All About Cities » city hall

Archive for city hall

Cities as agents of change

January 3, 2008 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

“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.

Category: city hall, public spaces, urban lifestyles /

Public toilets and cities

November 27, 2007 / Wendy Waters / One comment

Jim Dwyer penned a fascinating story this month on the history of public toilets — or the lack thereof — in New York City. A temporary collection of port-a-johns in Time Square created quite a stir, as few other options exist if you need to go in the city that never sleeps.

This got me thinking about different public toilets I have used around the world — and how they reflect the city or country.

In many cities and towns in Latin America toilets are often businesses. You pay someone a few coins and in return they offer you toilet paper and a chance to use a public toilet. They are responsible for keeping it semi-clean as well. In some towns the toilet is a pit, but in most cities it is a cement house with flush toilets. I assume the buildings were government-built, but local enterprising people, usually middle aged women, operate them to earn a living. Actually, in some government buildings, a private individual seemed to run the washroom facility. This mix of some government initiative combined with small enterprise is quite typical of the region (transit tends to work this way as well).

In Dresden Germany I saw my first coin operated, automatic, self-cleaning toilet. It was amazing. You put a coin in and the door opened like a space-aged pod. You went it, did your business. When you stood up the toilet flushed. When you put your hands under the soap dispenser, it automatically dispensed soap; under the tap, and water flowed. And then the air dryer came on the dry your hands. When you exited the pod, it closed itself and went through a self-cleansing ritual before accepting a coin from the next person. All very efficient (and stereotypically German?). Someone probably made a little money on these things, but didn’t have to be there to oversee it. And I assume they had a license from the government to place these pods in different places.

In Havana, Cuba, we found that the fancy hotels were the best options for foreigners needing a toilet. Even though we were staying in a private guest house, when nature called we would walk into the hotel like we were staying there and use a restroom. Locals couldn’t do this. The two-tiered system with a different opportunity set for foreign tourists in comparison to local Cubans.

In Brasov, Romania the only public toilet was a “McToilet” — McDonalds. Buy some fries and use the toilet. There were no government run facilities and there was no private enterprise operating them either. There was neither a strong state nor a strong sense of micro entrepreneurship among the people. If you couldn’t afford McDonalds, which most of the locals probably could not, then they just went in an ally or went home, I guess.

New York City, by Dwyer’s account, sounds a lot like Brasov or Havana.

Category: city hall, public spaces /

Street names – do they reflect the true city?

November 20, 2007 / Wendy Waters / One comment

Most people give little thought to their city street names. In older neighborhoods most streets have held their name for a century or more. But if you stop and think about street names in your city and community, do they reflect the region’s history?

In Vancouver there are some of Spanish names, honoring the first European explorers in the region (Langara, Cordova, Navarez, Quadra to name a few) but the vast majority are English (or English-language names that might be Irish, Scottish, etc.). This makes sense given that the English and their decedents held most political power in the early decades of the city’s history and arguably into the present day. And many names do carry some Canadian or British Commonwealth history, honoring battles, stops on the CPR railroad, and other, older Canadian towns from which early European settlers arrived.

However, these street names do not reflect the true social history of the region. I can think of no Chinese or Japanese names — not even in Chinatown or what used to be Japan town. In little Italy, there are no Italian street names. In Punjabi Market / Little India, there are no Punjabi or Hindi street names that I can think of (please readers, correct me if I’m wrong). A few First Nation names exist (or anglicized versions of them), such as Capilano or Kitsilano (which is a neighborhood not a street). There were once some German names, like Bizmark Street that was renamed during the first world war to Kitchener Street — going from honoring one war hero to another, and raising the issue of how many streets are named after war heroes and battles.

But, all this said, should streets be renamed in order to reflect the community more broadly? or to reflect more recent values (ie fewer war inspired names and more peace inspired ones)?

