Archive for May 29, 2009

Urban families after the great reset

May 29, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 18 comments

As energy becomes expensive and major cities increase their status as economic drivers, families who live in them will inhabit smaller spaces than many do today. Some are already there, and from their lifestyles we can glimpse into the future.

Melanie, her husband and two children live in their 950 square foot condominium in Vancouver’s Yaletown district, adjacent to downtown.  She also runs a pre-and-post-natal fitness (Fit4Two) business from home (although she gives classes and does personal training at local rec centres or outside).  Here are some perspectives on the future, based on their experiences.

Idea #1 – Families of the future valuing time more than space

One main reason Melanie’s family lives in the urban core is to avoid commuting.  If they lived in a suburb, her husband — who works long hours in the film industry — would rarely see the kids between commuting and the job’s hours.  Melanie’s business requires she be near many pending and new moms, and being in Yaletown puts thousands of potential clients within an easy distance to make with a stroller.

Saving time and valuing time as much or more than money or space is becoming a new feature of 21st century life for many young adults.  Although commuting between distant suburban locations and urban cores where the jobs are packed will in the future continue to be possible using various transit and shared options that will emerge, many families will reject this option preferring to focus on the housing option that allows for more quality time together.

Idea #2 – Two bedroom apartments or condos can accommodate a family of four (although some modifications would help)

In the future, although some families will manage to afford single family homes in close proximity to jobs and other needed amenities, more will live in duplexes, triplexes, townhomes and apartment buildings in the bigger, more dynamic cities.

Many families of three of four will live in 2 bedroom condos — so what will that be like?  and what lessons could the architects and developers of future buildings need?

For Melanie’s family, the bedrooms are just that — places to sleep and store your clothes.  They selected their unit in part because the suite maximized space in a well-layed out kitchen-dining-living area.  With Ikea organizing technology in place, the living space offers room for children’s toys; entertaining space for having a few friends over and a vertically-organized home office that partially folds away when not in use.

What isn’t working quite so well for them is the small size of the second bedroom, which must accommodate two children in separate beds.  Bunk beds are not appropriate for children under age 10.  So Melanie is looking into “trundle beds” where one bed pulls out from under the other and tucks away during the day.  A better designed unit for the future family home might offer a second bedroom big enough to accommodate two twin beds.  Maybe furniture makers can get creative as well — how about twin murphy beds?

 Idea # 3 – Families will use creative strategies to avoid over-accumulation of stuff that won’t fit.

Melanie’s general rule: When something new comes home, something else has to go.  This applies to clothes, toys, sports equipment, etc.  Melanie thinks this rule helps kids appreciate what they have and learn that they can’t have everything they want — there are trade offs in life (if you want this, then you won’t be able to have that).  Birthdays and Christmas are focused around receiving one big gift, and one set of (out-of-town) grandparents contributes to a plane ticket fund instead of giving gifts, allowing the whole family to visit at least once per year.

In the future, with fewer families having a basement, garage or spare room into which to dump excess stuff, websites like craigslist and eBay could be even busier as families seek to unload one set of belongings and find others.

#3B – the experience economy rises out of condos

As the children get older, Melanie hopes to shift from giving the kids toys to giving them experiences.

Indeed, many individuals and families are already trying to consume in the experience economy rather than the non-durable goods one, regardless of whether they have kids or live in a condo.  They spend their money on experiences (whether a trip to the spa, having nails done, a fancy dinner, enjoying a $5 latte with a friend, etc.) rather than on lavish belongings if they have to choose.

Families in condos might become a dominant consumer of “experience” rather than what can be purchased at Toys ‘r Us.  (And there might be some great business opportunities in catering to these future families).  I know, or have known, many families who use strategies like this — many young children can understand the choice between receiving lots of toys or getting to go to Hawaii or Disneyland for Christmas.

***

Do you live in a condo? what insight does this give you into future North American families?

What about participating in the experience economy over the non-durable goods one?

Thanks Melanie, for sharing.

Category: "back to the center", communities, downtowns, residential development, urban families /

Can America be America without sprawl?

