about why I wrote about bait cars and car thefts. I did so because an endemic problem like this (or rampant drug use, which is related) affects how people perceive their city. It impacts whether people feel safe on the streets.

If people don't feel safe, they build barriers between themselves and the city -- which doesn't benefit the local economy; it doesn't bring people into contact with those different from them, thereby sparking new ideas and broader acceptance. If Bait Cars can help reduce one type of urban crime by 35% in 3 years, then they offer one path to economic development as well as a city's social and cultural growth as well for many cities.

The Meaning of Shrinking American Cities

2007-06-30T14:19:00.000-07:00

Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Buffalo and Philadelphia are shrinking. Meanwhile America's population is gravitating toward cities further south and west such as Phoenix and Las Vegas. These are the results of a recent well-reported US Census Bureau report.

For example, Philadelphia has lost 1/3 of its residents since 1950. Meanwhile Phoenix has gone from a large village to America's 5th largest city.

Several factors are at play. First, technology has facilitated movement to the arid southwest and hot humid south. Air conditioning makes living in these places more pleasant -- without it, many individuals would not want to live in 90-100 degree+ temperatures over 6 - 8 months of the year. Water extraction technology has also enabled underground aquifers to be exploited (however these are being drained faster than they replenish), providing water for millions of people, which would not have been possible 50 years ago.

Second, I would argue that these new, growing cities attracted people with an adventurous spirit and new ideas. As Richard Florida has pointed out often on his blog, one reason that some older cities are struggling is that the old business - political elite remains entrenched. People with new ideas and energy may have found it easier to pursue their plans in a newer city.

Third, I assert that the residents of newer cities have embraced new global economic realities and opportunities better than residents in some older cities. The information age, biotechnology, and the "experience economy" (think Las Vegas strip, Disneyland, or the resorts around Phoenix) have all emerged and thrived in the west more so than in the east. Also, without an "old economy" -- such as the automobile manufacturing or steel-making industries -- residents did not have their personal identity tied up in a sector that was arguably doomed; instead of focusing on protecting the past, people in new cities could focus on the future.

Of course, not every older US city has declined in population or economic activity in the past 50 years. Boston and New York have been prominent examples of cities that have been reinvented to fit new economic and social realities.

As a recent Economist article explored, the world is full of cities that have lasted for hundreds and even thousands of years -- and full of cities that disappeared. The Economist argues that there is a correlation between a city's survival and resident receptiveness to new ideas and people -- openness to "global forces."

Tale of Two Countries' Transit Use

2007-06-27T19:39:00.001-07:00

Two studies on transit use were released today, one in Canada and one in the USA. They are based on different criteria, questions and methodology etc. so are not necessarily directly comparable. But, here's the news:

Transit ridership in Canada increased 4% in 2006, to record levels.

In the USA, more commuters than ever are driving solo.

Are the two countries' diverging on yet another statistic? I suspect the answer is only partially yes.

My thought is that if we looked only at people who lived in major metropolitan areas (whether suburb or inner city), then the differences would not be that large. But Canada ironically enough is more urban than the USA and doesn't really have exurbs. So, a higher percentage of the population in Canada likely has access to transit.

Gasoline also costs more in Canada, which could be a factor. Yet the report for the USA above notes that in real dollar terms gas prices went up 60c per gallon during the study period, and yet driving increased.

Anyone else have theories?

Boomtown Calgary - unprecedented pattern?

2007-06-26T06:13:00.000-07:00

Calgary Alberta has been in an economic boom for several years. It's the business centre for the province's oil industry and with oil prices soaring, exploration and extraction has been expanding rapidly. The city cannot find enough engineers and others to plan and manage the work. Calgary also has other industries and employers that were thriving in the low tax environment prior to the oil boom.

Calgary's GDP grew at 6.9% in 2006, for example (only slightly less than China's).

The unemployment rate is at an all time low of approximately 3.4% (in Canada 4-5% is considered full employment). Wage inflation is rampant, as is the trend of firms doing anything they can to poach workers from rival companies. The labor force participation rate is at an all time high, and greatly exceeds that of all other Canadian cities. There are not enough workers in almost every industry.

Population grew at nearly 4% in 2006 (to approximately 1.1 Million). Housing costs are also climbing. Rental rates increased 18% in 2006 and in 2007 there are reports of bidding wars among tenants for vacant units. Meanwhile housing prices increased 16%.

Office space vacancy dropped to less than 1% -- the lowest rate in the world. Industrial land and facilities is also scarce.

This seems like a city with an overheated economy that could bring about its own demise (not enough workers, residential and commercial space, etc.). Except all economic indicators point to further growth.

So I'm wondering, has there been another city in North America or the developed world that experienced a similar boom?

What happened to cool things down? or did the city just have to find a way to create more housing and commercial space in order to bring in more people and keep prices in check?

Can anyone point me toward a comparable city with some lessons for Calgary?

Much appreciated!

Valet Bicycle Parking - Reducing congestion at special events

2007-06-25T19:48:00.000-07:00

Many people spend more for their bicycles than I did for my first car. Moreover, bicycle enthusiasts take pride in customizing their bikes the way young men did their cars in the 1960s.

But with all this time, money and heart invested in a bicycle, cyclists are often unwilling to leave it just anywhere as bicycle thefts are rampant in most cities. This makes encouraging cycling a challenge in many cities, especially to special events where vehicle parking is at a premium.

Enter the bicycle valet parking service. In cities around the world, groups are now making this service work, particularly at special events. Whether true or not, San Francisco's cycling community is often credited with being first to establish consistent valet parking services at special events.

This service allows people to cycle to the event, often right onto the grounds, and not worry about their bikes and cycling gear while they enjoy the festivities. By contrast automobile drivers often must park blocks away and pay a premium. Transit users often have long walks from the nearest station.

I first saw this a few weeks ago at a special event in Vancouver and wondered how it worked and whether it is secure. It works like a coat check. You ride up, leave your bike, get a tag, and use it to reclaim your bike. Volunteers or paid staff guard the secure area. Thefts from valet services are virtually unheard of. By contrast, thefts of bikes left chained to trees, street signs, etc. at major events remain common. Moreover, bikes chained to anything and everything along the street become a hazard for pedestrians.

Not just cyclists benefit from bike valet services. As reported by Better Environmentally Sound Transportation, event organizers have learned that establishing a valet parking area for bikes can help alleviate the stress and congestion of limited parking spaces. It can also boost attendance at events where parking and transit access are known to be limited.

While right now cycling is challenging in my life, I used to cycle a lot. In the future, I could see my family heading to certain special events by bike if we could rely on a valet service to look after our bikes and bike gear.

Would such a service make a difference to your community or you personally?

Cities and traditional economics

2007-06-21T19:31:00.000-07:00

Some cities are thriving while others struggle. Why? Many have been getting caught up in the details or the symptoms -- such as commenting that more hip entertainment districts are needed -- and miss the basics.

Craig Thomas, economist at Torto Wheaton Research (an investment real estate industry research firm), wrote a great essay a couple weeks ago that reduces a city down to its economic essence. Here are a few quotes.

So what is a city? What do these metropolitan areas do? They're not there to
look pretty, or because they're historical landmarks or because they're cool.
Cities are market-makers. ...

To succeed, he insists, cities main role is to provide a dynamic place for human, financial and physical capital to intermingle and flow -- what he calls liquidity.

Firms will form within or relocate to a city if it provides three things: the physical infrastructure that helps firms function, access to capital, and—most important these days—ample suitable labor with which to support production. Labor will come to the city if there is physical infrastructure to occupy, ample choice of vocations and employers, and access to capital. Developers and investors will provide physical and financial capital if there are adequate firms and households to occupy structures, and if there is a sufficient liquidity of capital when it is time to monetize these assets. All parties' motivation is to be as productive as possible, and they will go to the cities that allow them to trade their time and resources at the highest value.

Everything else happening in cities, he argues, is there to support the flow of labor and capital. Creating livable neighbourhoods is about attracting and retaining talent. Building infrastructure is about facilitating the flow of industry (capital) and jobs, as well as making the region function for the residents.

Better transportation options support both the liquidity of labor and of industry -- neither families nor industry are attracted to gridlock.

Environmental urban initiatives, therefore, will succeed when they help a city increase its flow of labor, financial capital and physical capital. And, these days, most of the time, Thomas notes that what's better for the environment is better for a city's people and industry and infrastructure.

Although I would argue that cities have a less market-centred past, his basic theory does fit current trends. He notes that in the modern, knowledge-based economy, the mobility of labor and industry is much higher than in the industrial economy. In the past, workers often signed onto a company for life and received a pension for their loyalty. Today, many people change jobs every few years, making them free to move to new cities. Industries too can move -- relocate a headquarters or research facility to a city with a better talent market, for example.

Looking at cities first as market makers provides a way (not necessarily the only way) to understand why certain cities are succeeding. It comes down to how easy it is for people and companies to flow into (and out of, ironically enough) the region.

Losing vibrant, long-standing street markets.

2007-06-19T19:00:00.000-07:00

When I go travelling to places in Latin America or Asia or even parts of Europe, I'm always drawn to the open air markets. These are places where the chaos and creativity of the city meet -- where commerce and multiple cultures collide. Anywhere in the world at these markets you can hear diverse languages being spoken, watch improvised sign language negotiations, and buy amazing things.

These market streets are often a combination of actual stores (with roofs and walls) and temporary street vendors who roll out their wares on blankets or set up their table each day.

Many cities around the world have been redeveloping these street market zones, removing the randomness. Too often, they are being replaced with a more sterile warehouse-like building filled with generic, identical stalls. Sure, the vendors each have their own personality in these new structures, but it's not he same as when they've carved their own niche into the landscape of the city.

The International Hearld Tribune ran a great article this week by Patrick L. Smith about Hong Kong's Graham Street district, which is slated for redevelopment.

There is a twist to the redevelopment plan in Hong Kong. The city is arguing that market forces and gentrification are pushing street vendors and other ad hoc vendors out. As rents and prices go up for store fronts on Graham Street, new national/global tenants insist on removing street vendors from in front of their shops. Therefore, the redevelopment will, they say, offer space for these smaller independent vendors.

It seems that whether through government urban renewal projects or the informal process of gentrification, the world is losing its urban, spontaneous street markets -- at least in the larger, cosmopolitan cities.

To me, this feels like a sad era in human history and urban history -- the end of long standing, open air markets in big cities.

But perhaps it's not for me to judge; I live in a city and country without many informal, open air market zones.

When I lived in Mexico City in the mid 1990s, the government was trying to remove street vendors from the Zocalo (main plaza). This was one of my favourite places to hang out on the weekend because of the energy as well as all the cool stuff they had for sale that often mixed commerce with politics (the Zapatistas and Sub Comandante Marcos in Chiapas were big then).

A Mexican friend (born and raised in Ciudad Neza, a shanty town on the edge of Mexico City) saw it differently. He saw cleaning up the street vendors as modernizing his city and country and contributing to economic and social development.

If he's right, maybe there is a silver lining... certainly, the not all the vendors in Smith's article on Hong Kong seemed upset. It was the ex-pat shoppers who appeared to be voicing the most opposition.

World's most expensive cities

2007-06-18T22:11:00.001-07:00

Mercer Human Resource Consulting released its list of the world's most expensive cities for expatriates. The ten most expensive are:

MOSCOW Russia
LONDON United Kingdom
SEOUL South Korea
TOKYO Japan
HONG KONG Hong Kong
COPENHAGEN Denmark
GENEVA Switzerland
OSAKA Japan
ZURICH Switzerland
OSLO Norway

Because of the appreciation of the Euro versus the US dollar since 2006, many European cities climbed the list for 2007. Meanwhile, New York, which serves as the comparative benchmark, dropped from 10th place in 2006 to 15th place in 2007.

Los Angeles ranked 42nd. No other US city made the top 50.

I'm not sure how to interpret the survey. It is designed to assist companies and governments employing workers overseas in determining appropriate cost of living allowances.

Given the rows of uninspired (or Stalinist inspired) housing I saw in Moscow, I can't imagine that it's the most expensive place to live if you are Russian. But for foreigners to find good, comparable housing to what they are leaving behind, I can imagine that it could be much more expensive.

Overall, however, if you're looking to compare the costs of cities within a country or zone (such as Europe or North America), this survey might be helpful.

For example, Zurich is ranked 9th while Frankfurt 40th -- if you wanted to live in a finance-oriented city, Frankfurt might give you better value for your money.

City Dwellers - Biting the Container that Feeds Them?

2007-06-13T19:21:00.000-07:00

On May 23, 2007 the world became more urban than rural, according to the United Nations and thousands of news sites that reported it. So, what does this really mean?

For now, rather than making some great philosophical pronouncement, I'll discuss one feature of cities in this urbanized world. Cities need logistics facilities -- ports, airports, rail intermodal yards, transload facilities, distribution centers, warehouses, container storage, train and truck maintenance yards.

Indeed, every major city now has hundreds or thousands of acres of land dedicated to the movement of goods. Many growing regions desperately need more serviced industrial land for logistics use.

The majority of people living in cities do not produce the majority of things they need to live. They buy food, clothing and material goods. All of this has to come from somewhere and then be made available to city residents. While rural farmers coming to cities to sell their own produce is widespread in many developing countries -- and in quaint weekend distractions in North American cities -- the food, clothing and other consumables are now more typically handled in professionally run, highly complex supply chains.

It's nice to think of cities as places for the "creative class" to build the knowledge economy, enjoy cultural amenities, hang out at hip cafes, and buy funky furniture.

But in an urban world, cities also need to be seen as complex logistics machines for supplying over 3 billion people with food, clothing, shelter and consumer goods -- including that funky furniture for the loft condo.

To do this requires vast tracks of land for logistics. Often, however, the companies that provide logistics must fight to be able to open and operate facilities. For example, a municipality in Greater Vancouver -- with one of North America's busiest container ports attached to it -- is trying to ban shipping containers from being loaded, unloaded or stored (typically for less than 48 hours) on its territory. In Charleston, residents have attempted to block a new container terminal there.

Inland cities also require vast amounts of logistics lands, for rail intermodal yards as well as distribution centres. And similar opposition can emerge.

It's truly an astonishing example of human ingenuity to be able to have everything urban residents want and need on a Wal-Mart or Whole Foods Market shelf when they want it, typically at affordable prices. That is the logistics process working -- and it needs container terminals, logistics facilities, distribution centres, truck and train traffic to happen.

Ironically, many city residents are trying to cut off the hand that literally feeds them.

Cities are full of contradictions and tensions -- that's what makes them fascinating.

Cities not countries as the key organizing engine for human development

2007-06-12T19:27:00.000-07:00

The evidence is mounting - cities are becoming more important than countries in generating economic and social development. In fact, it seems that national leaders in the United States and Canada -- and many other countries -- end up following citizens and cities rather than leading. It wasn't always this way, but is now.

Today's evidence on this issue comes from the environmental realm. The Washington Post ran a great article on how US cities are acting alone in tackling tough ecological issues. Whether mandating more fuel efficient taxi cabs, banning idling in vehicles, or providing incentives to install solar panels, it is cities and creative politicians, bureaucrats and citizens who are finding a way to bring about change.

In the meantime the Bush administration is recommending further study, or no action at least until after his term of office.

The United States as a country is huge, with such strong political and economic inertia (and entrenched lobbying and bureaucracy) that serious policy change is tough.

Cities on the other hand are typically nimble. They are smaller, often centred around local issues and not tied as closely to national and global companies and lobby groups. City politicians often have more freedom to follow grassroots pressure -- not always for the better perhaps -- but at least their options are more open.

