Archive for January 8, 2008

The origins of the Federation of North American City States

What could happen if the divide between federal, state and provincial government policy and the needs of metropolitan areas is not resolved soon? How will future historians write about political organization in North America (and the world) during the early 21st century?

Here’s some “social science fiction” – a hypothetical student history paper from the year 2108.

The emergence of the Federated City States of North America in 2027 had roots dating back to the early years of the 21st century.

In the United States elections were fought over distractions and not the real issues facing the country. The war in Iraq, although misguided, tragic and costly was not the biggest threat to the wellbeing of the United States. Nor was terrorism nor abortion rights nor Chinese imports or illegal immigrants from Mexico.

The biggest threats — recognized by many at the time, and also since — were that (1) American citizens and businesses were falling out of sync with the global economy and (2) that the nation’s cities were unsustainable and did not support prosperity as well as those elsewhere in the world. From approximately 2000 onwards, America rapidly became uncompetitive; the dividends from more than a century as a global economic leader were exhausted in a matter of just a few years.

Before we go further some background is required here on what went wrong. America’s 20th century economic strengths had come from its impressive post-secondary education system and ability to be innovative at creating and especially marketing new technology. Open immigration policies in the early 20th century brought motivated, entreprenurial people from around the world to Americas cities. The USA also avoided having international wars fought on its own soil, contributing to a peace and prosperity dividend that lasted several generations.

However, because of its size, the American population and political leaders (and even many academics) tended to view the United States as an isolated “exceptional” island in the world. By the end of the 20th century most of the population either ignored global trends or believed that they didn’t apply to the United States. (Elementary education had also begun to falter such that most Americans could not find other major countries on a map anyway.)

Using fear rather than facts, politicians, the media and others in the early 21st century convinced too many voters that economic survival required the country to close its doors to immigration and to enact barriers to foreign imports — albeit with a few exceptions such as televisions, video game consoles and oil. The latter of which the government subsidized in order to offer voters continued cheap gasoline, which allowed the nation’s political leaders to avoid addressing the need for new styles of urban design as well as transportation systems.

High debts from the growth of government and wars launched during the Bush administration eventually required higher taxes. Public education at all levels saw funding decline. Without immigrants or home grown educated people, innovation fell. Without global competition, and partially because of subsidies, production costs escalated. Soon, the USA wasn’t producing much that anyone else in the world wanted, and global investors became uninterested in the US dollar, dumping them on the market. By 2012 it took $5 US dollars to buy one Euro and the dollar fell to parity with the Chinese Yuan.

City governments meanwhile were trying to offer better services to citizens, in order to create isolated pockets of prosperity. However, replacing the aging road, water, sewer and electrical infrastructure was proving almost impossible. The federal and state governments had no funds to offer and because of trade barriers and protection measures, US cities had to pay twice what those in other countries did for steel, copper, and cement. Without drastically increasing property taxes and/or introducing other levies US cities could not maintain their infrastructure nor improve upon education systems. The few cities — such as Eugene Oregon and Austin Texas — that managed to convince residents and voters that the tax hike was the only way, saw their populations decline drastically.

Meanwhile, infrastructure was decaying and collapsing, everywhere. The most notable events were: the super-earthquake of 2012 that destroyed the Golden Gate Bridge along with numerous highways in the Bay area. A less severe shaker in 2014 took out so much freeway and opened a large fault line such that it split the Seattle metro area in half, with those in Northern suburbs like Redmond and Bellevue virtually unable to reach downtown Seattle by car. A tornado took out two sections of freeway in Dallas in 2013, cutting off the airport . Five Chicago area overpasses simply collapsed in 2014. FEMA collapsed when faced with so many disasters (and decades of mismanagement).

The federal government helped with initial rescue and clean up efforts, but quickly recognized that they could not afford to help rebuild everything and make payments on the debt and continue to fight for oil abroad. Private enterprise helped in some places — it soon cost $50 to cross from Redmond to Seattle on the one repaired section of freeway.