May 27, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

Spreading out into the suburbs allowed Americans to continue a number of long-standing cultural threads taught to them about their nation’s past.  Many Americans may therefore not easily change and relocate to communities of higher density living.

Europeans came to the United States in the 17th through 19th centuries for several reasons.  These included wanting to escape government (state) persecution of their beliefs as well as having a chance to own land and be more independent.

The new US constitution written in 1789 assumed that Americans would be small independent farmers.  The idea of the rugged, self-reliant individual as citizen emerged.  The first amendment guaranteed citizens right to keep arms, to prevent the state (the government) from removing their liberties (keeping in mind citizens were only white men who owned property at this time).

Living in a prosperous city — then as now — requires a different mindset.   The agents of the state — police, laws, bylaws, — uphold property rights and social safety, in return for being paid in the form of taxes.  Being a city resident requires trusting others to look after aspects of your life.  Taking the law into your own hands theoretically results in becoming an outlaw yourself, and criminal prosecution. Being in a more densely populated area also means getting along with people who are not necessarily like you — America’s mythical founders, the pilgrims,  went to the new world to establish a community that included only themselves.  Others since moved West with the same goal.

As the United States spread west, conquering nature it also forged the notion that everyone (well everyone who was white and male, anyway) should have the option to have a farm.  And as new states were created, they were all roughly the same size.  This idea of equality in land size emerged.

In modern times, automobiles allowed for people who no longer worked on farms — instead in city factories or office buildings or other edifices — to all have the dream of the same house with a yard.  The suburbs sprawled out from cities just as America sprawled out from the East Coast decades and centuries before.

One reason for the push west — and the push to the suburbs — has been a desire to be different from Europeans.  Immigrants often deliberately left behind the constraints of the old world.  America was founded on not being Europe.

More recently, Europeans have been portrayed as those who live in cities, speak multiple languages, spend their time philosophizing, and don’t believe in guns or SUVs.    Americans are frequently taught to think of themselves as the opposite.

With this historical foundation, it could take a while for many to believe that it is as American to live in a condo by the river in Portland as to have a suburban home in Plano Texas or to ride a bike to work in 20 minutes rather than drive the SUV for 45.

If a Great Reset is to happen, the hope is probably in younger and future generations rejecting some of the historical narrative of what it is to be American.  The more Hispanic, black, Asian and other immigrant (or children of immigrant) voices that can be heard, the more the traditional myth can be challenged and be exposed for what it is — a narrow, exclusionary view of America that doesn’t account for the experience of the majority of it’s citizens in the 21st century.

Only then might being an educated, creative, tolerant urban dweller be an image more connected with the narrative of America’s history.   Until it ceases to fit with how many Americans view themselves and their country, suburbia will remain a dominant force in the American economy — to its detriment, most likely.

Category: resident attitudes, sprawl, urban history /

Lesson from India on affordable housing

May 23, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 8 comments

In dynamic, popular urban cores there is a constant dilemma about housing affordability.  Because more people want to live in an area than there are homes, rents and sale prices can be high.

One solution is to demand a certain number of rental units or non-market units for sale when developers build out a new area (whether greenfill or brownfill).   But, government agencies involved in decisions often insist that all housing be of a certain size with particular amenities, such that it becomes more expensive to build and thus the city ends up with fewer units, and lower supply with the same demand brings higher prices.

Take this new community in India as an example of what homes need, and what they don’t — brought to you by Tata, the makers of the $1500 car.The development of Shubh Griha offers three home types ranging from 283 square feet to 465 square feet.  They’re basic, but affordable and allow many more units to be built within the same sized apartment building as would be the case in most North American cities.

No, this size and simplicity wouldn’t suit everyone.  But many families long for a well-built, simple and more affordable home in the city and would likely give up size in return for everything else.

In North America more two bedroom units might be appropriate for families who don’t all want to sleep in the same room.  But, why not on the same scale?  a 400 s.f. 2 bedroom place?