The challenge will come as cities want more control over international immigration, for example, whether to welcome the talented from around the world or respond to grassroots pressures to close the doors.

Some interesting battles are ahead, I think.

Homelessness

2007-06-08T19:56:00.000-07:00

Homelessness

This is a problem in most big world cities. But for some, it is worse than others. Why.

Lets compare two cities in the same country. Each city’s region offers free health care, a social safety net, and thriving economies. And yet, one city has a much more visible homelessness and pan handling problem.

I’m comparing Vancouver and Toronto, Canada.

The Toronto region is about three times the size of Vancouver – containing approximately 6 million inhabitants to Vancouver’s 2 million.

In two days of wandering around downtown Toronto to meetings and just to walk, only one person asked me for spare change – actually, he didn’t ask me directly, he just asked a group waiting for the light at King and York. I saw a couple other homeless people on the street, sleeping in bus shelters first thing this morning when I was heading for an 8:30 meeting.

In downtown Vancouver, I would estimate that 20 people per day ask me for spare change. At least four between where I park my car and the office – one-and-a-half blocks (in the vicinity of Granville & Georgia). Go past Starbucks and one person is at each entrance. Walk a few blocks to meet someone at lunch time, and approximately four people per block request change. Like many people in Vancouver, I’ve become somewhat jaded and even immune to it – spare change collectors are almost like background noise in the city similar to buses or construction sounds. I give generously to various charities that help the homeless and the poor, but cannot possibly hand out a loonie coin or quarter to everyone who asks.

Visiting Toronto this time caught me off guard. In the past, I’ve been there more often in the winter and have seen a homeless person on every street vent, keeping warm – although they rarely ask for anything. But this time, I saw almost no one.

Has Toronto solved the homeless problem? Or do they relocate in the summer?

Is it just that Vancouver has more services for the homeless near downtown?

I’m writing this on the plane home, so have no access to the Internet to look up stats on homelessness. I’ll do that soon. In the meantime, if you live in Toronto and have some insight, please share it. Or if your city has done something innovative, I’d be intrigued to hear about it.

Generation X, Values, and Remaking the City

2007-05-31T23:18:00.000-07:00

Generation x -- those born between about 1965 and 1975 -- has the potential to change the direction of development in North America's cities.

Penelope Trunk offered a great column today arguing persuasively that generation x values time more than money, and this is changing how they interact with the workplace.

The new American dream is that we will have fulfilling work that leaves plenty of time for the other things in life we love. In this respect, Generation X is doing better than our parents: We are spending more time with our kids, and we are keeping our marriages together more than twice as effectively as our parents did. And Generation Y is doing better than their parents, too: They refuse to waste their time on meaningless entry level work because they value their time and their ability to grow more than that.
The new American dream is about time. It’s not a race to earn the most to buy the biggest. It’s a dream of personal growth and quality relationships. And, despite the declarations coming from Pew about unreachable dreams, our dream is not about accumulating money to do what we love at the end. We are hell-bent on doing what we love the whole way. That’s our dream, and we’re doing it better than the baby boomers ever did.

Penelope is on to something here -- something bigger. If she is right, then a wonderful window is opening to work with this new generation families and make cities more livable and people centred -- and less focused on large material possessions in the form of mansions and SUVs.

If people value time rather than money and material goods, they'll move closer to work and urban amenities and live in a townhouse or condo, or smaller home -- rather than a suburban mansion. They will also drive less because they live close to what they need, which would greatly benefit the environment and lower family ecological footprints.

If people live in a smaller homes, in a dense urban area, you won't be driving to suburban Wal-Marts as often because you won't have room for the stuff. Plus, lots of people in close proximity is great for local merchants. And if someone is more interested in quality of life and community rather than a quantity of goods, they'll appreciate this community of retailers and support them.

People who value time more than possessions can "get buy" with an older Toyota Matrix or Corolla, for example, rather than needing a Hybrid or Hydrogen Hummer (as Governor Arnold is promoting this week).

Until now, I've been skeptical that any meaningful social change will come from this new popular interest in ecology. But thinking about it in combination with these new values that Penelope describes, is making me rethink that skepticism.

eBay - a metaphor for cities?

2007-05-23T22:22:00.000-07:00

The model of eBay was introduced this week on The CEO for Cities Blog (which I always receive an error message when I access -- can anyone help with this? .. I digress..)

Specifically, the CEOs for Cities author noted how eBay had fostered a positive, proactive community of participants. (S)He contrasted this with typical citizen participation in city issues that often involved a group of people with too much time on their hands working to prevent change rather than foster innovation in a city.

But are cities really different from eBay?

eBay provides a platform for people from all backgrounds to find others with something in common -- whether a love of baseball cards, or the need for a stroller (one past -- the seller -- one present, the buyer).

Don't cities do this -- bring millions of people into close proximity and offer amenities and services that allow people to meet and mingle with the like-minded?

Moreover, eBay provides the infrastructure for individuals to create their own businesses and work for others.

Cities provide sanitation, policing, infrastructure and other services. Doesn't eBay do the same? They offer a clean and efficient website (infrastructure), and police the community such that fraudsters are removed.

So, is eBay an virtual city? If so, what could physical cities learn from it?

"What the urban age means for the United States"

2007-05-17T19:07:00.000-07:00

The United States is home to some of the great urban success stories in the world, and some of the greatest urban challenges.

As Richard Florida, the Conference Board of Canada, and dozens of influential individual and organizations have recently and persuasively argued, the 21st century global economy will be based around metropolitan poles. To succeed therefore, any country needs to give its metropolitan areas more policy making and implementing power.

There is a great new essay -- actually the transcript of a speech -- by Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institute that is well worth reading. (Found via Planetizen). While I disagree with a couple details, I enjoyed his overall message of what makes cities fascinating and what challenges are ahead.

Here are some exerpts of particularly intriguing statements.

His five qualities of urbanization are similar -- although perhaps more eloquent -- to mine at the top of this blog.

These five qualities of urbanization - scale, speed, diversity, complexity and connectivity - place cities and their regions at the center of global challenges ... and global solutions.

***Here are some interesting statistics about US metro areas:

The top 100 [US] metro areas alone claim only 12 percent of our land mass but harbor more than 65 percent of our population, 74 percent of our most educated citizens, 77 percent of our knowledge economy jobs, and 84 percent of our most recent immigrants.

Poverty, once overwhelmingly concentrated in [urban cores] has moved into the suburbs. In 2005, for the first time in American history, more people live in suburbs than in traditional cities.

The second half of the essay addresses some political and policy obstacles that many US cities face if they want to become more dynamic world leaders (or remain there). As this is similar to a recent Conference Board of Canada report with which I'm familiar, I'll blog more on the legislative and policy needs of cities soon...

In the meantime, this essay is worth a read.

Protecting employment lands

2007-05-16T19:06:00.000-07:00

Most cities with thriving economies and growing populations struggle to balance land use requirements. Cities need land for parks and public spaces, territory for housing, space for retail use, real estate for office buildings, and vast tracts for manufacturing and warehousing. Urban areas also need to set aside land for infrastructure -- everything from roads to rapid transit to schools and airports.

In a thriving city, proponents of any of these uses typically lobby for more real estate.

Preserving employment lands has become a critical issue for many cities, especially those with finite land options. Core cities within a larger sprawling area -- such as Toronto -- can face similar problems to larger metro areas with geographic constraints such as Vancouver or San Diego.

The Toronto Star today ran a good editorial on the subject of threatened employment lands. Back-to-downtown strategies have succeeded, creating a growing market for residential condominums. Suddenly downtown and inner city industrial and commercial land becomes more valuable for condominium redevelopment.

This has already happened in Vancouver resulting in a city-council moratorium on residential development in the downtown area until a full land use plan can be re-drawn.

Another threat not mentioned in the Toronto Star article is that residents of cities and neighbourhoods are now often joining together to fight some of these necessary urban uses -- to fight employment use of lands.

For example, in the Vancouver suburb of Delta, which has one of the larger container ports on the West Coast, many residents are fighting anciliary uses like warehouse-distribution and transloading containers (unloading and repacking shipping containers).

Elsewhere residents moving into a busy restaurant and pub district have been known to ask for restrictions on restaurant hours to limit noise (such that the city now has a zoning designation called "residential in a noisy area" that requires buyers of new homes to acknowledge this fact).

Successful cities in the 21st century will need every type of land use -- and city planners, politicians and residents will need to find balance and compromise. Because people vote and shipping containers, warehouse space, and office towers do not, politicians often listen to the short-sighted concerns of residents over the economic needs of a city.

The cities to watch in the 21st century will be those with educated electorates and skilled planners and politicans who can successfully find ways to balance the needs of residents to great public amenities and neighbourhoods, while preserving employment lands. It won't be easy.

Denver - on the rise

2007-05-12T14:17:00.000-07:00

This post is based on no research other than spending the past 24 hours in Denver. I'll try to back up these observations with some imperical data soon.

Denver seems to have the ingredients for a great urban renaissance.

1. The downtown area is surrounded by older neighborhoods with large 1900s era mansions as well as more modest homes, adorned by tree lined streets and greeted by numerous parks. While some 1960s cement apartment towers clearly displaced some older buildings, the historic brick craftsman, Edwardian and Victorian looking homes remain dominant. Many of these homes clearly need some loving handy people to buy and renovate them.

2. Some historical commercial strips in the older neighbourhoods that are revitalizing. Colfax, for example, is right near one older neighborhood we walked through. It has a mix of cool diners (had breakfast at Pete's this AM), cafes, and other independent shops as well as chain fast food. It also has a seedier side of xxx shops mixed in. Clearly, it's an area in transition.

3. Parts of downtown such as LODO vibrant with residences, office towers, and pedestrian plazas filled with shops, cafes, restaurants and pubs.

4. According to my guidebook, 2/3 of the population is under age 44 and the knowledge economy is a leading employer. Many educated young professionals have recently moved there.

5. The rocky mountains and the Denver area have a rich varied historical past, that gives the area an authenticity and grounding that many growing cities in the west (such as Las Vegas) lack.

Denver has a character that I didn't expect -- or, was completely unaware of until now.

I'm putting this city on my list of places to watch for dynamic changes in the future -- and on my list of cities to learn a lot more about.

Random thoughts from Santa Fe

2007-05-04T15:19:00.000-07:00

Greetings from Santa Fe, New Mexico -- one of the more unique-looking cities in the United States. From the adobe architecture to the winding streets, this city reflects its heterogeneous heritage from indigenous Pueblos to Spanish to Mexican and American.

This post is an eclectic assortment of observations:

On the subject of Beauty -- what amazes me is how a city so blessed with a great mountain setting and wonderful architecture (not to mention the art in the galleries within these buildings) can let so much other potential slip away. The Santa Fe River, which runs just south of the downtown Plaza area, has been allowed to become a garbage dump. 12 years ago when I was here, it was a pleasant place to jog or stroll. Today, there are a few stretches that have been sort-of-kept up. But the amount of garbage and debris in the river and on the bushes along side is rather disappointing. And the sidewalks and trails seem to be in disrepair. This could be an amazing greenspace for locals and visitors alike -- or a place to showcase public art. Instead, it's overgrown grass, decaying sidewalks (or dirt paths), and garbage.

Also on beauty -- the old Plaza area of Santa Fe provides a wonderful, historic and beautiful anchor for the region. You can see how many people who live in surrounding communities take pride in Santa Fe because of this scenic, heritage downtown. Driving into and around Santa Fe reveals areas of the typical strip-mall lined main roads, big box highway oases, and other less intimate architecture (and I'd say less attractive). But the area remains world famous because of this core beauty.

On the subject of creativity -- According to my Lonely Planet guidebook, Santa Fe has been named by UNESCO has a "Creative City" - the first such designation for a US city. It has the third largest art market in the US (after New York and Los Angeles) and more artists per capita than any other city. What's interesting in light of Richard Florida's creative class research (that links the presence of artists to overall economic creativity) is that this region has not spawned -- to the best of my knowledge -- any creative or knowledge economy companies or even branch divisions of them. Well, I guess unless you count what goes on at nearby Los Alamos as knowledge economy (as far as I know it's mostly government and government-funded scientific research on nuclear, weapons, genome, and other subjects -- but we just spent a wonderful morning in the town of Los Alamos enjoying a local craft-fair combined with corvette show and cinco de mayo celebration).

Adding Beauty - Pueblo Colorado

2007-05-03T14:45:00.000-07:00

Dusty, boarded up and graffiti'd -- yet once grand -- buildings characterize much of old downtown Pueblo, Colorado. Since the steel mill closed in the 1980s, Colorado's third largest city has struggled economically. Many buildings reflect this as do some of the older houses.

The new River Walk stands in sharp contrast -- a small spot of beauty adjacent to a fading downtown core. A controlled stream meanders between pedestrian walkways. Lush green hills gently slope upwards from the paths, providing a buffer from the road and a sharp contrast to the dusty downtown nearby. Fountains, statues, create landscaping and picnic areas ad further beauty.

As we walked along, local children frolicked in the fountains on a hot spring day. Others had picnics. Flat bottom boats sat waiting for customers to float along and enjoy a beer.

This new piece of beauty intersects the downtown at a still-alive shopping street filled with antique stores and independent merchants.

This is not San Antonio's River Walk. There are no restaurants or cafes along it -- at least not yet. And it's only about 1/4 mile long (which makes me wonder about the viability of the boat journey business). Excavators and construction crews are still working the landscaping on the North side. Clearly this is new.

Hopefully locals will embrace it as a center of community activity, allowing it to grow in beauty and meaning for this city.

Big box and fast food strips are thriving on the fringe of Pueblo - clear signs the region still has economic life left in it. Maybe beauty will attract that economic vitality back downtown.

Making small spaces, beautiful and functional

2007-04-28T14:33:00.000-07:00

As couples and families increasingly choose to live in higher density areas, achieving ever more clever and efficient apartment layouts will be essential. The Zillow Blog last week showcased a link to the "Smallest Coolest Apartment" contest winners.

Couples living comfortably in 275 sq. ft., families in 600 sq. ft, and some cool multi-purpose furniture designs is showcased.

Even if you live in much more than 600 sq. ft., most of us can use some organization suggestions so it's worth a browse.

Here's one of my favourites: Jake & Anne's place:

Beauty, cities and inspiring creativity

2007-04-27T20:32:00.000-07:00

Is it what's on the inside or the outside that counts? Or are the two intertwined. Does beauty play a role in the economic performance of a city? Or is beauty too subjective a term for cities.

Planetizen recently ran an intriguing piece by Brent Toderian, the new Director of Planning for Vancouver BC.

He makes a compelling personal and professional case that beauty is important to forging a thriving, great city. Beauty inspires creativity and loyalty to place.

Good cities need infrastructure, efficiency and economic activity, and smart cities give equally strong attention to sustainability, arts and culture, and social compassion. But great cities need more than that. They need beauty.

They need to inspire creativity, energy and affection for the place we live in, through that beauty. They need buildings, streets and places that move us, that inspire us to be more creative and civil. They need beauty that makes us fall in love with where we live. As is true with anything we love, we’ll be unable to watch our city being treated badly.

I would add that in the knowledge economy, cities compete for talent, and talented people want to succeed -- they want to be creative and innovative whether in their careers or personal lives. Therefore, the successful cities of the 21st century will have to be everything Toderian suggests: functional, efficient, sustainable -- and beautiful.

The importance of beauty also connects to the idea that cities are "imagined communities" - people make real connections to them in their own ways, in their own thoughts and dreams. As Toderian says, people can "fall in love" with their city. When they do this, they will more likely stay, helping the economy. And they'll fight for what they believe in -- creating the tension that can bring communities together.