Recently residents of North Portland fiercely debated whether to rename Interstate Avenue, Ceasar E. Chavez Blvd after the farm workers’ rights advocate. The controversy generated some racist overtones, but also some valid points on both sides. Chavez wasn’t an Oregonian, some pointed out, arguing a rename should be to honor a more local figure. But there is a large Hispanic population in Oregon and some argued that their national, Hispanic-American heroes should be honored in local streets. Others argued that Portland is more multicultural than official naming of streets and other artifacts would suggest, and that this re-name should therefore be considered on those grounds.

Business owners with companies named after the existing street can feel their livelihood is at stake. This argument came up in North Portland as well as in other cities including Montreal when the city proposed renaming Parc Avenue to Bourassa Avenue following the death of a long-serving former premier.

There’s also the issue that one group’s hero is another’s villain. The Bizmark-to-Kitchener example above is one such case (I’m sure Kitchener wasn’t a hero to the Germans!) This also came up in New York city recently when a motion to rename a street after the late African-American activist Sonny Carson was defeated – to some he was a criminal, to others a hero.

With street names, as with so many things, to the victors go the spoils — those with the power profoundly influence the names. Immigrants and minorities might make huge contributions to city life, but this isn’t reflected in the official grid.

***

Of course, any renaming should be done with caution to avoid confusion. In 1993 I visited Managua, Nicaragua where street renaming had occurred in a rapid flourish following the 1979 revolution. There were at least three different major roads named after the hero Julio Buitrago and numerous other streets had been renamed to honor the same set of revolutionary heroes and events. Getting around was rather confusing to say the least (although the locals have their own system that does not require street names and numbers).

Category: city hall, communities, public spaces, urban history /

Insider and outsider perspectives

October 28, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

Urban residents including politicians and the business community as well as the media often fall into “group think” when considering their city or aspects of it. That is, they either praise the successes, all donning rose coloured glasses. Or, they all tend to nit pick at every last problem, assuming the city is going to hell in a handbasket. No city is problem free, and no city is without it’s charms and successes. Sometimes it takes an outsider’s view to shake things up and get people thinking differently.

A great example is Richard Florida’s observations of Toronto compared to the many cities he has studied, visited and lived in, summarized in an essay in the Globe and Mail (Canada’s equivalent of the NY Times). Torontonians he meets cannot understand why someone like him — who could probably have written his own career ticket into at least a dozen North American cities — selected Toronto. Here’s my favorite part of his response:

We’re now calling home a lovely family-friendly neighbourhood that is in easy walking distance of the city’s core. The streets are safe, schools are good, immigrants are welcome and neighbourhoods allow for a mix of people by income, work, ethnicity, sexual orientation and lifestyle. The cultural life is buzzing, the restaurants are world-class, and there are beautiful lakes to escape to just a short drive away. On top of everything else, I’ve been given the opportunity to run a pioneering think tank at a renowned business school.

And yet everywhere we go we are met by Torontonians who either seem mystified that we would move to what they imply is a second-rate city, or seem to be seeking some kind of validation in our answer.

Here’s all the validation you need, Toronto: Our city is on the leading edge of a critical change in the global economy.

And it seems he is waking up Torontonians, as judged by reactions posted on his blog. Perhaps he’s been talking to Sherry Cooper (Chief Economist at BMO/Nesbit Burns) as well, who also praised Toronto’s successes last week.

As I’m sure Florida would agree, all of his praise is not to say Toronto does not have challenges and problems. But, some of these are issues other cities would love to have: transit is too popular and therefore crowded; too many people want to live in the area, driving up housing prices and creating the need for more infrastructure, etc. And other challenges are somewhat universal, or at least North-America wide in their occurrence such as crime, homelessness, etc.