Looking ahead to an urban world with high energy prices, maybe there is room for housing that’s simpler, smaller and more ecological.  Plus, more people living in the same area provides a big enough market for frequent mass transit and offers enough customers to support more local businesses, reducing the need to drive.

Smaller homes seem like a good fit.

Category: ecological issues, planning policy, urban technologies /

Social media and community engagement

May 15, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 5 comments

Many popular culture analysts noted the decline of community in the later decades of the 20th century.  People seemed to “tune out” and become uninterested in world events, local politics and issues that affected their daily lives.  Some blamed television, others the double-income family combined with longer commutes that left little time to connect with those who lived nearby — and little reason to do so.  Shopping at automobile-centred power centres and supercentres some distances from home combined with working in isolated business parks while carting the kids off to distant private schools would hardly generate any reason to connect with people local to your home.

The 21st century has brought the decline of passive TV watching and the rise of social media.  It has also brought a renewed interest in cities, density and getting out of the automobile, at least occasionally, and connecting at a slower speed.

This combination of citizens living in closer quarters, spending less time in their cars, and more time with their families, friends — and on social media — may be the foundation of a new community structure.

In my neighborhood we have a private Yahoo e-mail group, “Parents in ‘The Area’”  where we share ideas and help answer each others questions about everything from parenting to renting to home renovation dilemmas.  As this group has evolved, what’s interesting is how different the member backgrounds are.  If not for this social media, we might not have otherwise connected in the ways we have.  An excerpt from something I posted to the group as we pondered our raison d’etre last week:

What I really appreciate about the group is the opportunity to converse with people who bring a variety of different — and even diametrically opposed — perspectives to our community. The one thing we have in common is that we are parents, trying to do the best we can.

In today’s “Multi-channel” universe of information, ironically the tendency has been for people to shut out or ignore perspectives that are not their own – you can tune in to your own custom “channel” if you want.  Our group somewhat forces all of us to tune in to many “channels” of information – perspectives — that we otherwise might not have tried to understand.
Just think, within our group we have:

  • Parents who vaccinate, and those who do not, and those who do so selectively
  • Carnivores, vegetarians and vegans
  • People who watch lots of TV, only a little, or none at all
  • Families who generally believe in western medicine, and those who prefer eastern or alternative approaches
  • Families who home school, families who support public education, families who use religious or independent schools
  • Gay families, straight families, single-parent families
  • People who rent their homes and people who own their homes, and people who own homes and rent suites within them
  • People who work in a wide variety of jobs and professions
  • People who prefer to buy most things for their children new, and those that prefer (or need) to buy most things second hand

It is becoming harder to find communities like ours who share in a non-judgmental way.
So we should all give ourselves a pat on the back for what we’ve created.

And, in still thinking about this group, and in how younger generations use social media seamlessly (and more than I do), I can’t help but think that maybe, technology will now lead North Americans back into forging tighter local communities.

Is social media helping you connect with people or businesses where you live?

Category: communities, resident attitudes, urban history, urban lifestyles, urban technologies /

Car-free communities in the 21st century

May 13, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 6 comments

 Older neighbourhoods in European and some North American cities often work well as pedestrian and cycling zones because they emerged before the automobile existed.   Any new community, by law, typically has to allow for automobiles both in roadway allowances and parking regulations.

But what would happen in the 21st-century if you built a community that deliberately excluded automobiles. In Vauban, Germany, they decided to find out as the New York Times’ Elizabeth Rosenthal describes (via CEOs for Cities):

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car-owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

The community was built in 2006 and has 5,500 residents all living within 1 square mile.

Rosenthal mentions a new community, Quarry Village, is proposed for Oakland California that also limits automobile access.  However, mortgage lenders are reluctant to support the project citing concerns that houses with no parking will not hold their value in car-centric America.

Category: planning policy, residential development, urban history, urban technologies /

Special civic advocates for walking? cycling?

