Archive for December 23, 2007

New suburban dream

December 23, 2007 / Wendy Waters / One comment

It’s the New Year, coming up and a time to think ahead, so here are my thoughts on Suburbs!

 The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins.

- Howard Kunstler in the Freakonomics Quorum on Cities

I actually disagree with this statement. The suburban life as we know it, “is toast,” I agree. However, suburbs will always be a part of metropolitan design. Everyone can’t live downtown and in inner urban neighborhoods as cities grow. But the suburbs will have to change.  A recent essay at the Where blog got me thinking:

Suburbs are not the problem so much as the typical style of suburban residential life. People live separated from their places of work, shopping, school, and “hanging out.” This isolates them and results in a need for individual transportation.  Suburbs tend to be highly automobile centric (hence metropolitan areas being a “car-tropolis” – place for moving cars around, rather than for people to live.)  Roads combined with spaced out single family homes on large lots absorb a lot of geography without housing many people nor offering amenities – again they isolate.  Consider: kids play in their own backyard, and not with each other at the park, for example, while their parents chat with others at that same park.

A series of new thinking will push for a new suburbia:

  • Scarce and pricey oil
  • planetary health concerns
  • human health issues related to pollution
  • popular lifestyle considerations such as work-life balance and connecting with one’s community

Suburbs in many North American metropolitan areas will evolve into more multifaceted places as a result.  Town centres will contain higher density housing, likely high rises right in “the center” and townhomes, duplexes, and single family on smaller lots radiating out.  More people living in closer quarters will support amenities such as cafes, restaurants, shops, etc.   Effective transit, particularly rapid transit, will connect these town centers to other parts of the metropolitan area such as “the downtown core” as well as other town centers.

You can already see this model in Toronto or Vancouver as well as Boston and, in a way, New York City.  Older European cities have seen suburbs evolve into this pattern to be absorbed into the metropolitan whole.

***************

That’s it from me in 2007 (in all likelihood) as I’m off on vacation with the family for a week.  Thanks for reading and your messages. 

If you’re curious, my New Year’s thoughts from last year were:

On elections

Trend toward shrinking homes

Category: "back to the center", communities, downtowns, planning policy, resident attitudes, residential development, sprawl, urban lifestyles /

“The Missing Class”

December 19, 2007 / Dave Atkins / 2 comments

Review by guest blogger David Atkins

The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America by Princeton University sociologist Katherine S. Newman and Victor Tan Chen offers a glimpse into the lives of many urban, working Americans who live above the official poverty line, but are not quite middle class.

This book is based on surveys and interviews between 1994-2002 and tells the stories of nine families in the New York City area, organizing those stories around these key issues:

  • gentrification of neighborhoods – some are being priced out of their neighborhoods, but life is safer in the Brooklyn, NY neighborhoods of Sunset Park, Fort Greene, and Clinton Hill. It’s an evolving story that is not all good and not all bad.
  • credit card debt – why and how it gets out of control so quickly. For some, the desperation to escape privation has been a costly temptation.
  • childcare challenges – do welfare moms make better parents and community members than moms who commute hours to a factory job leaving their kids in improvised daycare?
  • health care – one accident can be a ticket back to poverty
  • relationships – the complex web of male/female and extended family arrangments is necessary, practical, and often dysfunctional
  • bureaucracy – near poor people hate welfare as much as the rest of us and would do almost anything to avoid going back.

This is a detailed book; I found it difficult to keep track of who was whom. We meet at least 50 different people in the course of describing the lives of 9 families. I had to draft an outline of the people involved to keep the names and places straight. But what emerges from this book — most relevant to cities– are the following three key recurrent themes:

1. “Near poor” is not a transitional state. Nationally, the “near poor” represent 57 million Americans. We tend to think that poor people who work hard will eventually get ahead and achieve at least some degree of security. But the reality is that those who escape poverty often remain in an economic condition where they are working hard, but cannot advance. In any urban setting, a significant underclass is not on any track to participate in community life beyond working as hard as they can to stay above water. Urban planning these days is often about attracting talent, making cities “cool” to live in for the “creative class” or knowledge workers.

The service class and working class are the people who keep the city running. Understanding, through the anecdotal stories of these families, should help to inform planners why the urban poor and near poor are not just a problem to be dealt with, but human beings who need to be a part of the engine of progress.