One possible reason Torontonians think less highly of their city is that within Canada, it is currently often compared to Calgary and Vancouver, which are doing better financially right now because of the global oil and resource prices around which those cities’ economies are partially based. Also, Vancouver has attracted more world attention and accolades from being named to host the Olympics, to being labeled among the world’s most liveable cities by organizations such as The Economist and Mercer Consulting. But there is a downside to the constant rosy picture of Vancouver painted by outsiders.
Vancouver’s writers, politicians and other business and civic leaders have tended to believe the international press as well as their own economic development marketing promotions, allowing them to ignore some of the real problems the city has (which, are not that different than other cities’ problems, but need attention nonetheless) such as crime, homelessness, and drug addiction.

Hopefully, Toronto’s economic and social leaders will use Florida’s comments to take the gloomy blinders off and celebrate what the city does well (and try to ensure this will continue). But the danger is then dawning rose coloured glasses and not addressing the challenges the city faces if it is to continue to be a key component or even the centre of one of the world’s leading economic regions.

Category: city hall, economic development, planning policy, resident attitudes, urban history /

Home renovations and urban sustainability

October 26, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

Ecological responsibility has not reached the home renovation trend — or so it would appear.

Earlier this year the city of Victoria BC reported that it’s Hartland Landfill was experience a significant increase in demand caused by home renovations. Deposits of old flooring, carpets, furniture, etc. had increased. As a percentage, only 36% of recyclable waste was being diverted in 2007, down from 42% in 1998. And that is the story behind the stuff being removed in the name of renovations.

What about the replacements?

Choices of flooring in new and renovated homes provide a further example of unsustainable choices. As detailed in the Minnesota Real Estate Blog, many people are choosing Brazilian hardwoods. These choices encourage the destruction of the Brazilian forests. While the author, Kermit Johnson, focuses on the twin abuses of rainforest destruction and coerced labor involved in harvesting the product, as significant is the fact that these products then have to be transported to North America to become a hardwood floor. This generates carbon monoxide and other pollution.

Yet in most cities other flooring options are available.

First, locally made products exist from locally-made tiles to local forest products.

Second, there are often recycled flooring options available. This can allow for a really unique floor, or the option of matching the vintage of a home. (We had the fir beams and planks from an old barn in Chilliwack (100 km east of Vancouver) converted into a new floor for our 1911 home. )

Third, there is bamboo. While I’m not sure how much is locally grown versus harvested in China, it is a grass product and regenerates in 5 years and thus is a renewable choice (even if it has to be transported).

As many city governments announce plans to reduce their carbon footprints, they not only need to focus on transportation issues, but also encouraging more sustainable building practices from everyday people in their renovations (not just pushing the real estate development community to do this).

Category: city hall, ecological issues, real estate, residential development /

Purpose of large city squares

October 22, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

Are large city squares a waste of good real estate?

Last week Brendan at the Where Blog posted a link to a new Wikipedia list of the largest city squares. I immediately scanned the list for squares I’ve visited and recognized about 20 of 80 on the list. Some were memorable. They served as cultural gathering points for the city and country and were often filled with commerce, cafes, or other activity.

For other squares situated in cities that I’ve visited, I had to find a photo on the internet to know if I’d been there or not. In these instances , usually the photo depicted a large open space filled sculptures and a lot of concrete — but no people. And, seeing the photos, I recognized the place –exactly as depicted. A huge space with no one there.

Good examples of large spaces with no one there: The Plaza of the Revolution in Havana; the Macroplaza in Monterrey Mexico; – In both cases these places were built relatively recently and perhaps lack a “historic gravity” that draws people in. The Cuban example is a place that can fit 100,000 people to listen to Fidel. But the rest of the time, no one seems to go there. When I was there, around the anniversary of the Revolution in fact, it was empty. By contrast other historic parts of Havana — such as in front of the Capitolo building — were bustling with Cubans as well as a few tourists. They were on regularly travelled routes, and surrounded by cafes and street food vendors. These less formal “squares” seemed to have much more activity.

