Archive for January 28, 2009

Stimulus and Suburbia

January 28, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 5 comments

A number of urbanista bloggers have expressed disappointment with President Obama’s stimulus package and its focus on road infrastructure over transit (and tax cuts over transit).

As vehicle miles are declining and dense urban areas gentrifying, advocating for better transit certainly makes sense from a long-term planning perspective.

However, I think there is a good argument to be made that focusing on stimulating suburbia will be more likely to give the economy the boost it needs right now.

First, if road infrastructure improves, driving will be easier (at least temporarily, but that’s the only concern right now).  While gas is cheap, the combination of better roads and cheap fuel might encourage automobile sales — even sales of big motor vehicles still sitting around in dealer inventories .  And the last thing the Treasury and the Politicians and taxpayers who support the Big Three auto bail out would want is for those companies to go down anyway because no one bought the cars.

Second, if road infrastructure improves, then the unsold housing in suburbia might be more attractive.  Most of the unsold housing in outlying suburbs is low density, so wouldn’t support transit well.

Third, White House encouragement of better fuel efficiency standards and investment in greener automotive technology could help prolong the era of the individual automobile, and therefore suburbia.   At least, I see this as a hope in the policy — that the American car-centred way of life can continue but in a more sustainable way.

If I’m right, the stimulus package is partially designed to support the suburban way of life.  The question will be whether this can turn into something sustainable, or is just postponing the inevitable collapse of this economic and social way of life.

Another concern: if gasoline prices roar back to mid 2008 levels quickly, this could undermine the whole stimulus plan.

Category: economic development, sprawl, transportation /

Is infrastructure spending the answer?

January 19, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 3 comments

Many North American cities face crumbling infrastructure along with a need to offer residents new mass transit options.  During the current economic slow down, the conventional wisdom seems to be that investing in infrastructure is a win – win, offering short term employment and long term needs.

But, what if many of the people needed to design, manage or build the infrastructure are not available?   Or, only available at premium salaries and contracts.   What if the heavy machinery and resource inputs needed are not locally produced?  Will the stimulous still work?  Will this put to work the people who are unemployed?

These are questions raised by a recent Globe and Mail article by Tavia Grant. 

The knocks against infrastructure are that it is not as labour-intensive as it used to be, tends to employ many more men than women and, these days, requires skills in engineering, technology and architecture that are already in short supply, critics say.

“A lot of this ethos of infrastructure-equals-jobs comes from the 1930s when you put a lot of guys to work digging ditches and shovelling gravel. And we don’t do that any more,” said Dr. Jim McNiven, professor emeritus and former dean of management at Dalhousie University….

“If you want to create jobs, as opposed to buy equipment, you do daycare expansions, more help in senior citizens’ homes and more community services. And you need to be more imaginative.”

He’s not alone in his skepticism. As Canadian employment losses mount, questions are emerging over what will best bolster job growth as the employment outlook deteriorates.

While America may have a few more unemployed engineers than Canada right now, I think these challenging questions are still relevant.

Maybe Obama’s interest in community service offers an equally valid approach — consider it investing in America’s “social infrastructure.”

Category: communities, economic development, national politics, revitalization, transportation /

Transit should be an essential service

January 16, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 12 comments

A transit strike has afflicted Ottawa — Canada’s capital city — for over five weeks.   Ottawa usually has a fairly good transit system, relied on by many people who have chosen not to have a car (or a second family vehicle) as well as those who cannot afford one.

People who have made the ecologically and/or economical choice to drive less have been held hostage by the strike, being waged during the height of winter with temperatures around -30.  Seniors, parents with young children, and others who cannot handle time in the bitter cold and use transit are stuck at home.    Presumably many people are struggling to get to work — and they will think that decision not to own a car.  The economy of Ottawa is no doubt suffering because people can’t get out.

In North America many urban planners, leaders, and  everyday citizens have been trying to reduce congestion, pollution and promote transit use.

But, if residents cannot rely on the transit,  they won’t give up their cars.  If oil returns to $137/barrel and gasoline to $1.50/litre in Canada or $4/gallon — or more — in the US, many more people will rely on transit — as will the city’s economy.

City and regional governments need to think ahead here.  Transit should be considered like electricity or fire fighting — an essential service.