2. Child care is a constant problem. The welfare reform efforts of the 1990s succeeded in getting many Americans back to work. Laziness is not a problem among the working poor. Exhaustion is. And their children are constantly in danger of falling back into poverty because of the lack of supervision and involvement from parents who are too busy working to keep the rent paid and food on the table. The near poor are not choosing to let strangers raise their kids in order to pursue a career. There is no choice, only consequence.

3. We need practical, situational solutions, not value-based policies. The stories of how people get into trouble are seldom without some blame. Credit card debt? Why do you have that plasma TV? Single mom with 2 kids and husband deported? Why did you get pregnant again? This book describes with humility and empathy how the real stories of people living and working on the edge are doing their best to survive. The policies of welfare reform in the 1990 succeeded in creating a strong incentive system to get poor people working, but people make mistakes often through lack of information and misinformation. When wealthy people make mistakes, we see it as a learning process. When the near poor make bad decisions, we are quick to judge and apply our own standards about what they should have done and accept their difficulty as the cost of their bad decisions. But a few mistakes can lead to total disaster, especially in the context of children. What is the pregnant, single mom supposed to do to support her family? Take a course in web page design? When? Who takes care of the kids? Life is not fair, OK, we all get that. So what can we do about it?

The central thesis of this book is that we ignore the near poor. They exist in a gap between those in poverty, who we feel an obligation to assist, and those who are “on track” to greater economic stability and prosperity.

Newman identifies some key policy recommendations (and note the forward by Senator John Edwards–this book is intended to provoke political change):

Perhaps most importantly,

“…we must replace this patchwork child-care “system” — a term it barely merits — with a comprehensive, public-supported network of day care (for kids aged six months to three years) and kindergarten (starting at four). We know that the majority of mothers of children under one are in the labor force; no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact.”

The most successful and effective policies identified are more projects than policies. There is no magic solution; no single national policy that should be adopted. But by getting into the details of these families, Newman helps us leap over the simplifications and notice the near poor who are a huge segment of our population that is not looking for a handout, but needs some help up.

____________________

This review was contributed by guest blogger, Dave Atkins… a technologist and metro parent who blogs about issues affecting the creative class and their city lifestyle choices, often focusing on Boston where he now lives (after doing some time in the Bay Area and Seattle).

Category: book reviews, national politics, poverty, real estate, urban families, urban history, urban lifestyles /

Brilliant, diverse thoughts on cities

December 18, 2007 / Wendy Waters / No comments

For those of you who haven’t read the Freakonomics Quorum on cities, I highly recommend it.

Five brilliant thinkers on metropolitan growth offer forecasts for the future (James Howard Kunstler, Edward Glaeser, Robert Bruegmann, Dolores Hayden and Alan Berube). Not all of their ideas are mutually compatible, but yet they also seem plausible or reasonable. The ideas are a humbling reminder of how complex cities are and how difficult it is to understand where they are heading.

Here are some of my favorite statements:

From Kunstler:

Categorically, our colossal metroplexes will not be sustainable in a post-oil future — and despite the wishes and yearnings of many people, the truth is that no combination of alternative fuels will permit us to continue living at this scale. Some of our cities will not make it. Phoenix, Tucson, and other Sunbelt cities will dry up and blow away. In Las Vegas, the excitement will be over. Other mega-cities will have to downscale or face extreme dysfunction….The suburbs, for the most part, are toast. They have three possible outcomes in the twenty-first century: as slums, salvage yards, or ruins.

From Glaeser:

The spread of urbanization is, on net, an enormously beneficial process. People in cities are much more economically productive; urban density has been a wellspring of innovation for many millenia. Cities sometimes have a bad reputation because of their association with problems like poverty, pollution, and disease; but this association does not imply causation.

Cities are full of poor people because cities attract poor people, not because cities make people poor.

From Bruegmann:

Of course, this huge outward migration of people [to suburbs and exurbs] has caused problems, just as the migration to the cities did. And public authorities have once again tried to slow or halt the process, now pejoratively called “sprawl,” often with the explicit aim of preserving the distinction between the urban and the rural. This effort is likely to be just as futile as the effort to stop people from moving into the cities, and just as likely to be counterproductive. No one knows what the next chapter of urban history will bring, but if there is any lesson to draw from what has happened to date, it is that abstract ideas about the proper form of settlement, whether urban or rural or hybrids we can’t yet imagine, tend to lag far behind the reality on the ground.