So to follow up on Richard Florida's 3 Ts, a key to economic success will be attracting Talent, offering Tolerance, supporting Technological innovation -- and (to add my ideas) allowing for Tension all in an atmosphere people perceive as beautiful.

Beauty is subjective, certainly. But it's okay to disagree about what is beautiful -- its the dialog that is important. The tension is okay -- it helps more people make connections to the place.

And we can look around the world to cities where beauty hasn't been an issue -- and they are ugly. Think about some of the suburbs in Eastern Europe - large blocks of drab apartments that were designed to house the proletariat -- purely functional, but not inspiring. And great innovation has not emerged from these "ugly" places.

Evidence in favor of transit-oriented development?

2007-04-24T17:02:00.000-07:00

Portland Oregon is often considered a model city for responsible urban development. The region has a green-belt that is reducing (although not eliminating) sprawl and encourages higher density housing including downtown living.

But every silver lining has its cloud. Portland is also crisscrossed by freeways, particularly some of the newly hip and trendy downtown and inner core area. And it turns out that living near these freeways--even if not right next to them -- exposes residents to high levels of air pollution, at least according to Portland State University professor of environmental science, Linda George as reported in the Portland Tribune.

[Linda George's] studies show that [high pollution] levels can be found 500 meters — more than a quarter of a mile — from area freeways. The pollution includes toxins suspected of causing cancer, immune system disorders and other serious
health problems.

“We should be asking whether land-use policies should be encouraging people
to move closer to where we know pollution is the worst,” she said.

This of course creates a dilemma for urban planners: do you try to keep people away from freeways? If so, how? I think maybe city dwellers have to accept the pollution risk along with the benefits.

I'm not certain that removing freeways in favor of just using urban streets as auto traffic corridors solves anything as then the traffic is even closer to residential areas -- it's driving right through them! This adds pedestrian safety to pollution as risk factors. I'm now wondering if Dr. George did the same study in my neighbourhood, without freeways but with a lot of traffic only about 1/4 mile from my house that is heading for the freeway 2 miles east, if pollution levels would be similar.

At the end of the day, getting more people to use transit seems like the only way to reduce the pollution effect. And, this is a tough task in North America.

A city as an imagined community?

2007-04-23T20:26:00.000-07:00

By an imagined community I don't mean that cities and communities are not real. They are. But how we connect to our city and community happens in our heads -- our imagination. We either feel a part of something -- or not. And when you don't feel you belong, you're more likely to depart or do something destructive.

I'm basing this thought on Benedict Anderson's compelling book from a few years ago, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Anderson argues that nations and nationalism formed from a shared sense of past and of uniqueness, facilitated by the printing press and books.

The question is what makes people connect to a city -- what brings citizens together.

I'm writing this as many Vancouver residents sit on the edge of their seats hoping the Vancouver Canucks hockey team pull off a victory against the Dallas Stars in game 7 of the first round of the NHL playoffs. Neighbours are cheering over fences, strangers high-fiving in bars. Sporting events and sports teams certainly help bring people together and even help overcome social, economic or linguistic barriers.

It's the tension right now that is bringing people together -- and the release of tension, temporarily when they score.

Tension also works in other situations: a community working to improve their neighborhood fights against a tension and feels a release and sense of teamwork when they succeed.

The interesting thing about cities is that different people and groups can be fighting at crosspurposes. And yet, they all gain the sense of belonging to a community, to their city. Is it real? or in their imagination?

But, in a way, a sense of belonging --or multiple imagined connections to a city through a sports team and a community group and a career and a favourite cafe -- is what holds a city together.

I hope this blog entry is lucid -- it's written with nervous energy and tension and now elation -- canucks won... Vancouver celebrates.

Does bottom up work to attract and retain families?

2007-04-21T14:15:00.000-07:00

For core cities in large metropolitan areas "family flight" has long been a concern -- especially if housing is expensive. San Francisco, New York, Boston, Vancouver are all examples of cities that have struggled to keep families with children within their boundaries. The suburbs have lured many people raising kids with their cheaper housing and (sometimes) lower crime rates.

According to a San Francisco Chronicle article, there are new initiatives in that city to attract and especially retain families. Based on information provided in the article, it seems that most policies are oriented toward families in the lower income brackets.

The mayor spent most of his speech discussing family-friendly initiatives he has championed since taking office in 2004, including a working-families tax credit, an agreement between the city and the school district to coordinate services and a plan to provide health care to the city's uninsured residents.

Ensuring that lower income families have the resources they need to raise their children is good and necessary. But cities need to embrace all economic groups if you want there to be lots of kids --and, if you want those children to grow into productive and caring citizens.

This news article is brief, and focuses on critiques from those who work with the poor -- so maybe there is more to the San Francisco plan. However, ensuring that middle and upper income families feel welcome and secure in raising their children in San Francisco would also have to be a priority. In any new, higher density housing developments, are developers required to build a certain number of 2 and 3 bedroom units? Does the city either take a levy or insist that larger developers allocate space for community amenities like playgrounds, recreation centres and daycares in new market housing?

If you can provide family friendly amenities from safe parks and recreation centres, to schools and children-friendly attractions, families of all income brackets will want to live in the city. If these features are missing, then those who can afford it will go elsewhere -- either where some of the amenities exist, or where their home will be big enough that they don' t need as much community space.

Tesco - Coming to an urban neighborhood near you

2007-04-18T17:19:00.000-07:00

Tesco, the British-based food selling giant, has decided to make a rapid, dramatic entry into the American market this year. According to a Reuters news report they will open a chain of environmentally friendly, smaller convenience stores focusing on fresh, healthy products. Reports suggest that they could open 300 stores over the next 12 months with more to follow in subsequent years. The initial focus will be inner city locations.

Stores will be approximately 10,000 square feet -- much smaller than a typical supermarket which is 40,000 to 60,000 s.f.

Look for a "Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market" near you.

Apparently, Tesco wants to challenge Wal-Mart for the American grocery business. Wal-mart typically sells food in Supercenters which are 200,000 square feet and usually in more suburban locations. So this move my Tesco is interesting -- hit the more densely populated inner cities first, and attract a loyal following.

Wal-Mart has been trying to adapt a formula for downtowns and inner cities, but is clearly struggling to figure it out. This suggests that both Wal-Mart and Tesco are noticing that many gentrifying urban neighborhoods with growing populations are under serviced by grocery retail or soon will be as populations grow. They're scrambling for a share of the action.

If I were a betting person, my money would be on Tesco to figure it out before Wal-Mart. Their British and European experiences will serve them well here.

Do people need the type of city they grew up with?

2007-04-16T19:33:00.000-07:00

In responding to Pat's comment to my Automobilism and the Mercer Rankings entry, I speculated that most European city dwellers would not enjoy American suburbia.

I've been thinking more about that issue.

Certainly, I've known Europeans who adapted to American life and enjoyed the more spacious neighbourhoods and bigger houses that come from sprawl. But I've also known many who sought downtown locales or simply returned home to Europe or Latin American big cities -- unable to adjust. Suburban culture seems quieter than that of dense neighbourhoods full of cafes and pubs and shops and markets where everyone gathers.

Conversely, I supposed that many people accustomed to the larger spaces and solitude of suburbia, would probably find Amsterdam (or New York City) overwhelming and busy -- overstimulating. If you're used to doing a massive weekly shop at a Wal-Mart Supercentre, you might find regular shopping in a more social street setting hard to get used to.

I grew up in a more European city (in North America - ie less automobile centred) but spent some time in suburban Dallas -- which I found depressing and couldn't figure out why until I went to Mexico City for a while and depression went away. I missed the higher density, less automobile centred lifestyle.

Readers -- have many of you made a radical switch, by choice, in the type of city in which you live? Or switched from suburbs to downtown in the same metro area (or vice versa)?

Assuming my theory is correct, there is too much cultural inertia to overcome in the USA to bring about new types of cities. Automobile-based sprawl *is* so intertwined with American culture and life that even if a minority embraces something different, America's cities will still be based upon highways and cars.

Let's hope some cleaner fuels come along soon. Or, perhaps American tax payers should be glad they don't have universal government health insurance as the health costs of automobilism from pollution to inactivity (lack of exercise) will continue to climb.

Urban Community History - Sears Homes

2007-04-15T19:03:00.000-07:00

Neighborhoods and communities have histories -- that's what makes them more than a collection of houses and perhaps stores. In walking around, you can often "read" some of the history in the architecture of the houses. Many of them look like they came from the same kits -- and often they did.

Over at Cyburbia.org there is a link to the Sears archives, which contains images and information on some of the 447 different housing styles that Sears & Roebuck produced as kits.

70-100 years ago many homes around North America came as kits from Sears & Roebuck as well as other companies. They also helped popularize certain styles that local builders duplicated.

In walking many neighbourhoods in North American cities, you can tell what years they were built simply by the style of the houses. My neighbourhood has several like this:

-- Or I suspect they once looked like this but various renovations have them appearing a little different today. This is the Mayfair, from 1908-1914, which is the era of my neighbourhood.

In the online version of the Sears catalog, I couldn't find anything that looked like our house, which is a 1911 era Craftsman. And it must be from a kit or something similar because there are dozens just like it in our neighborhood and in other older Vancouver communities.

If anyone knows of other housing kit archives online, please let me know. I'd love to find our house in a kit or "for purchase" architectural plans.

Busy week

2007-04-13T21:37:00.000-07:00

I've had a heavy work week -- apologies for no posts. Have several percolating that I'll try to post soon.

Thanks for the comments, I'll respond soon.

BTW -- does anyone miss the pictures? I stopped because I didn't think they added enough to justify the time and ifddling it took to get them there.

A step away from "Automobilism" in Salt Lake City?

2007-04-05T20:10:00.000-07:00

City council and some citizens in Salt Lake City have put forward a motion to ban chain stores in certain neighbourhoods. A parallel motion would not ban chain stores, but would require their architecture and street front appearance to blend into the local neighbourhood. (Via Planetizen)

I disagree with banning chain stores outright -- it's undemocratic and opens up many messy questions. What happens when an independent store starts opening other locations? What if locals want certain chains and will drive elsewhere to obtain that product. Starbucks has a lot of addicted followers, for example. Banning them from a neighbourhood won't necessarily help a family-owned coffee bar and might hurt the entire neighbourhood shopping market if Starbucks-aficionados leave the area for coffee and shop while away.

Plus, banning stores people want from their neighbourhoods only encourages automobile travel. Allowing retailers to go where there is a market for their product makes far more sense as we try to cut carbon emissions, reduce pollution, and reduce automobile travel. Otherwise, the shoppers have to go to them -- usually by car.

But, I support the idea of architecture and character guidelines for neighbourhoods, and making chains fit the community and the street. A particular look helps give communities a sense of uniqueness -- being special. It also draws in tourists and most importantly makes the locals want to shop in their community.

Plus, for what it's worth when a global chain tries to blend into an area I'm actually more likely to shop there. I like Wal-Mart's look in Squamish BC (I might go in there, even though I'm not a Wal-Mart shopper), and I've been to some rather unique and subtle McDonald's restaurants in Transylvania and Krakow, for example (oddly enough McDonald's was about the only place to find a salad in Eastern Europe).

I'll try to check back to see what happens in Salt Lake City.

Mercer Rankings & American Automobilism

2007-04-04T22:30:00.000-07:00

On Planetizen, Josh Stevens crafted a thoughtful response to the Mercer Survey entitled:

So Many Cities, So Much Mediocrity

It's worth a read. Here is a good excerpt:

The list, which looks a lot like the medal count in the Winter Olympics, bespeaks disparities that are obvious to anyone who thinks a city should be more than a series of off-ramps. Granted, Western Europe has a tradition of gracious living going back many centuries, and of course Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are apparently just better than us. But, even so, no developed nation has a more vast array of large cities than the United States. You'd think that dumb luck alone would be enough to vault one of them into a respectable position. But it turns out that we've made the same mistakes over and over again, from sea to shining sea. (The forces of dreck apparently can't swim; Honolulu is our beacon of gentility at No. 27. Then again, if you ask the pro surf tour, Hawai'i isn't even part of the United States.)

Many Americans rightfully take pride in so-called gems like San Francisco, New York, Portland, and even Los Angeles on a clear day. But Mercer's analysis indicates that we're fooling ourselves: we're so far from the top that, in true Platonic fashion, we can't even imagine what the top looks like. We revel in mediocrity without bothering to find out what constitutes good.

You could quibble with the methodology or the criteria, which include trifles like crime, sanitation, education, housing, and transportation. But then again, you can't. Not when, with all respect and sympathy to Baku, you're not even close. Not when you're as wealthy and powerful as the United States is. The county with one-fourth of the world's GDP--not to mention a mythical culture of ingenuity--should be able to figure out some way to rise to rise to the level of Switzerland, Canada, and Germany.

I think Josh Stevens is perhaps being too hard on American cities. While I've never been a big fan of "American Exceptionalism" as a philosophy, I think in the case of cities this may partially apply. Essentially, American Exceptionalism means that America is different and unique and it doesn't work to compare the country and its attributes globally.

In the case of cities, American cities grew up around the automobile culture, and American culture grew up around the Automobile as well starting in the 1930s and flourishing in the 1950s. It's hard to separate automobilism from being American. Sure lots of Americans don't own cars, but it's pretty hard to fully participate in American life in most cities without at least occasional access to one, or use of one as a passenger. I've spent months in other countries and cities and rarely needed the use of an automobile or taxi ride -- in other places it can be that easy to get around. America is somewhat unique that way.

The United States offers a particular version of a city, based around the automobile rather than human beings, trains, planes, horses, bicycles or busses.

The Mercer report likely has some built in, largely subconscious biases against the American automobile culture. Pollution, crime, poverty, sanitation, citizen health are arguably bigger problems in a culture based on the automobile. Although Mercer is murky on their criteria, it's my understanding that these factors are influential in their rankings.

This doesn't mean that automobile culture is necessarily bad -- it's just different. This doesn't mean that automobile based cities cannot foster innovation (look at the Bay area) or creativity (look at Los Angeles) and they can certainly have good architecture or bad.

But if you base a city around the car, you will not get Berlin or Geneva or Stokholm. You will get Wal-Mart and other big box retailers that cater to the car instead of community shopping streets that cater to the locals shopping on foot. You will get large swaths of land even downtown dedicated to parking cars rather than providing commercial space for retail or office or the arts.

This reinforces a different lifestyle -- a different quality of life if you will --from the one Mercer is measuring.

As I speculated at the beginning, maybe American Exceptionalism seems to fit here.

Best Places to Live - The Mercer Survey

2007-04-02T19:35:00.000-07:00

Is Geneva a better place to live than New York? Is Toronto better than Seattle? Well, according to the latest Mercer survey they are.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting annually releases a survey of the world's cities, ranking each on 39 quality of life factors. The purpose is to help international businesses posting people overseas quantify what postings are hardships and therefore often requiring additional pay allowances.

Honolulu was the top ranked American city, at 27th overall, followed closely by Minneapolis, Boston and Pittsburgh. In general higher crime rates in North America allowed European cities to score higher. Zurich and Geneva were #1 and #2 respectively, and Vienna tied for 3rd with Vancouver (marked down for crime).

Baghdad ranked last among the 215 cities surveyed.

So what does this mean? Well, when northern European cities and Canadian metros score high, clearly weather and climate are not major factors in their decision. After the ugly wet, cold, windy winter Vancouver has had, many residents would have gladly moved to Honolulu.

Obviously, quality of life is subjective. If you enjoy golf, then a place that is wet, rainy and/or snowy for several long months might rank lower or your list. If you value health and sanitation, Calgary ranked #1 (and Baku Azerbaijan dead last in this category).