In fact, in thinking about the squares I remember — like the Zocalo in Mexico City (called Plaza de la constitucion in the Wikipedia list)– they have two things in common.

First, that historic and centrally located aspect. The Zocalo in Mexico City is built on the ruins of the main Aztec pyramid, and was the centre of the Spanish city after the conquest. Thus it is either 486 years old or 682 years old depending upon whether you count from the Aztec origins or the Spanish conquest. The Spanish built their city in a grid, centred on this square that contained the main government building and largest cathedral. For centuries it has been a gathering point for politics, protest, and more. Protesting peasants from Veracruz mixed with aggrieved Indians from Oaxaca with their signs and literature looking for support.

Second, that some sort of commerce was happening on the square or all around it, whether cafes, street vendors, etc. In the case of the Zocalo I loved the variety of things one could purchase from street vendors: everything from pancakes to tacos to coca cola as well as subcomandate marcos dolls and Emiliano Zapata t-shirts and bootleged music from around Latin America and the world.

If squares are really owned by the public, and no one ever goes there, then what purpose do they serve? As cities fill up, perhaps planners and regulators need to rethink the rules around some squares (use them or lose them). Some try to outlaw vending (including in Mexico City, with limited success), for example. When there is no food and drink available, people don’t hang around too long, generally. And if there is nothing to do or look at, people also leave.

Category: city hall, public spaces /

Infrastructure and human capital needed

October 16, 2007 / Wendy Waters / No comments

CEOs for cities has a post this week entitled “Can Bass Pro Shops Really Save Troubled Cities.” In it, the author challenges the planners of Buffalo for inviting a large Bass Pro Shop to open on the waterfront as part of a revitalization scheme, citing Ed Glaeser:

Harvard economist Ed Glaeser questioned the strategy. “It’s crazy to think you can solve the problems of declining cities by building lots of infrastructure,” he told the New York Times. “While all of the colder, older cities in America looked troubled 30 years ago, the turnaround of some cities has been sharply linked to high levels of human capital, or a higher share of the population having college degrees….

To a point, I agree: if a city struggles to attract and retain talented people, then focusing only on infrastructure and making nice waterfronts will not help much. But if a city does have some creative and knowledge clusters — but needs more — then attention to infrastructure and ambiance is crucial.

Without quality infrastructure — whether parks, roads, utilities or shopping and entertainment — cities will struggle to attract and retain talented people. In the 21st century, the economic development of cities requires efforts to create home grown talent through good education and inspiration. But infrastructure is equally necessary for the city to function — and that is cultural infrastructure (and shopping is part of our culture) as well as transportation arteries.

While I’m not sure a Bass Pro Shop is the key, as is being tried in Buffalo, creating lively bustling retail districts is important.

Category: attracting talent, city hall, economic development, planning policy, public spaces, revitalization, urban retail trends /

Public transit — performance versus image

October 11, 2007 / Wendy Waters / No comments

I’ve always been impressed with how easy it is to get around –without a car — in certain world cities. In places like Mexico City, the metro combined with a dizzying network of private micro-bus operators makes it easy to get anywhere. Transit of some sort is going where you want to go, when you want to go there. Because so few people have private cars, there is high passenger demand. In many cities, private owner-operators are able to offer transit service legally and easily. Market forces often work well in matching supply and demand.

For riders, taking transit can be exhilerating as well as efficient.

When I first visited Santiago, Chile in 1993, this was the case. A single-line metro ran through north-south down the middle of the metro area. Feeding it were thousands of pollution-spitting yellow vehicles that looked like post-apocalyptic school buses. They were run by thousands of private operators, competing for passengers and for who could reach bus stops and the metro station first. Horns blaring, un-muffled engines roaring they passed each other repeatedly, cutting each other off whenever possible. (There is a great description here at the blog Chile From Within.)

Although this system got people to work, school, and elsewhere effectively, to most residents and politicians it hardly seemed modern nor environmentally friendly. So a new public transit system was developed, built, and recently implemented.