From Hayden:

Since the mid-1930s, the federal government has encouraged green field development on raw land outside of urban centers, usually through tax subsidies rather than direct spending. … Excessive green field growth lies behind the national energy shortage and the mortgage crisis. Using federal incentives to constantly expand urban peripheries with commercial and residential development has had serious consequences. Reliance on imported oil, pursuit of war in the Middle East, and the credit crunch shaking Wall Street suggest that wise patterns of urban land use are more important to economic well-being than many Americans recognize.

From Berube:

The jury is out on whether America can openly accept its urban condition (starting the presidential race in Iowa and New Hampshire, two of our least urban states, doesn’t help). … we ought to begin to tackle critical national challenges — on economic growth, education and skills, infrastructure, and the environment — with a keener eye toward the big, complex, messy, metropolitan way in which the majority of Americans (and now, our global counterparts) live their lives.

So many rich, brilliant ideas on cities — I feel humbled.  I also feel excited to have so many new thoughts and threads to explore on this blog.

Category: ecological issues, national politics, planning policy, residential development, sprawl, urban history /

Density, family business and “mompreneurs”

December 17, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 5 comments

In the dense neighborhoods and suburbs of Mexico City (such as Ciudad Neza or Coacalcos) I’ve often been intrigued by the variety of home based businesses that families — often the mother — operate. Some make paletas — ice creams and popsicles — to sell on the street or from a door in front of their house. Others roast chickens or grill hot dogs. Some sell school supplies, or sodas, or cel phone usage, or baby clothes.

Their entrepreneurial imagination is almost limitless. The large numbers of people living nearby creates a steady market. This is often the primary income for a family, or a reliable second income.

In US and Canadian cities and suburbs, opportunities for home based businesses have generally been fewer. Try opening an ice cream stall in your suburban home — there is not enough of a market. Selling Tupperware or Avon products exists, but generally requires the entrepreneur to visit houses.

The internet age has opened new employment opportunities for suburbanites, city dwellers, and rural residents alike. For parents — particularly women — wanting to spend more time with the kids while also earning some income and maintaining a professional identity, it has been a revolution in many ways.

However, there are limits to internet-based employment. Only certain types of work lend themselves to being done by one person in relative isolation. Some freelance writing and web site design, for example, can work from home. Contracted out data entry or information processing offers other options and many women sell hand-made products on e-Bay. But many of these businesses would benefit from face-to-face meetings with clients as well.

And what if these are not your areas of expertise?

The combination of higher density living and the internet results in much broader opportunities for home based businesses. And the internet can be valuable as a supportive medium. Here are some examples.

  • The fit4two pre- and post-natal fitness company’s founder, Melanie Osmack, started the business offering fitness classes for moms to be, new moms (and new parents) in downtown Vancouver where 100,000 people live in close proximity. Word of the classes helped to generate demand throughout the metro area and Melanie soon franchised to other moms with fitness instructor designations in other neighborhoods. She was a recent runner up in a contest for Mompreneur of the year. Fit4two uses the internet to promote their programs, but is based on access to lots of people living in close proximity.
  • Children’s clothing stores and family-oriented cafes are retail style businesses that some women have opened just blocks from their homes. Being the boss at these retail business allows a parent to set their own hours and in some cases it works to have a young child in the store with you while you work.
  • The makers of the Baby Buddha wraps and Milk Factory quick wick clothing and blankets initially sold their first products locally, through word of mouth and at “baby fairs” and swap meets. They now sell nationwide and internationally using the internet.

A great way to have access to a large number of customers or people with whom to do business is to live in a higher density area. You can always use the internet as well. But people like to do business with others whom they know.

Women in the US and Canada are starting businesses in large numbers (as Penelope Trunk often tells us), often to bring flexibility to their lives. Whether the intend to use the internet or not, those living in higher density areas with a supportive community will often have an advantage in making their venture a success.