Unfortunately, Mercer doesn't release the full results, category-by-category to the public (at least I couldn't find it). It would be wonderful for people looking for the right city in which to live if they did -- you could custom rank the world's cities according to your own criteria.

The Science of Parking Rates

2007-04-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

Parking represents a frustration as well as contentious issue in most cities. Residents lament the lack of street parking or the costs in commercial areas; business owners often feel limited by an absence of inexpensive, available parking for staff and customers. Meanwhile environmental activists and citizens concerned about pollution see parking restrictions and costs as a key ingredient toward reducing automobile use and curbing emissions.

There was a great article by Donald Shoup in the New York Times last week about parking rates. He notes that the price of metered street parking is closely correlated to both congestion and emissions in downtowns and other commercial areas. If parking meter rates are cheap -- less than using a parking garage, for example -- drivers continually circle the blocks and streets waiting for an opening. Because meter rates are cheap, there are never vacant spots forcing drivers to circle until they see someone approach their car.

Shoup suggests that a price high enough to achieve 85% capacity is most efficient. Drivers needing short term street parking will be able to find it; cities will raise more revenue for other services such as parks or rec centers; and streets will be less congested without drivers looking for parking.

The problem is convincing voters that more expensive parking is a good thing. Whenever the local city parking administrators raise meter rates, the outcry is deafening.

But perhaps if more voters were educated on the benefits of higher parking costs, it would be more politically palatable. Shoup convinced me that street parking rates should be high enough to ensure that there are typically spaces available.

While one could argue that knowing parking spots are available will encourage people to drive, I'm convinced that if parking is that expensive, drivers will either pull into the nearest parking garage will space available -- thereby reducing congestion and emissions -- or will find other options like transit to access commercial areas. Following this model, parking meters in some cities may cost $10/hr (and will obviously need to accept payment forms beyond coins!).

Judging a City by its Airport

2007-03-28T16:33:00.000-07:00

First impressions are important. We've all heard that one thousands of times. But we also know that sometimes you can't judge a book by it's cover -- to add another cliche. Airports are often the first point of contact with a city -- are they an accurate read on what a city has to offer?

Journalist Tyler Brule addressed this recently in the International Herald Tribune. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, he suggests creating an Airport Quality of Life Index (AQOLI) as a counter to the various human resources consulting firms "best places to live" and "best quality of life" indexes.

He looked at London and New York: Heathrow versus JFK. Well, if you had to decide on whether to stay in New York or London on the basis of those two airports, you'd be on the next flight out. My more limited observations of these airports mirror his jet setting experience : they're generally crowded, understaffed, unclean, inefficient, and exhausting. New York and London, especially London, are great places to visit -- albeit expensive -- with lots of interesting neighbourhoods to wander, tourist attractions, and reasonable transit systems for getting around. They're also financial hubs and economic energy centres for the world. Their airports don't do the cities justice in my opinion (and Brule scores them low on an AQOLI index).

So, the airport-as-indicator-of-the-city theory doesn't hold for New York and London. But these are older cities, and the airports are older too. With so many things, it's harder to retrofit and renovate to new modern standards than to build from scratch.

What about other airports? I thought about a variety of airports that I've been through in the past few years on several continents and you know, a lot of them did accurately reflect the city and the country.

Take China. Modernizing fast with a new (or renewed) entrepreneurial spirit. The airports in Shanghai and Xian reflected this. They were clean, efficient, and modern in appearance and function and very spacious. We also went to Urumqi, on the western frontier near the old Soviet Republics, and that airport was smaller but seemed underutilized, quietly efficient, and very reminiscent of frontier regions of North America that receive a lot of government money and with nothing else to spend it on, create a nicer airport with especially funky conveyor belts (Whitehorse, anyone?). The rest of Urumqi seemed similar -- a little overbuilt and over modern for what and where it was.

By contrast, the Islamabad airport is absolutely stereotypically a reflection of what it's like to travel around the city and Pakistan generally. New attempts at security create bizarre dysfunctional and inefficient lines and chaos without providing much sense of safety. Every passenger is accompanied by a dozen family members to see them off, create a mob scene and traffic congestion with honking horns, even at 3 AM. There's lots of human energy and excitement both with hangers on and the staff at the airport, but it seems to lack some leadership to channel it into productivity.

It was a contrast to fly from there to Dubai. There, the airport is a perfect reflection of the city: everything to grandesse, every modern airport convenience imaginable, great efficient staff from all over the world likely capable of helping you in almost any language. Incredible shopping while you wait. Extravagance and comfort. And the city is the same way: extravagant (several ice hockey arenas and an indoor ski hill !), international, modern with great shopping for all budgets, but especially the rich.

Dubai and China airports seem to reflect the image the country wants to portray: modern, global, and economically successful. They are designed as a deliberate first impression.

Islamabad's just is. And London and New York's airports pre-date a concern with first impression: they're from the 60s most likely and the modernist "purely functional" era of industrial design.

I don't know what first impression newcomers to Vancouver receive: but when I get off a plane to the dimmer lighting, earth tones, and the sound of waterfalls a sudden relaxation comes over me. Maybe I'm glad to be home, or maybe that reflects a laid back west coast attitude. Please tell me if you recently visited Vancouver for the first time, via the airport.

A whole new language?

2007-03-25T19:07:00.000-07:00

The other day someone commented on all the seemingly bizarre new terms connected to urban development these days. Some of them are revitalized older terms now becoming trendy.

For example:

Exurbia - areas beyond the suburbs
Aerotropolis - so many cities are calling themselves this, the real aerotropoli may be hard to find...
Technoburb - a suburb dedicated to business development instead of homes.

Does anyone have a favorite term? Or a comment on all the neologisms?

Must be something to the Downtown revitalization trend

2007-03-22T19:09:00.000-07:00

When Wal-Mart is moving in, you know downtowns are not dying. Recent writings by Joel Kotkin as well as superficial interpretations of the 2006 Canadian Census have suggested that suburbs are the future of metro areas and not the cores.

Well, if this is true, why are Wal-Mart and other traditionally-suburban big box retailers are actively seeking downtown locations? As revealed recently to the Globe and Mail, Wal-Mart Canada CEO Mario Pilozzi, announced unspecified plans to open stores in the downtown cores of Canadian cities, with Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal specifically named in the article.

"There is a trend to redevelop the urban core," said Pilozzi, "and we plan to take advantage of the opportunities that this trend presents."

Indeed other traditionally-suburban boxy stores have already beat Wal-Mart into downtowns and dense urban areas, spotting the trend earlier and being first to capture downtown residents and workers shopping dollars. In Vancouver the Best-Buy owned Future Shop sits on the second floor of a box retail building, underneath TJ Maxx's Canadian division known as Winners which occupies the third floor. A 7-Eleven and misc fashion and restaurant retailers occupy the street-front ground level. I'd estimate each level is about 25,000 s.f.

Moving into high-cost dense urban areas typically requires suburban-based stores to create new smaller formats. Home Depot has launched a smaller format, lifestyle oriented store. In the UK, IKEA has launched a series of smaller stores -- although small being a relative term at 200,000 s.f. over three levels.

These brands must suspect that residents in dense urban areas will not typically drive to the suburbs to shop -- at least not often. If they want the business of this captive (and sometimes car-less but cash rich) market, they have to go where the people are going, and adapt to fit their neighbourhoods.

Downtowns and density are creating a whole new retail boom.

Removing Urban Freeways?

2007-03-19T19:03:00.000-07:00

On Planetizen today there is a great column by Charles Siegel, "Removing Urban Freeways"

As part of our effort to slow global warming, we should be correcting one of the great errors in the history of American city planning: the post-war binge of urban freeway building.

During the twenty-five years following World War II, American cities changed dramatically as freeways were sliced through them -- and it soon became clear that they had changed for the worse.

Instead of reducing congestion, the freeways encouraged people to move to remote suburbs and drive long distances to work and to shopping, increasing traffic dramatically. One study found that, five years after a major freeway project is completed in California, 95% of the new capacity fills up with traffic that would not have existed if the freeway had not been built1.

The freeways also blighted the older parts of our cities. For example, San Francisco stopped most of its proposed freeways and it remained an attractive and prosperous city, but right across the bay, Oakland had several freeways cut through its center, and nearby neighborhoods decayed and were half-abandoned.

Siegel also has a website, Removing Freeways, Restoring Cities

I'll weigh in on this in more detail soon. No time today. However, I will say that I don't think removing freeways will work given how housing has been laid out in most North American cities for 50 years. It's too spread out. Yet, I like the principle of "no more freeways."

And, I'm attracted to the idea of making all limited access freeways toll roads -- or at least have dedicated bus-transit lanes on every single one.

Yet, I have a serious concern about reducing freeway space through cities.

What will this do to residential areas near freeways ? Will traffic on residential streets become insane as people try to continue using their single-occupancy vehicle to get to work? Will quality of life in our neighbourhoods go down with toll freeways -- or no freeways? Will pedestrian deaths rise?

As I said, more on this some other time. But feel free to weigh in yourself!

"Downtown" San Jose and Las Vegas?

2007-03-17T21:39:00.000-07:00

The Economist magazine this week offers an analysis of the failures of San Jose and Las Vegas to create vibrant downtown areas. The magazine concludes that both should stop trying -- I agree to a point.

San Jose and Las Vegas will struggle to create high density, liveable downtowns. That's just not what these cities' histories are about.

San Jose is really a suburb of San Francisco -- downtown for the Bay Area is Downtown San Francisco, not anywhere in San Jose.

Las Vegas is an invention of the sprawlling suburb era in American History of the 1950s and 1960s -- there is no fabulous historic downtown to revive.

Both cities would benefit from neighbourhoods in which locals live in higher density housing, which would create a captive market for retail, restaurants, cafes, music venues, art galleries, etc. Higher density populations would also allow for more transit options, helping congestion and pollution. But this wouldn't have to be in just one central place. Maybe these cities could have several "town centres" or "shopping communities" more fitting with their heritage.

Indeed, cities with great downtowns also typically have other dense urban precincts with their own personalities and special mix of restaurants or retail and other public gathering places.

The key is to build on something already there--whenever possible. People seem to gravitate toward organically evolved communities with some sort of historic authenticity. Indeed, that's where property values tend to increase more quickly. This history might be a converted warehouse district or a stop on an old streetcar line.

I'm less familiar with San Jose than Las Vegas, but the latter strikes me as a town with several potential sites for such a revival, however it will take some smart zoning work from the planning department to get there. Tourists will love the option of going to a more authentic local neighbourhood for a night to catch a local band in a 200 seat venue, for example.

Creating "Lifestyle Centres" on the outskirts of town will not have the same effect.

Cities, Pollution, Quality of Life and the "Global Warming" Debate

2007-03-15T19:33:00.000-07:00

Over at Planetzien today there is a link to a new documentary in which scientists raise counter evidence to the theories behind global warming. It's very un-politically correct right now to question it, so I'm probably taking a risk in writing this post.

As someone trained in world history (big picture, thousands of years of human history) I'm skeptical about the climate change science. The world's climate is constantly changing -- always has been. Human historical records can tell us this. There have also been periods of intense climate change, similar to what we may or may not be experiencing right now, which have had an impact on human development. Given scientific instruments for accurately measuring temperature have only been around for 50 years, I don't doubt this year was the warmest on record -- it's just that record isn't very long.

The planet has been warming since the end of the last mini ice age in roughly the 17th century -- before the industrial revolution. Maybe human action is accelerating the process, maybe not -- but because our planet is now urban, we need to stop polluting regardless.

Pollution that some scientists blame for global warming also causes elevated rates of cancer as well as asthma and other breathing difficulties. Eye irritation, throat soreness and general malaise also comes from pollution -- all of this impacts the quality of urban life.

Therefore we need to reduce pollution -- now. Especially as the planet becomes more urban.

Want science? As reported in the Journal of American Medical Society, during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the city forced local residents to use transit and this greatly reduced the number of polluting vehicles on the roads. Hospitalizations for breathing difficulties declined 41% during the Olympics.

Not only do we need to reduce pollution, but we need to help the ecology of cities. Planting more trees helps to clean the air for our breathing and makes a city more livable. Whether they help with global warming or not, we should be doing this.

What I hope is that the current belief in global warming will convince more people to make choices to reduce pollution and thereby improve the quality of life in cities. Politicians might enact new policies to increase density and transit use; businesses might encourage employees to use transit, car pool, telecommute occasionally; individuals might find ways to reduce automobile use and live in smaller houses (that don't require so much energy to heat and cool).

Such changes will improve the quality of life for cities and citizens. We'd see immediate impacts like asthmatics did in Atlanta during the Olympics. And, because any one city can improve its quality of life by reducing pollution -- you don't have to be as worried if other countries and cities are not doing so.

What I worry about in the current global warming discussion is that the science will suddenly be discredited and people will stop making the tough personal choices required to improve our cities air and life quality. The science of how pollution creates disease is far more overwhelming than the science behind climate change, and yet it wasn't enough to bring change (except for short periods such as during Olympic games).

This seems odd to me. Why do we worry about a theoretical risk to the planet, but not a known impact on our own lives?

Making sense of the census: Core versus sprawl growth

2007-03-14T19:31:00.000-07:00

Statistics Canada released preliminary results from the June 2006 national census this week. There were many intriguing findings. One that I found interesting was that the major metropolitan areas grew more in the suburbs than in the urban core -- although the latter did grow.

The national media has written this up as a preference issue -- that Canadians prefer the suburbs and a commute to living in more densely populated neighbourhoods. However, I haven't seen anyone polling individuals and families on the move.

What if people are choosing suburbs because of an absence of options in the urban core? The municipality of Toronto's population grew 0.9% between 2001 and 2006, not as fast as many of its suburbs. Places like Brampton grew at a 33% in 5 years.

But many more homes have been constructed in the suburbs -- and of all varieties: condominiums in town centres, row houses, and single family dwellings. Rental vacancy rates throughout the Toronto region are all around 2-3% so rental availability is not likely a factor here.

While I'm sure some people chose a large family home in suburbia versus a smaller place in the core, I'm not convinced that everyone did -- I'd like to see some surveys.

What would happen if a larger variety of housing options were available in the inner core? Because the area is mostly developed, this might mean infill housing (such as coach houses), splitting large old mansions into multiple-dwelling units, and when an old house is torn down for redevelopment, allowing a mutli-family structure to go up in its place, whether a duplex or a townhouse, or something else creative. If more housing were made available, more people could choose it. Some zoning regulations (or deregulation) could be useful here. Vancouver's city council is proposing a new eco-density platform to encourage more infill housing (see future blogs).

What's also interesting for Toronto is that the largest growth in the Greater Toronto Area was alongside new or enhanced freeways (including a toll road). By building these freeways, the government seems to have encouraged single-family-automobile-using sprawl.

Perhaps the government needs to rethink freeway building -- yes the Toronto area needs freeways for trucking and commerce. But does that mean it needs to be a city of single-occupant car users?

The Self Storage Revolution

2007-03-13T16:47:00.000-07:00

Self storage facilities have spread rapidly in recent years. This is now a $22 Billion industry in the United States offering 2 Billion s.f. of rental storage. Driving around most major North American cities reveals a startling number of new facilities. The investment community clearly sees this as a trend for the long haul, as evidenced by the thriving self storage real estate investment trusts (REITs).

Until recently, I had been assuming that self storage growth was connected to the trend of higher density urban living. People still want their bicycles, skis, camping gear, inherited antique furniture -- but just can't store it all in their apartment. And, in dense urban areas, this is probably true. But, a little research (and thinking about the REITs) suggests that there is much more at play.