Category: ecological issues, economic development, planning policy, transportation, urban technologies /

Havana and the US Embargo

January 14, 2009 / Wendy Waters / No comments

Havana Cuba is one of the more fascinating places to visit in a world rapidly becoming generic.  It also represents a phenomenal piece of world urban history — and some of it may not survive much longer.  Threats include further decay from a lack of resources to maintain colonial and other historic buildings and streets as well as the possibility of an onslaught of post-embargo American chains and big boxes.

What’s so amazing?  Well, in addition to the unique culture and spirit of the people, it’s the architecture and overall layout.  First, the city itself dates back to 1515, the first European city in the Americas.  The Spanish insisted on their colonial capitals being built to a grand style, so the colonial architecture is amazing.  So many aged buildings in one place.

Second, the city has attracted wealth for hundreds of years — right up until the Revolution in 1959.  While much of the money may have been ill-gotten, or based on exploiting many Cubans, a result of having it was a continued interest in grand architecture right to 1959.   The 1930s Art Deco is so cool — especially the Bacardi (as in rum) building.

And the grand boulevards are simply inspiring.  It’s like they connect the past to the present.  Having 1950s cars driving buy doesn’t hurt the atmosphere either. 

The Revolutionary Castro government largely left the historic architecture alone, and constructed their people’s plazas and buildings away from the historic centre.  Blessedly there were few Cuban experiments with Modernist design.  So, in many ways, it’s a time warp — and to attract tourists in recent years, the government has worked hard to restore a few of these buildings, opening them to travelers.

But, there are so many buildings with architectural or other historic significance — houses, apartments, museums, offices, churches, etc. — that the cash-strapped Cuban government has not been able to help maintain them.  Foreign remittances until recently clearly helped a little, especially for some of the houses.

Many buildings may not survive much longer without capital investment  — especially if powerful storms come through.

Some argue that the end of the US Embargo will save Havana.  Or will it.  As a Havana Planner noted a few years ago:

“An invasion of one Madonna is equal to ten Marine divisions”

Category: urban history /

Not the time for short term thinking

January 6, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 2 comments

Many smart business leaders and investment managers are taking advantage of the economic slow down to stop, think, and put into place the foundations for the next 5 to 10 year business cycle — and even thinking much further ahead than that.

Unfortunately, it seems that many city governments, and those at other levels that impact cities are taking the opposite approach.  Some are even backtracking on progressive, forward-looking plans initiated before the recession hit.

Take San Francisco’s proposed congestion pricing strategy.  The mayor and other urban leaders previously saw reducing congestion as vital to the long term livability of the region and especially the metro core.  Now they are seeing the economic downturn as a reason to backtrack.  From the New York Times (pointer Frances Bula):

During his second inaugural address a year ago, San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsom, called congestion pricing “the single greatest step we can take to protect our environment and improve our quality of life.”

Last week, however, the mayor’s office offered a more tepid endorsement.

“The devil is in the details,” said a spokesman, Nathan Ballard. While Mr. Newsom supports congestion management, Mr. Ballard said, “Given the challenging economic times, we would hate to impose too heavy a burden on commuters.”

Commuters are paying less than half price for gas!  The congestion charge would likely still have the vast majority paying less to commute than they did 6 months ago.

City governments, urban business leaders, and all of us voters and citizens need to be thinking about what we want our cities to be like when the economy is next running at full tilt, and over the next 10-20 years. If we want less congestion, more amenities, more walkability, etc. — and more desirebility as a place to live for talented people (which will attract tax-paying corporate employers)  then now is the time to push forward on projects that enhance this.

This is not the time to prop up an older way of doing things for whatever short term gain may be had.

I am concerned that aspects of the stimulus plans that Obama’s administration is formulating will end up being a waste of money and actually set America’s cities back.  More freeway capacity will tend to prop up suburbia, rather than support the revitalization of downtowns and inner urban neighbourhoods.

Once the economy rebounds, many features seen in 2007 and early 2008 will return: high oil prices; citizen concern for the environment; popular interest in living closer to places of work, entertainment and recreation.

These social and economic features that characterized the end of the last cycle should be kept in mind by everyone from urban residents to urban planners and politicians.

Category: city hall, ecological issues, economic development, national politics, planning policy, resident attitudes /