Whether fleeing taxes or escaping from dead infrastructure (or looking for health care), the most talented and hardest working Americans fled — almost one million Americans departed for Canadian cities in 2015 alone (creating both a strain and a tremendous economic boost in Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto, Kitchener, Calgary and Vancouver in particular), and nearly as many departed for other major cities around the world that year. Microsoft moved its global headquarters from Redmond Washington to Vancouver and Richmond BC. American Express went to Toronto from New York. The Bay area also saw an exodous of corporations and their talented workers: Google for example relocated its global headquarters to Kitchener-Waterloo just outside of Toronto, merging with Research in Motion in the process.

Desperate to revitalize their cities, urban political, business and community leaders along with ordinary citizens began proposing solutions.

The Mayor of New York held secret meetings with many of the city’s business and political elite for several years and on July 4, 2016 issued a Declaration of Independence to be voted on in November and take effect January 1, 2018. Although it was uncertain whether the federal government would acknowledge the results, over 80 percent of New Yorkers voted in the referendum and 75% voted in favour of independence.

Bogged down fighting for oil in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan the government in Washington decided it couldn’t fight a war against Americans as well and allowed New York to separate. The city of New York would now have its citizens income taxes and businesses corporate taxes with which to operate the city. Surrounding areas in Pennsylvania, New Jersey quickly voted to join New York. By 2020 the New York metro area had morphed into an independent country. Los Angeles and San Francisco soon followed, first amalgamating the many city-suburbs into one super-metro region, and then enacting independence in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

Able to control their own immigration policies, these cities immediately invited anyone to come, having lost thousands and even millions of people over the previous decade. They also had no reason to restrict trade as they needed cheaper steel, concrete, and other products to rebuild and move forward. Thousands decided to return, lured by cheap real estate and a chance to come home to the cities in which they grew up. Establishing universal health care coverage was also a lure in convincing many aging generation x’ers and millennials to relocate to their former home towns, or a new one.
Why did Canadian cities do so well initially, and then collapse much later? In Canada in the early 21st century a series of minority parliaments meant that governments had to play to cities’ needs in order to gain the urban vote. Numerous effective band-aid solutions occurred, typically in the form of cash infusions to major cities. Major metro areas improved their transit, air quality, and lifestyle amenities such as parks, recreation and entertainment facilities. The federal early childhood education strategy emerged that offered money but delegated management to metro areas. Public education received further funding, and top global test scores that Canadian students were achieving helped to draw people from around the world who wanted to give their children opportunities. This kept Canada together through 2025 while the US split into city-states.

However once the massive (re-)migration south began in 2020, Canadian cities struggled to compete for talented workers , and the corporations that hired them. Begging for federal dollars and grants to build and maintain infrastructure was highly inefficient in comparison to city-states like San Francisco and New York that could budget and plan based on income and sales taxes.

In 2023 when the former US-cities proposed a new federation agreement, modeled after the European Union and Euro currency system, residents in many Canadian cities saw this as a solution. The Greater Toronto Area, which by this time included much of the Golden Horseshoe–followed the New York model and succeeded from the Canadian federation in 2024, joining the Federation the same year. By 2027 the remaining major metro areas of Canada had followed suit and joined the Federation.

Residents of satellite cities and hinterlands gradually voted to join one city-state or another.

What was remarkable in this period was how fast North American cities were transformed into sustainable entities when unshackled from a slow, conflict ridden federal government.

The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

- Alexis de Tocqueville in 1840

5 noteworthy happenings of 2007 for cities

In no particular order…

1. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis. This tragedy illustrates the crisis in urban infrastructure funding around North America, driven by the fact that higher levels of government control funding to maintain and upgrade the major highways and bridges on which city life depends. The bursting of levies in New Orleans following Katrina, or in Reno this week offer further examples. This issue will be with us for a long time (and I hope will be discussed as an election issue).

2. The growing number of mortgage foreclosures in the United States and the related decline in housing values in many cities. The fact that not every city is experiencing a significant decline in home values is also noteworthy. Not only is the world spiky, but America’s economic fortunes are as well.