There are still the traditional users: people who need short-term space. When I was a grad student, I periodically rented storage space for short periods of time (such as the summer or a semester) when I'd be off doing research or travelling. I'd return, find a place to live, and retrieve my stuff. Others would use it while temporarily re-located to another city (rather than move all their stuff for 1-2 years).

All this seems logical. And actually, to some extent so do the new types of storage users.

As detailed in this recent NYT article by Suzanne Gannon, the new users often own large homes, have accumulated many things over the years, can't bear to throw them away, but also want to de-clutter their houses. The solution: rent a storage unit.

And then another.... one reason storage is a growth industry, it would seem, is that renting it is addictive. As families and couples fill one unit, they rent another. The Gannon article also describes how filling a storage unit then allows for more purchases, and the cycle begins anew. Somehow it frees consumption that might otherwise have been stifled (we already have a nice dining room set -- what would we do with it if we bought another? now storage is the answer to the treasured but outdated furniture).

Perhaps the availability of self storage is connected to the recent consumer spending boom in the USA (which may be ending depending upon which economist you believe). Not only could you take out equity on your home, but you could also store sentimentally valued furnishings freeing you to buy new ones.

Although I couldn't find any direct references, I'm also wondering if self-storage is a baby boomer phenomenon or a generational one. For some reason as we get older, do we as humans become more attached to physical objects? Baby boomers as a big aging generation might just have provided a tipping point for self storage. Also, baby boomers are a wealthy generation (by comparative standards with other generations) so may want to free the space to buy more stuff.

Anyway, the implication for cities is that a lot more real estate is likely to be dedicated to self storage: and for what reason?

Gannon interviews some adult children of the storage renters, who insist that most of the stuff being stored has only sentimental value. When the parents die, they expect most of it will be going to charity or the dump.

In considering our individual and city ecological footprint, perhaps the cost of self storage will need to be included...what if there were no self storage units - could we have more parks, more employment lands, shorter commutes?

West vs East: Cities and Sports Fans

2007-03-12T07:00:00.000-07:00

Why do the residents of some cities more easily accept "Pay per view" television broadcasts of their favourite teams while others bitterly oppose it?

And does this tell us anything about the cities in question?

A few weeks ago I was driving around suburban Toronto during the evening rush hour. Bored by the music stations banter and commercials, I flipped over to AM in search of a news program or talk show with an interesting discussion.

Quickly I found a sports channel (sorry, don't recall which one) that was discussing the Toronto Maple Leafs NHL hockey team and their pending game. As a hockey fan and Vancouver Canucks follower this seemed intriuging so I listened. After a few predictions, the radio host began a rant about the game being on Leafs TV, for which viewers pay extra either per game or for a subscription to the channel for the season. He then opened the phone lines and repeated callers complained about the extra charges to watch the leafs.

Fascinating. Even when pay per view first started in Vancouver, I didn't recall there being that much fuss. A few complaints but fans quickly accepted it and many embraced it -- like a sign of their true status as hockey fans and Canucks followers if they paid the extra dough.

I've been pondering the contrast ever since, and did some brief research surfing the net. It turns out that opposition to paying to view the home team's games is widespread in Ontario. This editorial in the Ottawa Citizen insists viewers are getting "robbed" when asked to pay $10.95 to watch the local team play. Once done ranting, the article does go on to mention that there is limited fan opposition to paying to view games in Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary -- the Canadian West.

So is this another indicator of the differences between Western Canadians and Eastern Canadians -- their attitudes toward pay-per-use services?

Recent polls in Vancouver have suggested many people would accept toll roads, if it meant faster travel times and better highways. Pay per use of another sort. I'm going to start looking for polls on tolls in Canadian cities to see if there is evidence of a fundamentally different attitude in the west versus the east.

I tried to find evidence of similar city-based dichotomies in the USA over sports viewing, but could not. Maybe I'm searching on the wrong keywords. I did learn that Baseball fans are upset that Direct TV will soon have a monopoly on pay-per-view games (so if you have cable you'll need to switch to satellite Direct TV in order to see the extras -- a big expense and hassle). But, that's not the same as opposition to the concept.

Can any American-based readers shed light on this subject?

Or, if you're in Toronto or Ottawa, please comment!

Urban ecological wisdom from an oil exec...

2007-03-10T15:15:00.000-08:00

Imagine the changes my grandparents observed near the ends of their lives. Rather than hooking up the team to their wagon, they could be driven around in vehicles with fuel tanks containing more energy than they would have used in a year. . . . My grandparents truly understood the awesome amount of energy concentrated in liquid hydrocarbons.

Two generations later, most people never think about it, except to complain about their electricity bill or the cost of feeding one of their two-hundred-plus-horsepower steeds.

- Gwyn Morgan, founder and former CEO of EnCana, in Globe and Mail on March 5, 2007
(article is subscription access, but I found it reproduced here)

Morgan's article continues with a great discussion of the political and security implications of the oil economy -- North America is dependent upon products from unfriendly nations.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that people, especially city dwellers, need to use less energy. Alternative fuels and energy sources like wind and solar are insufficient Morgan argues when compared to the vast amounts of hydrocarbons required to fuel our everyday lives -- and they will always be insufficient unless we can consume less.

Intriguingly, Morgan makes a compelling case that quality of life is better when we need fewer hydrocarbons. He points out that the most livable and enjoyable world cities are pedestrian based (he has a particular fondness for Stolkholm).

He argues for enhanced urban density and shares how he has lived the example with his wife. Their various homes have generally been within walking or biking distance of the office, in pedestrian oriented neighbourhoods where they could walk to restaurants and cultural centres.

An oil executive promoting a reduced-carbon lifestyle. Cool.

"For Canada to Succeed, The Major Cities Have to Succeed"

2007-03-08T18:45:00.000-08:00

For Canada to succeed, the major cities have to succeed...
- David Miller, Mayor of Toronto

David Miller said this a few days ago. But it could have come from any big city mayor as well as dozens of people and organizations, including the Conference Board of Canada, now recognizing how vital Canada's major cities have become to the national economy.

51% of Canada's GDP is generated in cities (considering Canada's is an oil exporter -- the USA's largest supplier -- this is a very large number indeed). Sorry - I don't have a figure for the USA, but I would expect an even larger percentage there.

65% of new jobs created over the past 10 years were generated in Canada's 10 largest cities. Over the next 10 years the economic importance will grow as innovation and knowledge industries become cornerstones of Canada's economy.

The problem is Canada's cities face a debilitating infrastructure deficit. Roads, transit, bridges and other infrastructure is decaying. Quality of life is declining as a result (at least in part). Because city governments rely primarily on property tax and parking tax for revenues, raising the billions needed is impossible without handouts from other levels of government.

Fortunately for Toronto and the country, the federal government came through this week with a $1.5 Billion funding announcement designed to improve Toronto's environmental quality by helping the region reduce greenhouse gas emissions. $1 Billion is for Toronto's transit system. The goal will be to extend the metro system into new areas including York University, thereby allowing thousands to get away from their cars. Some of the money is coming from an "eco trust" fund. But better transit will make Toronto more competitive and as the financial and head-office center for the country, should help Canada's competitiveness as well as hopefully improve the air quality.

Finding Community in Condo Living

2007-03-07T16:03:00.000-08:00

At the Zillow blog there is a great story about an empty-nester couple's decision to downsize from a 3,200 square foot home to a 1,200 square foot condominium in downtown Seattle. (Hat tip : Creativity Exchange)

As I posted before, there is a strong urban trend of "Living Large by Living Small." Getting rid of many household maintenance chores as well as the daily commute from the suburbs affords more time for personal enjoyment and leisure pursuits.

Relevant to the recent ecological discussion, the unidentified couple in the Zillow story discusses how by getting rid of their automobiles, and commuting costs altogether, they have enough extra spending money to dine out 85% of the time.

From their description, departing the suburbs brought a huge increase in quality of life.

Here's more examples. Because they walk everywhere and dine out so much, they know the neighbors and the local merchants and restaurateurs well. Restaurant owners would come and chat with them, especially if they haven't been in for a while, recognizing them as regulars. The local video store owner sets aside movies for them that he believes they'll enjoy.

Although we live in a duplex and not a condo, my husband and I have found the same thing in our pedestrian-oriented, restaurant and cafe based neighborhood: the local store owners and managers recognize us, say hello, give us great deals, even Christmas presents. If we haven't been in for a while, they ask how we've been. Feeling a part of the commercial scene is an added bonus of living in a high density area.

Economic and environmental convergence

2007-03-06T19:00:00.000-08:00

Perhaps its convenient that just when ecological issues have made it into the popular consciousness, economic issues will push people to make the right choices for the environment.

Higher gasoline prices seen over the past couple years are likely helping to convince more people to buy fuel efficient vehicles. While concern for the environment is likely there for many new car buyers, the financial benefits make it easier to do the right thing. Higher gas prices are also likely pushing some people to travel less by automobile and use transit or their bicycle instead. While I've seen anecdotal reports on television and in the newspaper, I haven't seen good empirical studies on the subject.

I look forward to research that tallies the new decisions being made in the high gas and environmental consciousness era.

As housing prices have risen, particularly for larger homes on single-family-lots, raising a family in a townhouse or condominium becomes a more attractive option. If the smaller home is closer to the workplace, further savings to the wallet and the environment can be had from a shorter commute.

My sense is that the economic argument will carry more weight for most families decisions. But for those lobbying for more ecologically friendly cities and smaller footprints, this economic convergence should be good news.

What carries more weight in your life, ecological issues or financial ones?

Will new-found environmental concern bring urban change?

2007-03-05T07:00:00.000-08:00

Over the past six months citizens of North America along with some other world regions have taken an accelerated interest in environmental issues.

What impact will this have on city life and urban development?

A few thoughts from me, and I'd welcome your ideas.

First, the automobile -- perhaps one of the most un-environmental forces on the planet. While many people are willing to seek more fuel efficient automobiles or even hybrids, how many people will cease to use a private automobile on a daily basis? Besides spewing pollution including so-called green house gas emissions into the atmosphere, private automobiles require vast road networks which pave over green spaces and generate vast amounts of green house gasses in their production. Therefore, even if everyone drove zero emission vehicles, extensive use of private automobiles would still cause planetary damage. New suburban developments are typically approximately 25% roads. To make room for the automobile, people need to spread out -- thereby increasing an urban area's ecological footprint.

How many people would be willing to give up private automobile travel? (even if we could snap our fingers and have great transit available)

Second, higher density living. While many people are now choosing this for personal lifestyle reasons, I don't get the sense that most people select town center living for ecological reasons. How many families will give up their suburban 3500 s.f. home with private back yard for an 1100 to 1800 s.f. townhouse or condominium in order to reduce commuting and car use ?(of course, the smaller strata home may come with great nearby parks and playgrounds, quality recreation centres within walking distance, and lots of family friendly cafes and restaurants.)

Would you?

Giving up the car and shrinking one's living space would also mean doing without a lot of extra stuff.

At the end of the day, I don't see millions of North Americans changing their lifestyles for the environment. Buying a hybrid car really doesn't help that much.

Therefore, perhaps all the great concern in the media and from citizens about global warming right now is a passing fad. When people realize they can't make the tough choices required, they'll move on.

Unless, that is, either economics or political and legislative leadership create new barriers to continuing the suburb- and car-based North American urban lifestyle.

What would make you give up using a private automobile and living in a larger, suburban home?

Seattle taxpayers' dilemma

2007-03-02T19:29:00.000-08:00

Seattle and Washington state tax payers face a dilemma. The Alaska Way Viaduct -- a freeway that separates the working waterfront from downtown -- needs replacing. It's over fifty years, old, partially damaged from the 2001 earthquake and to many, an eye sore even if it epitomized modernity and modernist architecture in its day.

The debate in Washington State is whether to replace it with another elevated structure, which will continue to separate people from the waterfront, or to spend over $4 Billion to replace it with a tunnel. The Economist ran a good summary article last week (from which I shamelessly borrowed the photo above) on the battle between Seattle City Hall and the Governor's mansion.

There will be long lasting implications to whatever decision they make beyond the obvious construction bill. Removing the elevated freeway will allow the energy of the city to move between the waterfront and port activities and the downtown. New restaurants and a variety of new developments could emerge from retail to residential. This will benefit the livability of the city by attracting more people downtown. It will also benefit the tourism industry.

But, removing the viaduct will invite new pressures on the employment lands of the waterfront. It's a working port. Container trade between North America and Asia continues to grow at over 8% per year, with Seattle having an opportunity to capture a larger share of this trade. Having the waterfront available for industrial use could give Seattle an edge over rival west coast cities.

Ultimately the citizens of Seattle and their elected officials will have to make a tough decision. The consequences of which could impact the direction of the city's economic and social development for the 21st century.

Downtowns lure big box retailers (including Wal-mart)

2007-02-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

Triple Pundit recently posted about Wal-Mart opening a new store in Pass Christian Mississippi, a town of 6,400 before the Katrina Hurricane and now about 3,200. Sounds like typical Wal-Mart, opening in a struggling town where people will welcome low prices. And one would assume Wal-Mart would build on the outskirts of town, as they have done so often, driving business away from downtown. But no!

Wal-Mart has decided to build a multi-storey store downtown, according to USA Today. Design plans suggest it will blend in with the streetscape and offer a multi-level shopping experience. Wal-Mart's existence will also likely help draw shoppers from surrounding Gulf-Coast communities, as well as Pass Christian, thereby helping many downtown merchants rather than destroying them (yes, some will struggle with Wal-Mart nearby, but not all -- small, family run stores offer a different experience that will draw people in even if similar products are available at the retail giant).

Is Wal-Mart learning from the experience of other big box retailers who are moving into the downtowns of big cities?

In chasing the growing populations of increasingly wealthy people, many big box retailers have been scouting downtown locations across North America and some innovative stores have opened. The retailers have been experimenting with multi-storey developments offering a different big box retailer on each level. Parking has had to move underground, or to the rooftop. And a street-front-retail, street culture is being maintained and furthered.

These big box stores combined with downtown, street-front fashion and restaurant retailers draw consumers from across the region and in some cities, from around the world. Presumably, sales per square foot are high (although I couldn't find figures). Being a part of the community instead of competing against it can work.

It's intriguing that even Wal-Mart is starting to recognize that.

Cities, Competing for Talent, and Child Care...

2007-02-13T19:39:00.000-08:00

To my regular blog readers, I apologize for the scarcity of postings lately. My son's excellent daycare provider is moving - and I've had to find a new daycare arrangement for him. This has absorbed all of my --very limited -- spare time over the past few weeks.

The search for quality child care has me thinking that this will become a critical issue for cities and their ability to attract workers and companies. Moreover, quality child care will become crucial for local and by implication national economies.

#1 - when parents cannot find adequate child care, one parent or both will often reduce their work hours, or leave the paid workforce completely. This lowers the labor force participation rate and reduces the number of talented people available. British Columbia, where I live, already struggles with an unusually low participation rate, which drags down economic performance and the region's ability to attract investment including hip "creative economy" companies.

#2 - to a surprising degree in recent years women with graduate degrees are leaving the paid work force or at least of being employees (some attempt to be consultants from home). If good child care -- or better put, early childhood education -- programs were available, and if employers were more flexible than most are, many of these women would stay thereby contributing more to the tax base and the overall economy.

#3 - if young couples and nascent families could choose between settling in a city with excellent early childhood education programs and support, and a city without it, guess which city they would choose, if the job options in each were reasonable?

#4 - because raising children is something that happens at a community level, and not at a national or regional level, it is city governments who will need to take leadership on this issue. In much of Canada right now, the provinces and the federal government are squabbling over early childhood care funding. But no one is talking about creating funding at the level needed -- the city.