Category: downtowns, economic development, revitalization, urban families, urban history, urban lifestyles, urban retail trends /

New styles of work and older urban designs

December 12, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 5 comments

Penelope Trunk recently provided seven predictions on the future of work. Many will require changes to how people live in cities.  Old style sprawl will not allow for new styles of working.   Here I’ll address her first two predictions:

The end of gender disparity
Pay is equal for men and women until there are kids. This inequality will change when Generation Y starts having kids because the men are committed to being equal partners in child rearing. We see already that among Generation X men and women are willing to give up pay and prestige in order to get time with their families. Generation Y’s demographic power will provide critical mass for big change.

The end of the stay-at-home parent
Women have already widely rejected the idea of sacrificing their time with children to a relentless, high-powered, long-houred job, and men are following suit. Women have also found that staying at home with kids all day is boring. Institutions are responding – finally — to these trends. Parents will choose some form of shared care. Each parent will work part-time and take care of kids part time.

These predictions and observations will require many families to abandon suburban life for a more urban existence. The suburbs evolved when one parent working outside the home was the norm. The other parent could then dedicate herself (or occasionally “himself) to getting the kids to schools and other activities, as well as looking after them at home. If the working parent had to commute 60 minutes each way, that was considered acceptable to have a large back yard and a white picket fence.

In order for both parents to share care and have careers, they’ll need to live in proximity to their employer or clients (for the self employed). Although the internet and mobile technology allows for some types of work to be done anywhere, face to face communication is usually essential some of the time. It builds trust, is part of networking, and is required at least occasionally for effective collaboration.

Having a home in a distant suburb makes it harder for two parents to blend work and family life. If you live 10 minutes from downtown (or a major employment area) — or live downtown — it’s easier to get away for a one hour meeting, which will only cost you 1 hour 20 minutes of time. If you live 60 minutes from downtown, a one hour meeting will cost you 3 hours, two of which will be fairly unproductive if you’re driving in traffic.

For those who need to make regular appearances at an “office” (or the equivalent there of), living close to work and the kids schools means that you can zip home in a few minutes if there is a problem or dash to the school to attend a concert for an hour. It also means less time wasted commuting and therefore more time with your kids. Plus, when it comes to negotiating flexibility — such as an option to work from home occasionally, or to work in the evening in return for having a shorter day at the office — it’s more workable (and an easier sell to employers) if you can get back quickly in an emergency.

So, the future of work and the future of cities are interconnected. Of course, living in higher density areas will usually mean living in a smaller place — maybe a condo or townhouse and playing at the park rather than in a big backyard.

Category: "back to the center", downtowns, planning policy, public spaces, resident attitudes, residential development, sprawl, urban families, urban lifestyles /

Moving away from the car-tropolis

December 12, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

How might cities change over the next 20 years?

Here’s one theory for North America generally: they will switch from evolving to facilitate, primarily, automotive travel to allowing citizens more time for leisure, which intriguingly will mean less automotive travel on a daily basis.  This shift will also re-make who, socio-economically speaking, lives where within the metro area.
People are increasingly valuing time more than money.  Workers of all generations (although stereotypically generation y – the millennials) are now foregoing promotions and other career advancement opportunities in order to have more leisure time to share with family and friends. 

Younger creative and professional workers in particular are often choosing to live in downtowns and other higher-density urban areas near their jobs and near entertainment and recreation opportunities.  Moreover, in some cities, families are now making the choice to live in smaller residences, close to where household members work.  In these cases, they are avoiding distant commutes, giving themselves more disposable time.

Over time, neighborhoods close to major employment centres for creative and professional types (often downtowns and town centers) are becoming more popular.  Gentrification is taking place in some districts as families and individuals with some financial resources move in and often renovate older houses.  Elsewhere condo towers going up, commanding high prices.  Density is proving to be a safe, enriching environment for families in some cities and the example will catch on — especially when governments stop subsidizing suburban living, pushing more families to try higher density living closer to work.

Subsidized automobile-based transportation options have been the basis of urban evolution in North America for at least 60 years.  All tax payers pay for the roads and highways that allow for suburban sprawl, something that will become less palatable to many citizens who are spending the extra money for housing closer to their jobs.  Citizen concern over global warming will make it more politically possible to start charging users to travel on these roads that are becoming more costly to build and maintain as the price of oil rises.  The costs of commuting vast distances in single occupant vehicles will also become more expensive.

