Archive for January 12, 2010

Libraries as public 3rd places

Seth Godin and CEOs for Cities raised the issue of what do to with public libraries in the 21st century.  Over time, all books will be available on the internet, which will mean fewer people checking out the hard-cover, hard copy versions.

Seth thinks they should “train people to take intellectual initiative.”  Not a bad goal, but we have universities for that and increasingly they are reaching out to the broader community.

So what to do with all these small and large public places dotted around a city that belong to the taxpayers.  Why not make them into “third places” that are free as well as community resource points.  Currently, small business people and others wanting to network or discuss an idea need to spend money to “rent” a table at Starbucks or another wireless cafe.

What if libraries offered comfortable spaces for people to meet and chat, as well as spaces for silent reading or working –free wireless, of course, plus the ability to borrow a computer while you’re there.  Maybe for a small fee (or free), small meeting rooms could be reserved complete with technology like projectors.  Maybe local groups including meetup ones would have a free place to meet: a novel writing support group or political campaigners.

What if these existing places could also become community resource points staffed by volunteers.   Tourist and travel information in one corner, help with your resume in another, tax advice in a third place and maybe legal help at certain times in another area.

At certain hours childrens’s programing (typically available now) would continue– story time, song time, etc.
All the books libraries currently own would still be available and people would still come to read them.  Children love the magic of books with bright colours, fun pictures and pages they can “turn by self”and this won’t change when it’s possible to download the same books.

Rooms to watch classic movies and documentaries could exist for those who prefer to watch them in a group and discuss the content afterward with fellow aficionados.

What do you think? Would this work?

Think small: A non-market housing supply solution?

Planners and politicians in many cities — especially those with high housing costs — face a dilemma when it comes to providing non-market housing (sometimes called social housing).  The most cost effective solutions in terms of dollars per unit can be to build a big apartment block in a struggling area of the city where land is cheaper.

Unfortunately, this can tend to reinforce a poor ghetto’s status, which can make it harder for individuals and families to make those broader connections in a wider community that help break the cycle of poverty, especially for kids.

Better for many people is to be mixed into market-housing neighbourhoods.  In a recent interview, a child who grew up in a smaller Vancouver social housing project located in a generally wealthier area of the city noted how she and her cohorts in the social housing townhouses went to school with the children of successful business people and university professors.  As a result, she argued, the high school performance and university graduation rate of these children from the social housing complex was quite high.  She was very grateful for having had the opportunity to be a part of this high performing peer group as it allowed her to break a cycle of poverty in her family.

Her experience was from the 1970s.  Today, it would can be hard to get a medium-sized non-market housing project approved in an existing neighbourhood.  So what if those seeking to provide non-market housing thought much smaller.

In many cities across North America there is a movement to increase the density of existing and sometimes older areas by allowing duplexes, secondary suites, and laneway houses be added to existing properties.

What if social housing organizations went around existing, and maybe gentrifying, neighbourhoods and bought up suitable existing houses that could be converted into 2 or 3 units.

Those who would benefit from the homes could be invited or required to provide some labor during the renovation. This would keep costs down along with using the existing home’s “solid old bones” as a base.

Buying the occasional fixer-upper house that comes up for sale anywhere in the city would eliminate the social housing ghettos.   The city could even mandate there not be more than one house on any given block.

Surely this has been tried somewhere.  Does it work?  Can it work?

Given the amazing cost overruns at a Vancouver social housing project (I think the units will cost tax payers over $700,000 each), buying up existing houses just seems easier.

Note: by social housing I’m not talking about homeless shelters, but homes for those with jobs, or students with children, for example, who just cannot afford the escalating costs of housing in some of North America’s more dynamic cities.

Five Phenomena of the Century (so far)

The first decade of the 21st century has come to a close.  For the first blog post of the new decade, I decided to ponder the most significant trends of the past decade related to cities or affecting urban spaces.

Below are the five most significant happenings, in no particular order because they are all somewhat interrelated.

1. Widespread recognition of how industry clusters work and the importance of focusing on those in furthering an urban economy. For a while, every city tried to attract every type of industry.  In the late 20th century leaders of cities everywhere wanted bio tech companies, an auto plant, the next Microsoft, fashion designers and the movie industry to flourish in their town.  More recently, city government and business groups have spent time examining the industries where the region has a comparative advantage over other places: sectors where they have more jobs on average and likely some ingredients or a history that gives the industry an authenticity in the community.  Such strengths can then be used to attract more people and organizations in that cluster.

2.  Richard Florida’s publishing of “Rise of the Creative Class.” The book helped explain the human dimension behind why clustering works and how cities need to foster a mix of “talent, tolerance and technology” in order to attract and retain knowledge-based industries and workers.  The book spawned new ways that planners, developers, business leaders, and scholars think about cities (whether they agree or not, everyone has to respond to these ideas).

3. Rise of Asian cities as global commercial, manufacturing and financial hubs:

  • 20 years ago, when China was massacring citizens at Tienanmen Square no one could have predicted the country of today and the urban revolution there as detailed in The Concrete Dragon. According to Mastercard in 2008, 15 of the most important 65 world cities are now in China.  Besides Beijing and Shanghai they include places like Harbin, Xian, Wuhan and Nanjing that few ordinary people outside of China have heard of they are so new to the contemporary world stage.
  • 10 years ago had you heard of Dubai?
  • Bangalore and Mumbai have became centres of global outsourcing and then innovation in their own right.  Clustering works for India too.

4.  The Green Revolution – not the agricultural one, but the shift to more sustainable urban construction and sustainable design.  10 years ago, as the US Green Building Council began promoting “green” construction and its LEED rankings, everyone laughed.  They said the private sector and institutions would never build LEED office buildings because it couldn’t make financial sense.  Today in Canada’s major cities virtually every major project, private and public sector, is being built to LEED or other environmental sustainability standards, not only because doing less harm to the environment is good but because private firms have learned that green makes employees feel better, take fewer sick days and be more productive.

5. Re-birth of urban-style living and the start of a shift away from suburban lifestyles.  Individuals, couples and families in North America are increasingly choosing to live in townhouses and apartments in or near the urban core (even if they can afford a spacious suburban home).  Not everyone, not everywhere, but enough people to make this a trend and likely one that will help define the 21st century in North America (whereas suburban style automotive culture defined and shaped how people lived in the 20th century).  This shift is related to a green consciousness, the rise of women to become the dominant gender in the workforce, the rising price of gasoline, escalating house prices.

Your comments? and what would you add or subtract?