#5 - each city is different. National and regional "rules" around daycare will not fit every city. Therefore, a city needs to establish its own goals when it comes to childcare.

For example, one rule for a licensed family daycare that currently exists for Vancouver is that there be a direct connection to 250 sq. ft. of outside play space. Great rule if your entire city comprises single-family houses and neighbourhoods. But if you're encouraging high density family living, then few people will have a patio that large. More flexible guidelines would therefore make more sense. For example, allowing elevator access to an outside play space, or that there be a park and playground within 400 meters or 1/4 mile.

Right now, I'm outta time. But please tell me about your thoughts on the daycare subject and the role cities and urban regions should be playing...

Valentine's Special: Most Expensive Cities for a First Date

2007-02-09T20:18:00.000-08:00

For decades, young people have left home for the big city, hoping to find adventure and romance. But if romance is your goal and you're on a budget, be aware that some cities offer better bargains.

Forbes Magazine has an intriguing article this week on the most and least expensive date cities in the USA. They compared a standard basket of date-related expenses -- from hair cuts to a bottle of wine a meal at Pizza hut, two movie tickets and a drycleaning bill -- across 200 cities.

The five most expensive date cities:

1. Stamford, CONN
2. Newark, NJ (apparently hair cuts are pricey here)
3. New York City (both movies and wine are the most expensive in the country)
4. San Francisco (pricey pizza)
5. San Jose (just generally expensive)

And if you're looking for a cheap night out, try Laredo Texas (see photo) which ranked as the least expensive date city in America.

Cities, global ecology and local nature escapes

2007-02-04T17:26:00.000-08:00

I've always loved mountains, rivers, ocean, big deserts -- any large open spaces and getting away to enjoy them, whether for a few hours or a few weeks. The quiet, the simplicity of living, and the vastness are therapeutic. Somehow problems seem smaller when watching the moon rise over the desert or a tall mountain peak.

Until recently, I'd never thought about the role densely populated cities play in preserving some of the world's wild places. But they do. The more highly dense the population, in general, the fewer resources per person that are used.

There have been some great postings on the subject recently at Richard Florida's Creativity Exchange. As the quote from Ed Glaeser says, "less than one-third of New Yorkers drive to work." That's 33% in comparison to 88% of commuters nation wide who drive.

In fact, New York is a great example of the benefits of high density living. As Ben Jervey wrote in a recent edition of Good Magazine, because of the vast numbers of consumers, options like farmers markets and buying local organic produce are possible. In sparsely populated suburbs and exurbs such possibilities are less likely. In fact, Jervey found that he was able to live comfortably in New York without consuming any product produced more than 150 miles away -- thereby reducing his ecological footprint.

However, New York city has some negatives. In particular, it can take a while to reach wide open, natural spaces. Indeed, people who live in Manhattan are apparently often less happy than those who live in the many suburbs around America.

However, if we could apply New York's high density to smaller cities (say 500,000 to 3 million), citizens living in apartments and tightly packed row houses would have quick options to reach awe inspiring natural sites. The problem is convincing the citizens, politicians, city halls and some development lobbyists that their community would be better off, long term, if growth were constrained.

Portland and Toronto are trying it.

Maybe the new environmental concerns being heard around the world will inspire more leadership in this area. So we all can enjoy the rich culture and diversity that cities offer and still benefit from a quick escape to less crowded places.

Demographia article revisited: Land Use Planning and Affordability

2007-01-25T19:02:00.000-08:00

This post is a follow up on my previous entry about the World's Least Affordable Housing Markets. The last three slides of the Demographia report contain the argument that land use planning destroys housing affordability.

My first reaction was "What!! How can they say that?" But then I thought, in a limited way, they may have a point.

First, let me explain what I find ridiculous in the statement.

Most of the least affordable cities are geographically constrained by ocean, mountains, rivers, and in some cases international boundaries. So, yes, in the supply-demand equation, these cities struggle with supply. Because of their popular settings (many people like to live near mountains, oceans, beaches, rivers, etc.) there is no shortage of people wanting to live and work there. Therefore, the root of the problem in these cities is their geography and popularity, not planning policy.

The second worrisome item in the demographia assertion is that it seems to imply that all land should be made available for housing -- that planners and city governments need not set aside employment lands. If governments did not do this, many of these "superstar" cities would become resort communities with only tourist industry jobs. These cities need industrial lands and commercial lands (for office and retail space). Otherwise, very quickly many of the knowledge-economy and corporate head office jobs that drive these cities economies would depart. A shortage of office space repels "creative class" jobs.

Now, what's perhaps reasonable in their statement. Certainly city planning policies can help or hinder affordability assuming the community is amenable to their efforts. In geographically constrained cities, the only way to generate more housing supply is to increase density. In what were once neighbourhoods of single-family-houses, row housing and mid-rise and even high-rise condominium complexes will need to be introduced. But increased density typically means that people need to live in smaller spaces. Clearly in some cities from Toronto to Philadelphia, Baltimore and San Diego, families, singles, retiring baby boomers are embracing this new approach.

However, the demographia article never mentions density as a solution only "less restrictive land use policy" -- whatever that means. And I worry it means employment lands. Of course, driving away jobs would drive away the working-age population and that would make housing more affordable. Maybe that's what they have in mind.

World's Least Affordable Housing Markets

2007-01-22T19:40:00.000-08:00

Demographia International today released a report of the least affordable housing markets, by city. They based it on how many years of earnings at the city's median household income (gross earnings) it takes to afford the median priced home.

Of the 159 markets surveyed in 6 developed countries, the median score was 3.0 -- that is, it takes 3 years at the median household income to reach the price of buying a house.

On the list of the 25 most unaffordable markets, it took between 6.6 years (#25, Victoria, Canada) and 11.4 years (Los Angeles) to cover a house price. San Francisco scored 4th at 10.1 years, making it more affordable than San Diego (10.5 years) and Honolulu (10.3).

Sydney Australia ranked 7th (8.5 years). Vancouver ranked 13th (7.7 years) while London, England was only 9th at 8.3 years. This latter one surprised me as I would have thought it much more expensive to own a home in London based on the cost of staying there as a tourist.

Another surprise on this list to me was Hobart, Tasmania scoring 7.0 -- in 20th place and only one spot behind New York at 7.2 years. Hobart (see pictures) is a beautiful and warm, friendly city and it stands to reason that people would want to live there. But I didn't expect it to be about the same level as New York and less affordable than places like Boston, Seattle and Chicago.

The full report contains some analysis, and explains some of the challenges in comparing house prices across borders.

Some of the most affordable housing markets include Buffalo (2.3), Winnipeg (2.5), Dallas/FW (2.7), Kansas City at 2.9.

The most affordable housing market was a three-way tie at 2.0 years of household income to reach a median house price in Fort Wayne, IN; Regina SK; and Youngstown OH.

"Major Cities Warrant Priority Attention"

2007-01-18T19:15:00.000-08:00

The Conference Board of Canada has released a brief preview of it's forthcoming three volume report on the Canadian Economy entitled Mission Possible. Volume III focuses on the importance of cities to Canada's economy and the need for political policy and attitude changes toward cities.

Changes in attitudes are required:
First, acknowledgement that Canada is an urban and not a rural
nation.
Second, recognition that major cities have special needs and contributions
to make, and that helping them is a win-win for Canadians;

The summary goes on to urge all levels of government to take ownership of urban issues. It also suggests that new ways of governing and leading cities might be required. I look forward to reading the report.

In the meantime, as many Canadians know, the cities are being starved for cash. Urban residents supply the majority of taxes -- income tax, gas tax, sales tax, etc. -- to the federal and provincial governments and yet cities do not receive funds back to support infrastructure, whether transportation or services.

The problem in Canada -- and to some extent for the USA as well -- is that our political system emerged during a time when the country was rural. 140 years have passed in Canada and 230 in the United States. It stands to reason the way we elect politicians might be anachronistic.

In Canada, cities are underrepresented. For example, the Yukon Territory, which as 30,000 people, has one member of parliament. My riding in Vancouver has over 125,000 people and yet only one MP. Skeena Bulkley Valley in Northern British Columbia can't have more than about 50,000 people in rural areas. Across the prairies many ridings are rural with lower populations.

So the end result is that more politicians are elected from rural areas and distant suburbs, than from the dense urban areas where the bulk of the population lives. Since politicians and political parties live to win elections, rural issues and needs will count more than urban ones and cities lose out.

As this conference board document is expected to say, the national economic well being will depend on politicians having vision beyond their rural ridings. Like it or not, they will need to start supporting cities better, or everyone (including their rural constituents) will suffer.

Living large by living small?

2007-01-17T19:41:00.000-08:00

Increasing numbers of people are chosing condominum life. Perhaps having a smaller, more care free home in communities with more amenities allows for more time to live life large? Whatever the reason, Canadian urban dwellers at least are increasingly buying condos.

Some interesting statistics just came out for condominium Canadian cities. This Globe and mail article on the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) condominium market records how over 17,000 condo sales happened through November 2006. Just a few years ago so-called experts said that Torontonians would never absorb more than about 250 to 300 new units per year. The 17,000 figure follows an equally large number of sales in 2005 and 13,750 in 2004.

What's also intriguing about the Toronto numbers, is that these are not just downtown condominums, but condos in town centers throughout the metro area -- in Vaughan, Markham, Mississauga, etc. For a big city like Toronto, getting people into high-density town centers well-served by transit will only benefit the overall regional liveability. More large projects are planned -- including one of the largest developments ever in Canada in North York.

But Toronto has a good transit system and a population that's not wary of using it. The same traditionally could not really be said of Calgary. Calgary's 2006 condo sales really shocked me. At 1/4 the population of Toronto, almost 10,000 condos were sold there in 2006. See: Calgary Real Estate Board statistics.

And in Vancouver, where condo dwelling has long been a local pasttime, sales were just over 15,000 , down from the record 17,000 in 2006 -- but after years of robust sales and steadily escalating prices, a slight pull back in sales was expected.

What's behind all this: A few main things:

1. Increasingly condominiums are appealling and catering to a new, older demographic - (Thanks to The Trac)

2. Condominiums offer a chance at home ownership for many younger singles, couples and families. Recent rapid housing price escalation in many Canadian cities would otherwise price them out of the market.

3. Condos are low maintenance, allowing more time to enjoy the many amenities that spring up in densely populated areas -- restaurants, pubs, movie theaters, shops, cafes, etc.

Do you own a condo? Tell us why?

Ecological Footprint of Cities: How many planets required?

2007-01-16T19:53:00.000-08:00

A new trend at city halls in Canada seems to be reducing the city's ecological footprint. Lethbridge has a campaign to encourage citizens to evaluate how they live. Trapped in air pollution and traffic gridlock, Toronto is sponsoring studies of the subject. And Vancouver has it's new "Eco-Density" initiative.

Essentially, cities want to reduce their impact on the global environment. To measure progress, they are utilizing the concept of "how many planets" would be required to sustain this lifestyle if everyone on the planet lived like people in that particular city. Everything from heating homes to driving cars powering office buildings and lighting recreation facilities is included.

If everyone lived like people in Greater Vancouver or Greater Toronto, we would need four 4 planet Earths. Like Seattle or Calgary, 5 planet Earths. If everyone truly were a Berliner, we would be better off, but we would still need 2 planet Earths. So the goal is to reduce this.

You can also take the test individually at many websites, including this one:

More blogs about cities and environmental sustainability soon.

Below is a map I found on the web showing regions that use the most planetary resources.

Portland Oregon and Vancouver BC

2007-01-12T20:05:00.000-08:00

Portland and Vancouver have grown up separately over the past few decades, but with similar purpose. City councils and planners in both areas have sought to support new forms of urbanism in North America. They have often been bold with experimentation, whether Portland's greenbelt and amalgamated city government or Vancouver's success at high density living for families, singles and everyone from all backgrounds.

Until recently, the two cities did not really look to each other for lessons.

Urban thinker extraordinaire Gordon Price has a great new photo-essay comparing urban development trends in two similar west coast cities. He notices that Portland has been adapting some of the successful high density planning and architecture prominent in Vancouver. Meanwhile, he argues that Vancouver's pending Southeast False Creek development is taking a cue from earlier low- and-mid rise urban renewal projects near the Portland waterfront.

For the photos if nothing else, Price's essay is worth a look. ( This shot of Yaletown, a look being attempted in Portland, is not his photo)

Urban Economic Lessons from the Las Vegas Strip

2007-01-09T19:13:00.000-08:00

Walking the Las Vegas Strip on the evening of December 30th 2006 was an obstacle course of strollers and gaggles of pre-teen kids and their parents enjoying the sights together.

Families were there from all over the world, speaking dozens of languages and enjoying the over-the-top extravagant fantasy world that is the Las Vegas Strip. There are carnival rides, arcades, fountain-and-light shows, tasty treats, the Coca Cola and M&M stores, live lions (at MGM Grand), and many more inexpensive or free attractions.

Ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen this. There was nothing for children in Las Vegas. In fact, if you were not into gambling there wasn't that much for adults to do except eat and drink. I don't recall seeing too many foreigners either, except the Mexicans and Guatemalans cleaning rooms.

There is a lesson here for urban economic development -- how important it is to be inclusive to succeed. That is, a city must appeal to everyone: singles, couples and families of all ages and from around the world. This doesn't just apply to tourism on the Las Vegas Strip. A city's economy needs the metropolis to be attractive to the same range of people.

A region unappealing to families or to people with international backgrounds will lose out on what they contribute to the economy -- just as the Las Vegas Strip would lose out on all those extra tourist dollars were it not so "inclusively appealing."

New Year Thoughts - Part II: Trend toward shrinking homes?

2007-01-06T20:46:00.000-08:00

For much of the twentieth century, homes in North America steadily increased in size. This occurred simultaneous with urban sprawl, as the automobile and freeway investments allowed increasing numbers of families to afford ever larger homes.

2006 brought increasing evidence that this trend is reversing. Many individuals and families are choosing smaller homes. Moreover, a wider variety of housing choices are available and being selected by people at all income levels.

There are a variety of reasons for this. The biggest is that urban sprawl in many cities has reached its limit. While some cities have geographical constraints limiting sprawl, others have now reached other limitations including psychological. There are limits to how far people will commute (and with most urban areas heavily reliant on automobile transport, there are definite limits to freeway capacity in a region).

Many people are asking themselves if the larger house in a suburb is worth it if they spend 2-3 hours per day commuting. Some working parents might only see their children at bedtime and weekends with this type of schedule. For those without children, or empty nesters, such a commute takes time away from other pursuits. Thus, we have a psychological constraint -- or "practical constraint" -- on urban expansion.

Another reason for people in cities choosing smaller homes: the lifestyle question. While some individuals and families are passionate about gardening and maintaining the interior and exterior of a home -- others would rather be enjoying other pursuits. Therefore, townhouses and condominiums are attractive options.

Related, people are placing increased value on their time. In deciding where to purchase or rent a home, individuals and families look at commuting time to work, and community time to favourite leisure activities (whether restaurants to visit with friends or sporting arenas or the beach).

North American culture of the 21st century is becoming more individualistic, or at least generation x and the milennials are feeling like they don't need to aspire to own the "white picket fence dream." ANd many won't chose that if it means giving up other aspects of their lives, such as recreation or time with friends. Very well-off families are choosing to raise children in downtown condominiums. One former-colleague paid nearly $1 Million for his spatious 3 bedroom condominium with large outdoor patio. He loves being able to walk to work. His wife loves all the nearby amenities ranging from quality food stores to parks and recreation areas for kids.

CEOs for Cities recently commented on a New York Times article about the growing number of upper-middle class families choosing to live in dense areas of New York City, rather than spatious homes elsewhere.