So, within a decade, I expect that suburban living will be very costly financially and in terms of time, which is increasingly valued more than money.  These twin forces will pull people toward higher density communities.  And with higher density comes better, more frequent public transit options such as metros.  People who need to commute will not do it in a single occupant vehicle, instead traveling faster and less expensively on a transit system — that is, if they can afford to live in a higher density area.  Note: I’m not saying everyone will live in the urban core, but that they will choose higher density areas with more amenities and good transit options to (other) major employment areas.

Ironically, the result of a shift to a “chronopolis” or a city based around resident desire to save time (or make time for their own preferred pursuits) will be pushing those without significant financial means to less dense suburban areas.   The spacious cookie-cutter middle class suburban homes of today, may be the ghetto of tomorrow.  Living in these areas will mean longer waits for buses (residents won’t be able to afford private auto travel) to take people to metro stations from which they’ll travel to work or school.

That’s my prediction.  It might take 50 years to happen (after all, the car-tropolis has been evolving for longer than that), but in larger metro areas, it’s a likely future.

Category: ecological issues, planning policy, poverty, residential development, revitalization, sprawl, transportation, urban families, urban history, urban lifestyles /

Car-troplois

December 11, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 6 comments

The North American urban model is intertwined with the history of the automobile.  Mass production reduced costs while rising living standards for the masses in the 1950s and 1960s further increased automobile affordability.   At the same time, interstate highways–designed to allow quick movement of military and civilians in the event of war–allowed families to sprawl into the suburbs and the income earner to commute back to the city.  Mass produced houses helped make this lifestyle affordable as well.

American life became dependent not only  on the automobile but on oil as well — and not only for gasoline.  Building the thousands of miles of highways and roads required oil as a main ingredient.

Last week Ryan Avent on his Bellows blog commented on a recent discussion about what vehicle is the most eco-friendly.  Others had argued either for the Toyota Prius, an expensive gas-electric hybrid, or for the much cheaper and highly fuel efficient Corolla, putting the savings into other ecological upgrades for your home (more efficient furnaces, lighting,  etc.).

Avent suggested people consider “door number four” – no car, instead adopting a different lifestyle.

But maybe there’s yet another option! What if, instead of spending all that money on a car, you instead put it into buying or renting a home near transit.

And Avent was not blindly advocating everyone give up their cars, instead suggesting the whole auto-based paradigm needs a re-think.

Obviously, many people are going to continue to drive or have no choice but to drive….We really ought to be focusing, however, on the way that the structure of our urban areas and urban infrastructure perpetuates a costly dependence on automobiles.

His post got me thinking.  Who benefits from our current urban design complete with its automobile-focused transportation method?  The automotive and oil companies, of course.

There’s probably a good comic-tragic “conspiracy” movie in all this a la Michael Moore.  The automotive and oil industries are profitable and involve millions of jobs directly and indirectly.  They and their suppliers (including some workers groups, perhaps) may not wish to see society move away from the oil economy.  Therefore, as society gets more concerned about the combustion economy, they introduce minor improvements like a hybrid car along with great volumes of talk about their “ecologically-minded” research.  But you still need to drive on roads, and use (albeit smaller amounts) some petroleum fuel.

The auto companies could also produce pure electric cars, or hydrogen cars, or super-fuel-efficient cars but there isn’t the demand and/or infrastructure and/or regulations in North America to make some of these possible.  Experts say the technology exists to create mass-produced, affordable alternative vehicles.

By talking a lot about their future ecologically sensitive cars (while at the same time releasing ridiculous-sized SUVs), the auto companies may be finding ways to prevent voters and governments from really thinking about the viability of an automotive culture and enacting corresponding legislative and lifestyle changes.

The movie would probably end with an Al-Gore graph showing emissions rising set against polar ice melting and a cute polar bear dying from the loss of her habitat.  A tragedy that we cannot seem to avoid despite knowing it’s coming (in classical greek style).

In the non-cinematic version of the story, there is going to be some social and economic upheaval but I think some new government regulations and policy combined with market forces will gradually make North America’s cities more people-tropoli rather than car-troploli.  More on how I predict this could happen in a subsequent post.