3. In the Greater Toronto Area more condominiums were purchased last year than single family houses. This is a profound shift for a metro region that has been struggling with sprawl as well as solid economic and population growth. If Toronto — one of North America’s largest metro areas — can make a shift toward more sustainable urban development, there is hope for many other places. This shift is of course related to the steadily rising price of single family homes. But it shows that rather than move to more distant Barrie or Ancaster, some people are choosing a smaller home.

4. Canadian cities’ infrastructure needs gained attention and funding. The Conference Board of Canada published “Mission Possible” articulating the importance of cities to the national economy (65% of new jobs generated in cities, for example). Subsequently, more federal government funding announcements began to happen in cities like Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver.

5. Oil neared a record $100/barrell (and surpassed it early in 2008). Cities run on oil. It’s used to make roads, fuel cars, heat homes and businesses and generate electricity (in some places). Oil also causes a lot of pollution, damaging our local and global environments. Assuming this trend continues into 2008 and beyond, it will begin o impact how people live in cities, and urban policy.

…feel free to add your thoughts on the most lasting developments for cities of 2007:

Lessons from my own relationship with Vancouver

Many urban policies now focus on attracting talented citizens. But they often focus on appealing to those in their twenties — people often without children who spend time at night clubs, cafes, restaurants. However, a successful city will find a way to embrace those 20-somethings as their lifestyles change — and to attract more experienced people who are at different stages in their lives.

Here’s how things have changed for me, as an example.

One key reason I moved back to Vancouver after grad school in the US was for the international feel and focus of the city. I also missed being able to travel by transit and foot to my favorite destinations. This seems like a more human pace to me than driving in my own car.

As I settled down more (got a little older), my routine involved walking and taking the skytrain downtown to work, cycling to destinations occasionally on weekends. Restaurants, grocery stores, specialty stores and cafes were (are) all easy walks from home. I rarely drove my old Honda Civic Hatchback — a tank of gasoline would last a couple months.

My ecological footprint was quite modest.

When I had a baby, some of that changed. First, we sold the Civic and invested in a mini-van, which doesn’t exactly “sip ” gasoline (but otherwise is quite a practical vehicle). Second, when I returned to work, the only daycare I could find was in a distant neighbourhood. This meant driving to work so that I could pick my son up afterwards (my husband did the drop off). Third, even when a subsequent child care option opened near our home, I continued to drive to work. Driving takes 10 minutes versus 30-35 by walking and transit. Although parking costs $10/day, and I missed the more relaxed pace of a walk and 10 minute metro ride, driving offered me 40-45 very valuable minutes in my long, flex-working hours day that started at 6:30 AM and ended at 11 PM.

Even now with two kids, we have no intention of moving to the suburbs; we enjoy the community-focused and walkable neighbourhood in which we live. When we do have a babysitter, it’s nice to be able to hit a great restaurant or pub only a few blocks from home (if the baby needs me, I can easily walk home). And, there are so many young families (as well as empty nesters, childless couples of all ages, and others) that it’s easy to connect with others with whom we have lots in common (our tribe). We all visit the cafes, parks and playgrounds.

Lessons: If we can generalize from my experience, here are some thoughts:

1. Great neighborhoods tend to keep people at all stages of their lives. Walkability along with amenities for people of all ages from birth to retirement are important.

2. Family ecological footprints would be lower if cities did more to encourage (rather than discourage) a variety of quality child care options in all neighbourhoods.

3. More frequent bus service to downtown or to the nearest metro station combined with neighborhood childcare would allow more people to take transit.

There are probably a few more…

Cities as agents of change

“A new urban global community is emerging in which cities are collaborating with each other on common problems while simultaneously competing with each other in the global marketplace. The days of sitting back and waiting for national governments to act are becoming a memory, especially as cities are faced with challenges that require immediate action.”

- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the Economist (pointer CEOs for Cities)

Many city governments, residents, and organizations are taking action to circumvent inaction at higher levels of government. Take the health of citizens.

As of January 1, 2008 Calgary banned trans-fats at fast food restaurants. New York did so last year. Assuming these food ingredients are as unhealthy as claimed, federal government food agencies in Canada and the USA should have banned them long ago. For whatever reason, they did not. And so we have city governments being the agents that push for change.