Downtown revitalization and inner city neighbourhood gentrification are part of this trend toward embracing smaller homes. And, with environemental concerns on the rise, this will only add further fuel to the trend.

New Year Thoughts - Part I : 2006 Elections

2007-01-03T19:29:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year!

Since the new year is a time for reflection and forecasting, I've jotted down some thoughts on urban trends. Here's part I, thinking about the elections of 2006 in the US and Canada.

2006 - elections in both Canada and the United States revealed a growing urban-rural divide, politically speaking. In Canada, the federal conservative party (center-right -- similar to the left side of the US republican party) failed to win a seat in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal yet managed to win a minority government in parliament.

In the United States, despite some inroads by democratic candidates in more suburban and rural areas, the urban-rural split continued. Residents of more densely populated cities such as Chicago, tend to vote democrat, and those living in less densely populated areas republican. The map shows blue-democratic areas from the 2004 election -- note how they are smaller because of the higher density populations.

So what? I think city-dwellers tend to vote differently for several reasons.

First, cities are a place where you see the reach of "the state" in the form of city services. Because people bump up against rules and regulations as well as government services (the state) all the time, and often feel they benefit from them. People in rural areas are often there because they dislike the regulation and thick network of government services in cities.

Second, urban voters are often concerned about issues centered around what Florida would call "tolerance" - embracing, multiculturalism, immigrants, gay rights, women's rights. They often look to "the state," in the form of the courts, to protect these rights. The center and center-left political parties in the US and Canada (Democrats, Liberals, New Democrats and Greens) have specific policies that appeal to those with these concerns.

So we have urban voters willing to embrace a role for government in their lives and rural voters pushing back against government regulations and government-led recognition of certain minority rights.

Looking ahead to 2007 and beyond, this divide is somewhat worrying. In many ways urban and rural / suburban voters live in two different worlds. Look for some political leaders to try to re-frame the debate toward more common ground. I'm not sure what this ground will be, or if anyone will find it.

Guessing here: In the US I'd look for something regarding medical insurance or health care costs to have the potential to reach suburban and rural voters as well as urban ones. In Canada, the Conservatives are hoping tax relief aimed at families will help bridge the divide while the Liberals under new leader Stephan Dion see the Environment as the issue to unite Canadians back under a Liberal banner.

Until 2007 ...

2006-12-20T21:05:00.000-08:00

I'm signing off work and blogging until January to spend time with family. In the new year you can look forward to blog entries about:

Babies, children, and urban density
How I chose Vancouver
Core-Suburb Tension in Toronto
What I did on my winter vacation (maybe...depends)
Any suggestions?

Have a great holiday everyone!

An Aerotropolis and Business Location Decisions

2006-12-19T21:23:00.000-08:00

With all the talk of Aerotropoli becoming important satellite cities -- or even hub cities -- I've been pondering the ways they will impact business location decisions.

My initial thought was that businesses needing the quick access to air cargo facilities would be the main drivers of demand for space in an Aerotropoli. Medical instrument preparation companies, electronics assemblers, fresh food distributers, etc.

But, then I thought about how corporations make location decisions for secondary facilities (customer service centres, R&D labs, back end support, even software development teams). Senior management from head office often wants to be within 30 minutes of the airport -- and of an airport with good connections to their head office city -- so they can visit efficiently. Therefore, many "knowledge economy" companies and service firms could be good candidates to lease office space in an aerotropolis. Senior management could fly in, have an important two hour face-to-face meeting with local executives, and fly home all within an 8 or 10 hour day.

Now that I think about it, being at an Aerotropolis could be great for a start-up company trying to attract clients and partners. Either representatives of the prospective clients and partners could fly in, or start-up executives could fly out easily and quickly. If the potential partner firms were also in Aerotropoli then their executives travel days and time away from the office could also be reduced.

The Aerotropolis has definite potential as the world's commerce becomes more dependent on trade, not only in goods but in ideas and brainstorming delivered face-to-face.

Squamish Wal-Mart - Blending in (better)

2006-12-16T19:49:00.000-08:00

Recently, I blogged about corporations going local, noting the trend of mega-brands trying to blend into the local surroundings more than ever before. In that post, I included a picture of the McDonalds in Krakow, that quietly merges into the medieval city walls.

I also mentioned the Squamish Wal-Mart. I now have a picture of it to share.

Yes, it's still a Wal-Mart and a big box. But this looks a lot nicer than that big ugly grey box the brand is normally known for. And, it is how a big box retailer like Wal-Mart should look in a mountain community like Squamish.

In a future blog I'd love to post more examples of global brands merging into local tastes. If you have examples, whether photos or just a place you remember, post them here in comments or send me an e-mail.

The Coming Age of The Aerotropolis?

2006-12-13T20:37:00.000-08:00

"Airports will be as important to business location and urban development in the 21st century as automobiles and trucks were in the 20th century, railroads were in the 19th century and seaports were in the 18th century."
-- John Kasarda, quoted on Real Estate Journal website

Airport-centred-cities -- or Aerotropoli -- are receiving increasing buzz in world trade and economic development circles and increasingly in the mainstream. The New York Times magazine called "aerotropolis" one of the new buzzwords for 2006. (Thanks Ben for blogging about the article.)

According to a recent article in Fast Company magazine, the value of air cargo has risen 1395% over the past 30 years, four times faster than the total value of world trade, which is up 355%. Air cargo has become one of the backbones of the new globalized economy. Many manufacturers rely on just-in-time delivery by plane as well as truck or train. Being located near an airport is becoming so important that the old real estate mantra of "location, location, location" is being refined for many commercial and industrial companies looking for space. It is now "access, access, access" -- access to an airport.

The idea of building an Aerotropolis -- an entire planned city around the airport as a central feature dates back nearly half a century. But it is only starting to gain traction in the 21st century -- perhaps because cargo trade is reaching a global critical mass.

Intriguingly, it is rising Asian countries and urban regions that are experimenting with this "technology" first. Thailand will soon open the first phase of it's $4 Billion "Suvarnabhumi" or "Golden Land" project that over the next 30 years is scheduled to become a planned city of 3.3 Million people serving 100 million passengers a year and even more dollars worth of cargo. The planned urban area outside of Bangkok will have ring roads supporting factories, office buildngs, and residential communities for the millions of workers expected to relocate to the area. Hotels and convention centres as well as a golf course or two will complete the community.

Dubai World Central is also under construction and is expected to house 750,000 people and will cost $33 Billion. The extravagances now associated with anything Dubai (oil money gone wild) no doubt will make this project a global icon with many unique luxuries.

In North America, struggling economic regions are starting to look to the Aerotropolis as a potential saviour. Detroit and Hamilton Ontario are two cities that have faced economic hardships in recent years, but sit in the heart of the North American manufacturing belt. Because most North American cities located airports in distant suburbs of major cities, some have room to expand and build an aerotropolis around an existing airport -- including Detroit and Hamilton.

However, do voters want an aerotropolis? covering up what's currently agricultural and greenspace with a concrete jungle might not appeal to all. And will North Americans want to live in an aerotropolis with airplanes coming and going 24 X 7?

There are so many questions surrounding this topic -- as well as intriguing forecasts to make. More blogs on this in the future....

What a City Planner Believes in

2006-12-11T19:49:00.000-08:00

What does it take to help make a city work for its residents?

What role does the city planning department play? or should it play?

These are tough questions. The new Director of Planning for the city of Vancouver, Brent Toderian, has been speaking about how he views the role of the planning department, and how he views the city of Vancouver.
I've had the fortune to hear him twice. His perspective is refreshing.

In his presentation, he used slides with one or two words each to convey his message, explaining what each term meant to him.

As a planner, here is what he says he believes in:

Sustainability
Creativity

Design

Beauty

Diversity

Collaboration

Holistic Urbanism

(He did explain these terms, but I'll let them stand here without explanation).

Since taking over in Vancouver, he's been observing the citizens of Vancouver and the city, and has these observations:

Relationships - the interconnections between different groups are strong.

Talent & Passion -- everyone involved in making the city work has exhibited talent and passion.

Unsatisfied -- no matter how many accolades Vancouver achieves, the citizenry believes the city can do better.

Toderian is an impressive speaker and I hope that he will be as impressive in his new role as the Director of Planning. At only 37 years old, he'll be around for a while. If he ever comes to your city and you have a chance to hear him speak -- do it.

Corporate head offices and city economic development

2006-12-11T08:17:00.000-08:00

Richard Florida responded to my previous post with some great ideas and insight. A good discussion has emerged over on his creativity exchange blog.

Do Corporate Head Offices Still Matter?

2006-12-07T19:16:00.000-08:00

For years now, Vancouver has seen the number of corporate head offices in the city decline. The business community and some politicians have become pre-occupied with the issue. Many are demanding that something be done to lure new head offices or keep the ones Vancouver has.

Similar questions are no doubt being raised in many medium sized cities around the world.

But, the more I think about it, the more I question whether this the right issue for a city like Vancouver to be worried about in the global economy of the 21st Century?

While I don't know the answer, I am certain a more global perspective might be helpful here. It may be that there is nothing that can be done about it -- it's part of belonging to the international economy. Therefore Vancouver's business and political communities should focus on what the city does best, within that economy.

If we look at the causes of head office decline in Vancouver, we see that it comes from a position of corporate success -- not failure. Successful companies have been acquired by the global players who want their product or service. The MacMillian Bloedel - Weyerheuser merger is an example from the forestry sector. Flickr's acquisition by Yahoo! offers a smaller yet equally valid situation. Local entrepreneurs created a successful product and company that a global player wanted badly enough to buy the company at a high price and move the principals and key employees to California.

Another cause of head office decline has been the mergers of BC-based businesses. For example, Canfor (Canadian Forest Products) and Slocan Forest Products merged a few years ago -- resulting in only one head office instead of two, but still in the Vancouver area. Mining company mergers have also transpired, resulting in head office consolidation. Driving these mergers has been the need to compete on the global stage -- to improve corporate efficiencies and cut costs. No government policy will change this.

In the 21st century world economy, what should cities like Vancouver or city-regions like British Columbia be doing to further the economy? What should be the benchmark of success?

Well, one obvious answer seems to be that the people and businesses in this region should focus on doing what they do best. This might be defined in terms of leading industry clusters and Vancouver's ability to attract talented people to work in them.

Take biotechnology and life sciences. The Greater Vancouver area's biotechnology and life science community is the 7th largest in North America, and boasts being home to three of only five profitable biotechnology firms in the country- Angiotech (HQ pictured above), Aspreva and QLT. The sector is also known for its entrepreneurial nature and ability to get new products generating revenue (even if not profits) quickly. Biotech start ups are often quickly bought by global companies who want the product and the people -- Vancouver loses a head office, but gains funding to further this company and therefore the biotechnology cluster.

Many entrepreneurial creative or knowledge economy companies also do well in Vancouver and once purchased, receive large boosts of funding from the new parent company, creating more creative jobs. Video game programming, digital animation, business and web based computer software firms all offer dozens of examples from Radical Entertainment (bought by Vivendi and now expanding rapidly) to Crystal Decisions (now Business Objects) to Mainframe Entertainment. And, having these thriving clusters attracts talent and new companies who want to employ that talent -- just last year Disney-owned Propaganda Games decided to open a studio from scratch in Vancouver, for example.

My point: Maybe Vancouver gains as much or more from the loss of head offices. While some take overs do result in a shut down of a local office, an interesting study would be to examine the net number of direct jobs lost or gained from the transaction.

Yes, head office jobs are known for spinning off other requirements from lawyers to accounting and financial services positions. But, having more people in a region working will also have spin off employment benefits, even if different ones.

***
I've been trying to find out if head office losses are issues to other cities. Montreal is an interesting study I'll blog about soon. I'd love tips from readers on other cities dealing with this question -- and I wouldn't mind hearing what Richard Florida has to say about it either...

Corporations going local

2006-12-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

CEOs for cities has a snipit on how American Express is sending out city specific holiday greetings. So if you're in New York, you'll get something branded to that locale with special offers.

I've also noticed Wal-Mart starting to blend in to its surroundings better. It's new store in Squamish BC (a mountain town near Whistler) looks like a log cabin -- or a cross between a Wal-Mart and a log cabin, anyway.

Around the world, I've also seen it -- a Macdonald's in Krakow Poland serving burgers from inside a historic brick building on an historic, narrow lane off the main square.

Political polarization and diminishing senses of community

2006-12-02T22:06:00.000-08:00

I have another theory on why there seems to be less of a sense of community in many neighbourhoods. Please tell me if your personal observations and experiences fit it.

The theory: Political polarization and political tension leads people to be more wary of their neighbours if they know or suspect the neighbour votes differently or has different views.

Evidence: Following the Bush re-election, many Democrat-voting Americans stated they wanted to leave the country rather than live in a Republican-party run country. Stated another way, they didn't think they could live with neighbours who voted Republican. If you were a Republican voter in a largely-democratic community, this might feel threatening -- and democratic voters in republican strong holds apparently felt threatened. Maybe the threats were not with physical violence, but somehow emotional.

Further evidence: In my neighbourhood few people dare put up election signs for any party other than those on the political left (green & ndp). Yet I know there are a lot of Liberal (centre / centre-left) and Conservative (center-right) voters who have recently moved in. I've heard that people have had their houses spray painted with nasty words or trashed if they promote a non-left candidate. How can there be a full sense of community if everyone cannot accept each others right to their own political views?

Does anyone else think that increased political polarization is undermining community?

Or does a community today need to be more politically homogeneous -- which probably means also economically and ethnically somewhat homogeneous as well...

What happened to the sense of community?

2006-11-30T20:24:00.000-08:00

Yesterday "Dave Writes" posted a review of Robert Putnam's new book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

He sums up Putnam's summary of the causes of community decline as:

1. Generational change / differences

2. Television

3. Time pressures

I added my believe that new forms of urban residential development (exclusive suburbs, high rise condominiums, high housing costs) are partially to blame, especially when they remove all sourse of conflict or tension -- the things that get neighbours talking and then working together to find solutions. As the above picture suggestions, in the suburbs people drive into their garages, into their identical houses, and have no inherent reason to chat with the neighbours.

You can read his review and my comments on it here .

I could also have added the lower birth rate as a potential cause as well. I first met people in my community through the tensions inherent in a changing inner city neighbourhood. I met many more people when I was on mat leave after having my son (in Canada parents can take long parental leaves giving you time to bond with others on leave). With many "middle class" people having fewer children, it removes a reason to get to know the neighbours -- at first as new parents, and later when the kids want to play.

Thanks Dave for making me think more about how communities form...

San Diego passes anti-Wal-Mart legislation

2006-11-29T21:54:00.000-08:00

Personally, I don't like shopping at Wal-Mart for political and practical reasons. I've been in the stores a few times, but can't remember having bought anything there -- other than a coke at the in-store McDonalds. And, I prefer to buy local goods or from local stores whenever possible.

However, I support Wal-Mart's right to exist. Millions of customers around the world support them -- that's the democracy of the marketplace. If those who oppose Wal-Mart (for often valid reasons in my book) want to stop them, they need to pursuade Wal-Mart customers not to shop there -- not lobby governments to pass specifically anti-Wal-Mart legislation.

Here's the latest: San Diego city council passed a resolution that: "prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 per cent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax."

That's quite specific language -- targeted right at Wal-Mart. It sounds like a Home Depot, Lowes, Target, factory outlet or any other big box store would be exempt.

I have no problem with a city's planning department and elected council restricting the location of big box, power-centre retail. They are entrusted to set boundaries on everything from the size of houses in a neighbourhood, to where office buildings go -- and how high they can be -- to the location of a new industrial park.