Known as Transantiago, it has been a disaster, according to most reports. Over the past two years the city has phased in a new system of bus and metro routes. In theory the system sounds brilliant. With one pre-paid multi-fare card, people can ride the buses or metros, transferring between the two for free (or nearly free) with a smart system recognizing that they already paid a fare when they first entered the transit system. New environmentally friendly articulated buses and an expanded metro are significantly reducing pollution.

Great ideas, good technology, but there are some severe problems that never existed before. The commutes for some have jumped from 40 minutes to over two hours. Thousands of people can no longer get where they need to go, including to work. Many have had to change jobs. Indeed according to NPR (via Planetizen) 800 transit users are now suing the city in a class action suit, seeking $38,000 worth of damages each.

Moreover, the multi-fare card failed to work. The new buses also run on new routes, but most transit users were not informed of the route changes nor given enough information to figure out how to reach their destinations under the new system. The new transit system was designed to funnel people toward the metro, however the metro does not appear to have the capacity to handle the increased ridership resulting from fewer people reaching their destination by bus alone.

According to one rider, Alejandro Gonzales:

“When the trains get here, everybody rushes and people hit each other, shoving and pushing,” Gonzales said. “So you get to work all stressed out. You leave all stressed out. I’m just waiting for someone to hit me. I’ll hit them back.”

Certainly, the new Santiago system sounds more modern than the old. A more centrally-planned transit system resembles the typical approach taken in North American cities where a government organization designs routes and either operates transit themselves, or contracts out to only one or two private providers to offer the service.

However, in most North American cities you have to wait a long time for a bus and the metros don’t reach everywhere. Private automobile use allows the system to be highly inefficient — residents accept the fact that transit doesn’t work from many areas of the city. So, in choosing to live there they also know they need a car, or that their bus commute will be lengthy.

Although the old system in Santiago had severe flaws, it ultimately performed. The new one looks better, but does not.

There are some good lessons here: For less automobile-oriented places, a less on may be that the centrally-planned North American style transit system does not work. For North American cities, something to note is that allowing multiple private operators to offer transit when and where people need it seems to work — perhaps opening this level of private enterprise might get more people out of their cars?

Category: city hall, ecological issues, planning policy, sprawl, transportation /

Green Building Bandwagon

September 15, 2007 / Wendy Waters / No comments

Cities generate 3/4 of the world’s energy consumption, despite only housing about half the world’s population. Therefore, urban leaders are now recognizing that cities need to find ways to be more sustainable.

The two rival global financial capitals – New York and London – are also starting to lead the world in promoting environmentally sustainable buildings. In London, the mayor has pledged to upgrade city government buildings to be more energy efficient. The goal is to demonstrate that it is cost effective, thereby encouraging the private sector to do the same. In NewYork City, an office of sustainable design opened at city hall in 1997, and has become particularly active since 2005 with the publication of High Performance Infrastructure Guidelines.

In New York, it seems the private sector has also become more active. The new Bank of America headquarters building will be the largest LEED Plantinum building in North America (and one of the first private-sector built platinum rated office towers). In fact, the US Green Building Council is tracking 89 projects that will be LEED certified upon completion in New York.

For people who live and work in the structures as well as the environment, this is generally a big step forward. Energy efficient buildings offer better quality air for occupants and typically make abundant use of natural light, which is easier on the eyes, especially for people doing computer work or reading work. There are health benefits of better air and light quality, which reduces absenteeism in companies operating from such buildings. 91 percent of corporate tenants surveyed for Colliers International recently stated they would give preference to locating in a green building.
Yet, city planners, developers, and users of the buildings need to keep some perspective in order to ensure there is actual “net gain” from constructing or relocating to a “green building.”