Another health measure cities are tackling is cigarette smoke. For example, San Diego has banned smoking at public parks and beaches. Vancouver city council has banned it on outdoor patios. Many other cities have similar laws, or have proposed them. In some cases, city governments and the residents who elected them can provide inspiration to higher levels of government to pass broader restrictions such as state-wide or province wide bans.

Automobile exhaust and traffic accidents are other health hazards in cities.   Stockholm and London have congestion pricing — and Bloomberg wants it for New York — charging high fees for drivers who insist on driving in the city in peak times.  The city of Calgary Health Region wants a share of the photo radar ticket revenue to pay for hospital services for traffic accident victims.

Cities are chronically underfunded to provide infrastructure and many other services for their residents. So it is intriguing that city governments are finding other ways to provide a stable foundation for their residents and economy.

San Diego – city or sprawling cool beach towns

 Christmas Day on Pacific Beach in San Diego was warm.  Surfers caught waves; children splashed in the ocean; families had their annual portraits taken.  A few beach stalls, coffee bars, and stores were open and we enjoyed a beer or two (legally!) on the sand at sunset.   That was our first day in San Diego and we could only think “wow,” how nice.   We casually explored the city over the next week.  Here are some impressions.

Many of the beach-based communities (especially Pacific, Mission, Ocean) seemed like something from yester-year.  Art deco 1930s styles butted against some 1950s facades in the commercial areas, clashing with a few more modern supermarkets or a Taco Bell.  But the big national and global chains were generally absent from the neighborhoods — smaller, family run businesses seemed to dominate in districts of small stores.

Surfers clad in wet suits walked to their Volkswagen vans parked on nearby streets.  They then casually wrapped a towel around their waist and changed clothes.  Down to earth.   Older, small cottages crowded up near the sea shore.  However, many now rent for hundreds of dollars per night, or are available for sale for nearly $1 Million (non ocean front but steps from the ocean) for about 800 square feet on a tiny lot.

These beach communities reminded me of the sea side towns along highway 101 in Northern California and Oregon — except the latter are isolated.  These cool San Diego beach communities are attached to a substantial urban area. And yet somehow seem unspoiled, like time had passed them by.

Some streets (particularly in Ocean Beach) reminded me of Tucson, near the University of Arizona where I went to grad school.  Smaller 1930s single-level homes, with palm trees and desert plants.  Traces of Spanish and Mexican heritage can be found if you look for it.

Downtown was an odd mish mash of architecture.  There were some hispanic style buildings as well as a couple grand art deco styled edifices.  There was some less pleasing-to-the-eye modernist architecture.  And, there were some condo towers that looked straight out of Vancouver (and they are being done by some of the big Vancouver developers — in fact, they looked so similar that I wonder if architectural drawings were re-used!).  But it did look like downtown was coming to life — it seemed a little quiet, but it was only 55 degrees (13 celcius) the day we were there, cold for the locals.

San Diego also has the naval and military presence, and out in the sprawling eastern suburbs numerous leading technology firms.

What seemed a little odd to me was how spread out everything was.   Somehow, given the great climate and setting, I would have expected higher density housing and business infrastructure to have happened by now (something more like Vancouver or Portland and less like Dallas).   And public transportation? pretty limited because of the low density communities spread out over such a wide area.

Yet, San Diego strikes me as a city to watch over the next decades.  It will be interesting to see what planning policy choices happen.

  • Will they go for higher density near beaches to keep living in the vicinity affordable to more people?  or stick with the current lower density approach, which will soon make even a small shack a multi-million dollar home.
  • Will San Diego be able to attract younger knowledge workers?  living in the eastern suburbs did not seem nearly as appealing as dwelling near the beach, and if the latter becomes unaffordable I could see this being a challenge.
  • Will downtown living really take off? or will the Boza towers become giant white out-of-place elephants?

These are the impressions of me as a vacationing tourist.  I’d be curious what those of you who know the city far better have to say…