Archive for poverty

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 /

Race, Class and Sprawl

September 12, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 3 comments

Is there a link between race, class and an insistence on urban sprawl in the US? Historically, probably yes. Today, some African American advocates imply that continuing sprawl is required for African Americans to catch up on home ownership rates. I question whether this would actually be best for equalizing the economic playing field.

The National Urban League, an organization dedicated to empowering economic development for African Americans, is concerned about “Smart Growth” policies in many US cities. They worry that the result of restricting sprawl will be higher house prices, which will push home ownership beyond the reach of many African Americans.

If “Smart Growth” means simply reducing the amount of land available and only allowing single family housing on 1/2 acre lots to be built — then yes, they would be right. And, this would be a tragedy for anyone of any ethnic background trying to establish themselves financially through real estate ownership.

Indeed, some cities and suburbs (notably the Washington DC and Boston area) are not introducing new types of housing to coincide with smart growth, according to this article.

Yet, “Smart Growth” need not be so restrictive. If it coincides with introducing a wider variety of housing options, then it could generate more opportunities for home ownership to people with lower incomes (of all races). For example, duplexes, town-homes, and mid-rise condominiums can all ofter less expensive ownership options. They also put more people into a smaller space which makes transit more efficient (which could mean giving up one family car to own a home would not be a hardship). Adding more homes further from jobs makes automobile ownership a requirement — and this is becoming every more costly in terms of purchase price and gasoline costs, taking income away from being used toward housing affordability and life enjoyment.

However, adopting and embracing a multi-faceted, plurality of housing as part of Smart Growth will require a cultural shift in many US cities — by everyone, black, white and all colors of the rainbow.  Update: There was an interesting discussion on anti-townhome biases at Houston Strategies last month.

Currently, often the “life game” is to be able to afford a 4000 square foot home in the suburbs, as a status symbol. And more whites than blacks can afford this. Thus race and class and sprawl are interlinked — and this is probably one less spoken reason why it’s proving more difficult to bring about a changed mindset in US urban areas than other world cities.

Hmmm… would a shift toward embracing smarter housing not only help the environment, but also perhaps the race climate in the US?

Category: communities, development conflicts, diversity, ecological issues, economic development, planning policy, poverty, real estate, resident attitudes, residential development, sprawl /

Hosting the Olympics and Economic Development – Reality Check

July 13, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

Olympic host cities since 1984 have generally benefited from the Games. They have created jobs, attracted employers, and given many cities a “can do” spirit. Because they often usher in an era of transformation to a city, some residents have trouble adjusting. But this does not mean as a whole they are bad for the host city.

The world’s urban population is growing because city offer hope and economic opportunity — given a choice of being poor in the countryside or poor in the city, increasingly people select the latter. And, given a choice of moving to a city with a stagnant economy and very little happening, or a city booming with many dynamic industries and employers, again people rich and poor tend to choose the latter.

The Olympics — in conjunction with other policies — typically provide a significant long term economic boost to the host city.

I’ve been following and researching this topic since 2002. I’m blogging today to counter the myths, incorrect assertions and poorly interpreted evidence posted today on Planetizen . Here’s the opening quote:

Cities continue to compete with each other over the opportunity to host the next Olympics, despite repeated examples showing that the games lead to bloated housing markets, lost jobs, debt and repressive social policies.

The first comment, bloated housing markets, is perhaps overstated but is also the least inaccurate comment here. Housing prices do often rise in host cities.

  • First, the economic boom before the Olympics generated in part by construction activity that attracts job seekers — and not just construction workers but engineers, architects, accountants etc. More people looking for housing often drives up prices.
  • Second, Olympic host cities often become the “flavour of the month” for global jet setters, who will outbid the locals for prime real estate, pushing the local wealthy to outbid upper-middle class residents for other urban real estate (similar to what is stated in this entry at Creativity Exchange).
  • Finally, thousands of temporary workers affiliated with The Games come to the city for 12-24 months, filling rental accommodation which can drive up rental rates.