If a company relocates from a centrally located slightly older building to a new, LEED-certified building further away, many employees might be forced to drive, or drive further, than before, mitigating many of the energy savings. Moreover, if many employees frequently need to visit clients and collaborators at other companies, locating further away can also increase the carbon emissions if they now must drive rather than walk. Finally, tearing down an existing, functional building in order to build a new green one may end up using more energy in the process than renovating the old one.

Category: city hall, ecological issues, real estate /

Marketing vs Development

September 13, 2007 / Wendy Waters / One comment

Cities now compete nationally and globally for talented people and the companies and organization who want to employ them (and who pay taxes). It makes sense that politicians, business leaders and others want to showcase their city as one of the best places to live. They are “selling a product,” in many ways, and like in any sales job some marketing spin is appropriate.

What can get dangerous — whether you are concerned with urban development or selling GM cars — is believing too much in your marketing campaign. All cities, like most automobiles (especially those made by the big 3), have considerable room for improvement.

What’s doubly dangerous for many world cities is they also need to lobby higher government for funds to maintain or improve infrastructure. A message that you’re wonderful and perfect might not result in funds being allotted.

Trevor Boddy at the Globe and Mail argued recently that Vancouver’s urban leaders — whether academics, business people, politicians or city officials — have been believing the marketing spin and are not being critical enough of the serious problems Vancouver faces.

Boddy believes that promotional material and literature on Vancouver has been shaped by the real estate development industry, rather than academics and community advocates. Real estate developers are designers of slick brochures and positive spin — nothing wrong with that, it’s just what they do and who they are. But he seems them as dominating the discussion and really blames the others for not speaking up forcefully enough.

Even our politicians and senior urban planners fall victim to this promotional hype, spouting “our city is the best” boilerplate boasts when they should be talking straight about what’s right and what’s wrong in this town. Simon Fraser University’s City Program often falls into the same self-congratulating trap, and many of its courses seem more dedicated to promoting the New Urbanism than understanding and building the New Vancouver.

The predominance of rose-coloured visions borrowed from real estate promotion is one reason Vancouver has been so slow in coming to terms with the mounting urban tragedy of the Downtown Eastside. Because slums are so seldom included in condo brochures, we simply do not talk about them. The problem here is not our developers and their marketers and copy-writers — they do what they do well, and Vancouver has led the world in real estate marketing innovations.

The problem rather is with our governments, universities, cultural institutions and professional organizations for not investing in thoughtful talk about Vancouver. Led by London, Paris and even Copenhagen, the world’s leading cities are having gab-fests about their towns. Vancouver, one of the urban world’s great hotbeds of civic improvement, needs to start talking — and listening, too.

Vancouver has problems – no doubt. In fact, if Vancouver is the most liveable city in the world (as the Economist Intelligence Unit says), that’s a frightening thought for the rest of the world’s cities and the planet’s population.

But I disagree about community leaders not being vocal – they are. The problem may be a lack of listening by those with the power to make changes, at least until recently. In introducing himself, the new director of planning, Brent Toderian, spoke of his first impressions of the city. He noticed that despite the accolades, Vancouver citizens were not satisfied with the state of their city. Residents believed city hall could do better.

I think most Vancouver residents would agree with Toderian. But the public debate as covered in the media seems to have been cut off by other agendas. The quickest way many business and political leaders end the debate is to cite an organization like the Economist Intelligence Unit and say if the city is ranked #1, maybe the residents complaining are wrong.

Publicly at least, urban leaders seem to be believing the marketing spin rather than listening to and observing daily life. Rather than working on solutions — and enacting them — they are using hype to deflect criticism.

Vancouver has one of the highest property crime rates in North America, and a related embarassingly large drug addiction and homeless problem — as well as a growing problem with gang-related gun violence. If issues like these are not addressed, liveability rankings and the ability to attract and retain talented people will diminish rapidly as will economic development.

Category: city hall, economic development, planning policy, poverty, real estate, resident attitudes, urban lifestyles /

« Older Entries Recent Entries »