But they should not be dictating to the electorate which big box stores are okay, and which are not. This is dangerous to the health of the economy, business community and democracy. Let consumers make their own choices.

Fortunately, the Mayor is providing a chamber of sober second thought and plans to veto the motion in January.

Do people really want "one stop shopping."

2006-11-26T15:21:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I read an article (and didn't save it) that examined what people say they want when it comes to grocery and family-staple shopping and what they actually do. Apparently if surveyed, the majority of people say they want to buy everything under one roof. However, if you actually look at how people shop, a high percentage of people shop at several different stores regularly.

The Wal-Mart Supercenter and the Real Canadian Superstore (if you live in Canada) are banking on the notion that people want it all under one roof -- and for low prices with minimal service. Both are expanding rapidly in Canada right now.

Yet at the same time, it seems that niche supermarkets (like organic stores and health oriented grocers such as Whole Foods Market or Trader Joes in the US) are also growing in popularity --at least in Canada (although No Trader Joe's up here). And many familiar supermarkets continue to do well. Then there's also the manufactured street front experience.

Some people must shop at both styles regularly. Wal-mart for some things, Whole Foods Market for others. Or maybe there really are two groups of people: the one-stop shoppers who like Wal-Mart supercenters and those who like to shop around.

For me, I shop regularly in my neighbourhood, perhaps picking up things 3-4 times per week because within close walking distance there is a small chain supermarket, several independent grocers and delis, bakeries, and two organic stores plus a food co-op. I take my son in the stroller and load up it's under-basket. For bulk purchases (toilet paper, paper towels, diapers, etc.) we hit Costco or now occasionally the Real Canadian Superstore and bring the mini-van.

How about you? Where do you shop and why? Do you buy everything at the same store, or shop around?

I'm working on some theories on the relationships between grocery shopping, community, and overall urban development. I need some real stories to supplement the theories. TIA.

Relationship between neighborhood and health

2006-11-21T21:50:00.000-08:00

A new study by the Canadian Population Health Inititiave reveals that:

health differences between neighbourhoods can bejust as big as - or sometimes bigger than - differences between Canada's cities or even between countries.

While the methodology has limitations, many of the findings are intriguing.

As might be expected, more affluent neighbourhoods tended to have healthier people -- what's interesting is that the health benefits extended even to the less-wealthy in that community.

The closer a neighbourhood was to downtown, the less likely the inhabitants were obese (presumably because they walked more and drove cars less).

The study even mapped neighbourhoods by health. If you live in the Toronto area (or are thinking of moving there), click here for the links and software to view a map and see how your community fared.

Lifestyle Centers vs Historic Street Fronts

2006-11-19T19:44:00.000-08:00

Cities are filled with paradoxes, especially when it comes to consumer behaviour.

What's intruiging me from recent research I've done is that simultaneous with the massive roll out of superstores or hypermarkets in Canada (Wal-Mart Supercentres and Real Canadian Super Stores) -- that offer everything from groceries to shoes to ipods under one banner -- has been an equal interest from consumers and retail developers alike in a return to multi-vendor, street front retail.

Street front retail's popularity is coming in two forms, which we might call the original, organic variety and the manufactured version. The first type is the revitalization of historic retail streetscapes. These pedestrian oriented promenades offer a variety of shops from food to fashion to furniture boutiques and artist studios, depending upon the neighbourhood. In Vancouver, a variety of coffee bars is always required on any busy retail street. Prime retail shopping streets around North America are fetching stratospheric rental rates.

The manufactured variety are being touted by developers as Lifestyle Centres. These new suburban developments try to re-create the pedestrian oriented streetscape in a mall surrounded by parking lots and often containing a couple of big box pads as well. These also offer a variety of shops from separate vendors, and typically including coffee houses too.

The renewed consumer interest in streetfronts, whether manufactured or organic in many ways seems like the anti-superstore approach. However, I suspect that many shoppers of street fronts also visit the superstores.

So, there is the paradox. Consumers are embracing the new discount superstore carrying everything simultaneous with the often more pricey but service oriented and unique experience of the streetfront.

Perhaps the two mutually re-inforce each other?

Satellite Cities - Something to watch for

2006-11-17T19:40:00.000-08:00

Many talented workers, young and old, are looking for ways to enrich their lives and balance career and family. Some find life in bigger cities inspiring, enriching, fun, and worth whatever housing or commuting sacrifices are necessary.

Other people are looking for a different mix. They want some of the cultural and entertainment opportunities big cities offer -- concerts, theatre, sporting events, etc. But don't necessarily want to live side-by-side with 2 to 8 million other people.

For these individuals, what I'm calling satellite cities may be the answer. That is, small cities that are about 30 - 60 minutes drive beyond the last spots of sprawl from the bigger city. Satellite cities offer the atmosphere of the smaller city -- downtown, work, school and friends are all in close proximity -- and some of the benefits of the larger city such as driving into down for a concert or the big game.

For a city to be a satellite and not a suburb, it needs to have it's own history and character as well as the majority of the population living and working in the area (and not the bigger city). That is, it needs to be relatively self-contained in terms of employment and residences. Population wise, I'm thinking that satellite cities as having about 150,000 - 300,000 people, +/-. They also could be part of a satelitte region of 2-3 such cities in close proximity, as with Guelph (see photo), Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo Ontario that serve as a satellite region to Toronto (one of North America's largest cities).

Some satellite cities have siginifcant universities and may even be the university town of 50-100 years ago, now all grown up with a diversifed industrial and employment base. In some cases the university may offer a platform on which to support different economic clusters.

In Canada, besides the Guelph-Cambridge-Kitchener -- Waterloo satellite, there are others to watch. Kingston Ontario; the townships southeast of Montreal; Red Deer and Lethbridge Alberta; and perhaps Squamish BC although the latter's employment base is not keeping pace with residents who frequently commute to Vancouver or Whistler to work.

For the US, I'll have to think about it. Everett might have been a satellite of Seattle, but the bigger city seems to have caught it and there is no break. At one time Ft. Worth offered a nice satellite to Dallas, but again infill development has largely merged the two together. A similar situation seems to exist for Phoenix or Los Angeles -- at one time there were nice satellite cities, but they;ve become suburbs. Send me your suggestions of great US satellite cities to watch for as the new sites of subtle, "under the radar" economic development.

I have more ideas on this topic that I'll post soon.

Urban vulnerability reminder

2006-11-16T20:36:00.000-08:00

A series of fierce storms dumped record amounts of rain on the Vancouver area over the past two weeks and especially in the past two days. This resulted in strong creek and river run offs into the drinking water reservoirs, churning up silt and mud -- what the scientists call turbidity. The water coming out of the tap is brown with a hint of green. Toilets look like no one flushed. Turbidity interferes with the choloration process.

Turbidity interferes with the cholorination and general cleansing process for the city's water supply. Moreover, mud and silt can cover dangerous cloriform bacteria, preventing them from showing up in tests.

So, 2 million people are now under a "boil water advisory".

And suddenly, I realize that I don't have much bottled water around. This is a wake up call for me. Vancouver is along an earthquake fault -- a major disaster could happen without warning, creating conditions much worse than from 2 weeks of steady hard rain. In fact, quakes on this fault happen all the time, we just don't always feel them because they are smaller or away from populated areas.

Fortunately, we have power (unlike thousands of others) so I can boil the water out of the tap. And I did hit the local Santa Barbara supermarket an hour ago to pick up some of the last bottles of water.

Time to re-assemble an emergency kit. In the age of terrorist attacks and with the memory of images from hurricane Katrina's wrath still fresh for many North Americans, every city dweller should make sure they have a 2-4 day supply of water along with emergency medical supplies and food to survive several days without help.

The fall out from these rain storms is minor compared to what could happen.

Deciding Where to Live

2006-11-14T21:10:00.000-08:00

Several of my favourite blogs have been discussing the subject of where people choose to live this week. Not to be left out, I'll add my take.

First, what are others saying: The Brazen Careerist Penelope Trunk believes that people and families should choose a city in which they feel comfortable first, and then find a job or career. After all, most people will change jobs several times during their career and you don't want to be moving cities each time -- moreover, by being in a community that you enjoy, you'll naturally network better.

Richard Florida at the Creative Exchange blog is collecting stories on why people have chosen the cities that they did. He's posting some of the responses that will eventually inform his next book project.

Dave Writes explained his own selection of Boston as one of being drawn back to a place that felt like home after years of moving around the Bay area. Once in Boston, he and his wife had specific criteria of wanting to live near a transit station, within cycling distance of work, and once children came along, near good schools in an affordable neighbourhood so they could drop to one income.

Dave's family methodically analyzed neighbourhoods and found two that fit them (at different points in their lives, one pre-kids, one post-kids). This is the way to go. By my take, once you've decided on a city because it feels like home, has the right industry and company mix for your career passions, or offers the right climate you then have to decide where to live within that city. This is a tough decision.

Penelope Trunk wrote of happiness factors. Many people, if they live surrounded by people with more wealth, will feel unhappy and unsatisfied with their careers. If they live in an area in which their income is average or slightly above, they feel happier -- this is my first point. Many studies reveal this. So, instead of reaching for a more upscale neighbourhood, and stretching the budget to do this, many people may be happier finding more modest digs.

Second, who do you want as neighbours. Most people want to fit in -- so if you choose to be the poorest family in a wealthy neighbourhood, will you fit? Or will you fit better where most families have similar incomes (and therefore likely similar careers) as you?

Third, what about commuting times? Some people will easily sacrifice time spent commuting for a bigger home. But short commutes -- not long ones -- correlate more closely to happiness, so this is worth considering -- seriously. Will having a larger home or a specific environment (lake front, ocean front, in the woods), be worth the commute. For some, the answer is yes. But almost everyone I know with a long commute spends half the day bitterly complaining about it -- and if you ask why they don't move into the city, they say they want the bigger home. So they seem miserable in order to have that bigger home.

Finally, local amenities are important -- schools, shopping, restaurants, parks, places of worship, etc. Some neighbourhoods will offer all of these within walking distance while others will require getting in the car or on the bus-- which one is for you. Happiness for some can be getting away from the car and enjoying a pedestrian-scale community.

Enough said -- my take on where to live... soon I'll post on how my family and I selected our community.

Global retailers: Blending in or Branded Look?

2006-11-12T12:40:00.000-08:00

CEOs for Cities recently posted a story about how Coffee globalizer Starbucks is making an effort to blend in to the communities in which it sits.

This seems to be part of a growing trend. Instead of trying to apply a "one size fits all" approach to their store's look, which often generates community opposition to their arrival (as much as whatever they are selling). several major retailers are looking for ways to connect with the community.

Starbucks is allowing regional representatives to change the decore to match a neighbourhood, such as putting up historic photos of the area.

Wal-Mart -- the monolith everyone loves to hate -- is starting to listen to community opposition, and seeking to answer it with new looks, and even environmentally sensitive building designs.

Visiting different world cities, I've seen MacDonald's blending into an historic streetscape in Krakow or Brasov. MacDonalds is also known for adapting their menu to meet local tastes -- whether lobster burgers in Atlantic Canada or Tandoori in India.

My prediction: increasingly, people around the world look for a unique experience when they shop, eat, or buy a latte. This will require global chains to offer something special in each community -- which connects to that community. Look for local managers to have increasing authority to change the look and offerings in their locales.

Commerce versus cafes and condos: Economic development in port cities

2006-11-11T15:00:00.000-08:00

Economic development in port cities

Many of North America’s port cities have been undergoing a double renaissance.

First, world trade is accelerating and more than ever moving in large containers that require new types of infrastructure. New cranes have been arriving to handle post-Panamax sized ships (that don’t fit in the canal but do fine crossing the Pacific Ocean). Trains and trucks arrive and depart with these 20’ and 40’ containers, that need to be moved, stored and organized. Warehouses to unpack and repack goods for distribution add to the needs associated with container traffic, although fortunately these services can take place away from the waterfront. Good thing, because city dwellers have other ideas about the waterfront.

The second aspect of the port city renaissance is people moving to the waterfront. 100 - 200 years ago when many of these cities first developed as viable towns, people tended to live away from the waterfront where the commerce and trade took place (they might live near a beach, but not the working waterfront). Today, in many cities warehouses have been converted into brick-and-beam, loft condominiums.

Former waterfront industrial staging areas are being redeveloped into high rise condominums in such places as Boston, Seattle and parks and seawalls.

Both sides of this urban waterfront renaissance are revitalizing the aging historic cores of many cities as well as providing jobs. However, the two also come into conflict. Many cities want the employment and need the business taxes from the trade-based waterfront activity. Meanwhile, politicians want and need the votes of citizens who frequently oppose expanding container shipping facilities or improving the industrial infrastructure near the waterfront.

The citizenry often lobbies for public parks, more housing (to create affordable housing), and other public amenities along the waterfront. All of these things are good, as are jobs and trade. The key is balance. The economy doesn’t vote in civic elections, so its easy for some politicians to focus on the immediate citizen demand. This could mean the economic downfall of some cities (and the windfall for those cities who ensure that jobs remain as important as amenities).

Alleys: Paths to Urban Revitalization

2006-10-30T19:42:00.000-08:00

The back alleys of North American cities are often thought of as places for garbage or crime, if people think about them at all. But that is changing.

Cities around North America, particularly in the downtown and urban core neighbourhoods are seeing alleys become the source for new, revitalizing urban development.

Streets and alleys fill 30% of city space. It makes sense to start thinking about alleys and not just streets as places to "develop." In neighbourhoods with single family houses on narrow, long lots, the alley provides a great secondary street front for in fill housing. In commercial areas (or mixed commercial and residential) the alley provides for more business space, allowing more stores to benefit from existing consumer traffic. Alleys, being narrow, also have the potential to become pedestrian-only spaces if warranted. For example, restaurants, cafes and galleries could all benefit from a block-long pedestrian only strip.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently ran an article that's well worth a read for anyone interested in how to revitalize urban space. In San Francisco's case it has been happening organically. One business opens in an alley and brings traffic -- to a custom, hand-made furniture workshop and showroom for example. Soon, a coffee bar opens next door taking advantage of the pedestrian-oriented foot traffic. Neighbours gather at the coffee bar, enjoying their own private yet public space to chat. The alleys of San Francisco are taking off from there. Although the article did not mention city planner policy on this issue, presumably they have been favouring alley development or at least allowing it to happen in some places, perhaps as an experiment.

Planning departments around North America are starting to look at alley-based infill as a way to create more urban housing, without resorting to high rises -- not appropriate in every neighbourhood.

Toronto also has a tradition of commercial alley ways with their own businesses and residences. A recent study suggested that the city consider encouraging more of this type of development.

The new head planner for the City of Vancouver, Brent Toderian, in a recent speech mentioned that the idea should be studied and considered for many Vancouver neighbourhoods.

Look out -- an alley near you may go from being an avoided garbage dump into a vibrant urban space.

The continued importance of place

2006-10-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

Although we live in an age of instantaneous communications around the world, place remains importants for business success -- at least for tech start ups, ironically enough.

Creativity Exchange pointed out a great article in the New York Times. "It's not the people you know, it's where you are" by Randall Stross.

The article explores why Silicon Valley creates so many successful firms.

The author discovered that a "20 minute rule" guides venture capitalist decisions on who they fund. If the start-up is further away, it's inefficient to spend time coaching, listening, and supporting the company so some of the most successful angel investors don't bother. They invest in someone else. Sequoia Capital, the money behind both Google and Youtube, is an example given in the article.

The close proximity of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists also attracts enterprising and brilliant systems engineers, software designers, marketing gurus, financial backers, tech-specializing legal firms, and others that all support the start-up process.

This is a great demonstration of how an industry cluster works.