Category: ecological issues, national politics, sprawl, transportation, urban history /

Insights into San Francisco (and cities) from Allende’s “Daughter of Fortune”

December 5, 2007 / Wendy Waters / One comment

With the holidays approaching, many readers of this blog might look to curl up by the fireplace with a novel instead of non-fiction books about the economy or planning theory.  A good choice would be Isabel Allende’s book, Daughter of Fortune. 

This spellbinding work of historical fiction details the experiences of a well educated young woman, Eliza, from Chile and a doctor-come-ships cook, Tao Chien, from China.  The two come together when Eliza pays Tao to smuggle her onto a ship bound for San Francisco to search for her lover who had previously ventured to California following the discovery of gold in 1849.  Allende describes how the two of them navigate life in the early years of San Francisco and through these characters eyes are some wonderful descriptions of life in early San Francisco that in many ways reflect the modern city.  The reasons why so many came to San Francisco, and how they fared, also offers insights into urban life and cities generally.  Here are three reasons urbanistas should enjoy this book.

 1.  The descriptions of early life in San Francisco.  Allende’s words can transport you back to the Bay in 1849-1853 with abandoned ships in the harbor (the crews deserting to search for gold), the different ethnic enclaves, and the early coming together of people from around the world.

[They] came from distant shores: Europeans fleeing wars, plagues and tyrannies; Americans, ambitious and short-tempered; blacks pursuing freedom; Oregonians and Russians dressed in deerskin like Indians; Mexicans, Chileans, and Peruvians; Australian bandits; starving Chinese peasants who were risking their necks by violating the imperial order against leaving their country.  All races flowed together in the muddy alleyways of San Francisco.

 2. Everyday descriptions of how cities make new things possible.  Initially no government official paid any attention to the identities of those arriving.  You could become anyone in San Francisco.

In Allende’s San Francisco women run successful businesses from brothels to restaurants and import-export emporiums.  Women endured hardships to reach San Francisco but many found a new level of respect as they “competed tirelessly and tenaciously with the hardiest men … they worked in jobs forbidden to them elsewhere:” cow girls, mule drivers, bounty hunters, prospectors.  (Given how thorough Allende researches all her historical fiction, it’s reasonable to assume the general historical accuracy of her descriptions.)

Sick white people occasionally venture to Tao’s medical practice in search of a cure, receiving a blend of eastern and western medicine.  And, perhaps most symbolic, over time two people from different continents change how they view each other:

[early on] loving someone from a different race seemed impossible; they believed there was no place for a couple like them anywhere in the world.

Amidst considerable ethnic violence, in the narrow streets of San Francisco people from different backgrounds come to see each other as individuals, rather than “the other.”

3. Some insights into urban poverty.  Thousands flocked to San Francisco with almost nothing, or with a debt to repay.  Others arrived with resources, but squandered them in gambling halls or on failed gold mining ventures (or on women in brothels or booze).  Many scrounged a living however they could.  It was a place of opportunity, but also with no safety net.  Help only came from the generosity of others and from relationship and network building as most immigrants had left their families far behind.

Such is the case in many modern cities: people without a family safety net, who face bad luck or make some unfortunately decisions, end up in poverty. Is that part of the nature of cities?

Category: book reviews, diversity, urban history /

Family-friendly cities: another angle

December 3, 2007 / Wendy Waters / No comments

The blogosphere has seen a recent surge in discussion about how to make a city family friendly.  But in all the discussion about coffee houses and night life, the issue of the employment culture in a city hasn’t come up.  This is what I’ll raise after summarizing the discussion thus far.

Joel Kotkin’s article, “The Rise of Family-Friendly Cities,” began the debate.  He argues that (a) families with young children are the backbone of a strong metropolitan economy (rather than singles or empty nesters, for example) and (b) that families with young children want suburban life and not dense, revitalized-downtown urban living.  He suggests that metropolitan areas are wrong to focus on attracting the young and single by expanding arts and culture opportunities including the restaurant, night club and coffee bar scene.

An author at CEOs for Cities counters some of his arguments.  In particular, (s)he suggests that people don’t generally pack up and move to another city once they get married.  Therefore, attracting young people with skills and education is key, as they are likely to stay once they have a family. My favorite line from this critique is: “Does anyone really believe that one loses one’s taste for latte when one starts pushing a stroller?”  And this isn’t a throw away line.  The same things that attract families with children attract many other demographic groups as well, as Richard Florida argues.