May 10, 2009 / Wendy Waters / 2 comments

Cities need to offer residents and businesses a variety of transportation options to maximize livability.  Only facilitating automobile travel makes for a polluted, congested, and concrete-freeway-based environment.  Only facilitating bikes or walking in 21st century life and you hamper citizens’ ability to go any distance or carry very much while doing it.   As recently discussed, some argue that a plurality of viable transport options are what make a neighbourhood and city more livable.

So, would city benefit from a special advocate for each type of transportation option?

A professor of Urban Studies at Simon Fraser University believes Vancouver needs a pedestrian advocate.  Along with some other dedicated walkers, he’s frustrated by the new bicycle-friendly policy to take over a one vehicle lane and one sidewalk on the Burrard Bridge between downtown and Kitsilano.

Portland Oregon apparently has one (according to the professor) — although in googling to learn more, I could only find out about a paid coordinator for the Willamette Pedestrian Advocacy Committee, which is a volunteer-based community organization to promote pedestrian-friendly policies in greater Portland.

In looking at the dramatic swing to bicycle friendly policy with the new Vancouver city administration (the new mayor is an avid cyclist, commuting by bike to many city events), I’m inclined to think that cities don’t need single-transportation-mode advocates.  Focusing on improving the situation for just one transportation option, can result in ignoring the implications for other users, as the SFU prof notes.

I’d like to see cities embracing a position for balancing citizens’ transportation options.  The holder would be someone knowledgeable and sympathetic to all forms of getting around a city — motor vehicle, bus, metro, street car, bicycle, walking, stroller, wheelchair, etc.  And their role would be to consider the implications of any proposed policies on all of these transportation options.

Cities themselves generate volunteer-based citizen lobby groups for cycling, walking, driving, transit use, etc.  This “transportation advocate” I’m envisioning would also be their liaison to city hall, helping to turn their ideas into workable civic policy proposals that will improve the livability of the region.

Maybe a multi-modal transportation advocate position would be something CEOs for Cities could consider in their efforts to re-envision America’s cities and come up with strategies to help them emerge from this recession or “reset” ready to support 21st century economic, social and ecological needs.

Category: city hall, communities, downtowns, ecological issues, planning policy, revitalization, transportation, urban technologies /

Diversity of transport essential for livability

May 2, 2009 / Wendy Waters / One comment

This weekend I attended Gordon Price’s “Jane’s Walk” through Vancouver’s West End — a densely populated neighbourhood situated between downtown, English Bay beach, and Stanley Park.  Price told the neighbourhood’s story, connecting it to more universal ideas including those of Jane Jacobs about how city’s work, and mixing in wisdom from his years on city council contributing to many of the zoning and decisions that have made Vancouver the successful city it is today.

One lesson from Vancouver’s West End: much of its livability comes from the balance of transportation modes in the area.  Neighbourhood roads that serve the 1960s and 1970s era mid rise apartment blocks are quiet.  People walk, cycle and roller blade along them joined only by the occasional motor vehicle, most likely local traffic.  Driver’s are generally patient and accept their equal status on these roads with human-propelled options.  Every residence is within 4 blocks of a busier street with an electric trolley-bus transit route (the modern day street car) as well as a variety of shops, cafes, restaurants and other businesses.

Price used these observations on the walking tour to point out that a vibrant, livable community needs to support four types of transportation:

  1. Walking
  2. Cycling
  3. Transit
  4. Motor Vehicles

Numerous people who want to promote livability in cities think of the car as the enemy.  Price argued that the car has a place in our lives and in a well designed city.  The problem with cars comes from designing space that only accommodates private automobiles, crowding out walking, cycling and transit.  Sprawl tends to do this, for example, separating people from each other as well as the amenities they need such as grocery stores, shops, restaurants, schools, recreation centres, etc.  Jane Jacobs recognized this long ago.

Closing down commercial streets to cars, making them pedestrian malls, tends to fail, Price reminded the group.  Both transit and cars bring customers into the area, and keep “eyes on the street”(A Jacobs-ism).  This access combined with walkability and cycle access allows that many more people to support the businesses that provide what residents need and appreciate.

Category: transportation, urban history, urban technologies /