One issue missing is how family friendly the business or employment culture is in a city.   That is, when a man says he wants to leave at 3pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays to coach his daughter’s soccer team (and make up the hours in the evening or on the weekend), how likely is he to have “career trouble” as a result?  Will he be told no?  Will he get less challenging or interesting assignments at work?   Will his co-workers resent him?  Or, will his employer support the initiative and maybe even sponsor the soccer team?

What about when a woman announces that she is pregnant, what is the reaction on the part of co-workers and “the boss?”  Is it, “this is terrible, we’re never hiring a woman again in that role!”  Is she given less challenging or lucrative work?  Is she all-but-fired on the spot (yes, it’s illegal in most developed countries, but there are ways to push someone out)? Or does the company start thinking long term about how to handle the workload during her absence and how to make things easier for her to come back?

In comparing reactions to pregnancy announcements with internet acquaintances in many US cities, and in reading stories on blogs, I was surprised at how negative the reactions were for other people.  My own experiences with both pregnancies were positive — people I worked with and for were happy for me, immediately began making long term plans to handle my absence, and started coming up with flexible solutions to help me return to work and be a productive worker and good parent.   While I’m sure my departure created some chaos and challenges, no one expressed it openly as a frustration against me personally.

If a city’s economic and business community wants to attract young, educated, creative types then surely they want to keep both the men and the women contributing to the economy.  Having a business culture (or government employment culture) that is anti-family in the sense of not being flexible to family needs could drive some young families away — especially if two incomes are necessary (or 1.5 incomes) to afford the mortgage.

My challenge to people with the resources to study such things, is to create a measurement of family-friendliness within a city’s major employers as a proxy for the whole city.  To do this, one could look at official policy of the top 10 or 20 employers; survey employees to see if they indeed have access to these measures.  Senior management and CEOs should also be queried.    As Penelope Trunk has said, look at the CEO if you want to know if the job will offer flexibility and reasonable hours:

It’ll be a great day when CEOs are dismissed for neglecting their kids. Meanwhile, employees, beware: CEOs like Stringer and Immelt have a negative effect on your own ability to keep your personal life intact, because work-life policy starts at the top and trickles down.

When you are looking for a company to work for, look at the CEO… if he works insane hours, you can bet that you will be expected to do the same, on some level. And my gosh, if he refers to you as his family, run!

Family friendliness becomes contagious.  If you look at the big 4 accounting firms, they are all starting to bend over backwards to retain talented employees and family-friendly policies are at the centre.  At a city level, therefore, I would assert that the more companies that support families in their daily policies (such as allowing flexible hours, 3/4 time work, occasional telecommuting, sick days — when the kids are sick), the more rivals that will do the same creating an overall family-friendly city.  And, wouldn’t you know it, there is a growing body of evidence that family friendly policies yield greater returns for corporations that use them.  So, family-friendly policies should therefore benefit a city’s overall economic development.

Category: attracting talent, economic development, urban families, urban lifestyles /

Want to live above a car dealership?

December 2, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 6 comments

At the Northwest corner of Kingsway and 12th Avenue in Vancouver there is a 10 storey condo tower going in above a Honda dealership.  My first reaction was huh?! Followed by “who would want to live there?”

But the more I thought about it, the more this seems like the cutting edge of a trend.

In a geographically constrained city that is growing in population, it represents a needed land use.  Car dealerships — necessary in our automobile oriented society (or a necessarily evil, if you prefer) — tend to occupy a lot of space in order to display vehicles and service them.  As land prices rise, putting a condo tower above makes it affordable to the dealership, and makes the dealership much less of a “waste of space” than if it stood alone.

But the location still leaves something to be desired.  With a  muffler shop and a Toyota dealership across the street, this condominium residence at first struck me as a post-modern, urban version of living on a freeway frontage road lined with automobile related businesses.

However, because “location, location, location” is what drives up real estate prices, perhaps units in this tower will be more affordable than those in trendy Yaletown, Fairview Slopes or Kitsilano.  And, a good elementary school is only two blocks away.  Major transit lines are equally close and downtown Vancouver would be just 5-10 minutes away by car, or perhaps 20 using the bus and 10 minutes by bike.

The next unique use I’m waiting to see are residences above a gas station.

Category: commercial development, real estate, residential development /