Depending upon what else is happening economically and in employment growth, these prices may or may not be sustainable. In Sydney, my recollection is that house prices dropped, but not until 2001 (a year later), coinciding with a global recession — and house prices in many global cities dropped at that time, so you can’t blame it all on the Olympics.

Lost jobs? The second comment above. Where do they get that from? Most Olympic host cities run into labour scarcity — too many jobs, not enough workers. Okay, maybe after the construction and the Games are finished not all jobs remain. But good government policy can mitigate this somewhat — for example, in Australia the state and federal governments postponed government funded infrastructure projects to coincide with the ending of Games construction. The same is planned for Vancouver. And, it’s hard to argue that a city and its residents are better off not to have had jobs at all, rather than to have had some jobs that were not permanent that gave people experience and a chance to hone skills they otherwise never would have done. Moreover, from the broader business attraction and development that occurs, thousands of new permanent jobs typically emerge in conjunction with hosting the Games.

Debt. Yes, Olympics tend to cost money and unforeseen costs are rather typical, unfortunately. But, in many cases the federal and regional governments are the bodies who agree to take the debt risk — not the city itself. And, since the Los Angeles Games of 1984, Olympic Cities and organizers have done a tremendous job covering costs through leveraging corporate sponsorships.

Repressive social policies. The Olympics do not cause repressive social policies. A government is either repressive or it isn’t. The laws of a country either work for all citizens or do not. The Olympics cannot change this. The article may well be accurate in detailing abuses in Beijing. But with or without the 2008 Olympics, I’m sure we could find examples of abuses in Beijing and China.

On the long term economic and employment growth. The governments of New South Wales, Australia and Sydney managed to attract 214 new international companies to Sydney. Employers such as Deutchbank and Oracle. The majority came after the Games. Atlanta experienced a decade-long economic boom generating an average of 76,000 jobs per year in the 1990s.

Hosting the Olympics — combined with good public policy and creativity from the business community — contribute significantly to economic growth. Sometimes, even often, this growth is so robust that it brings growing pains — such as housing shortages (which can drive up prices and displace the poor from low-income housing), which critics often focus on.

But again, if you ask the poor whether they would rather be in a city with so little economic activity and so few jobs that there is lots of cheap housing — or in a city offering hope and promise — most go for the latter. They vote with their feet and move to where the hope is. That’s why millions of poor people around the world relocate from small towns and countrysides each year to cities. That’s why places like Atlanta struggled so hard with the poor and homeless in the 1990s — and Vancouver is facing a similar struggle.

Yes the Olympics can create tensions and growing pains and everything that goes along with great transformations in a city. But that doesn’t mean they are not something worth competing for, as so many world city leaders will attest.

Category: economic development, planning policy, poverty, urban history /

Homelessness

June 9, 2007 / Wendy Waters / 2 comments

Homelessness

This is a problem in most big world cities. But for some, it is worse than others. Why.

Lets compare two cities in the same country. Each city’s region offers free health care, a social safety net, and thriving economies. And yet, one city has a much more visible homelessness and pan handling problem.

I’m comparing Vancouver and Toronto, Canada.

The Toronto region is about three times the size of Vancouver – containing approximately 6 million inhabitants to Vancouver’s 2 million.

In two days of wandering around downtown Toronto to meetings and just to walk, only one person asked me for spare change – actually, he didn’t ask me directly, he just asked a group waiting for the light at King and York. I saw a couple other homeless people on the street, sleeping in bus shelters first thing this morning when I was heading for an 8:30 meeting.

In downtown Vancouver, I would estimate that 20 people per day ask me for spare change. At least four between where I park my car and the office – one-and-a-half blocks (in the vicinity of Granville & Georgia). Go past Starbucks and one person is at each entrance. Walk a few blocks to meet someone at lunch time, and approximately four people per block request change. Like many people in Vancouver, I’ve become somewhat jaded and even immune to it – spare change collectors are almost like background noise in the city similar to buses or construction sounds. I give generously to various charities that help the homeless and the poor, but cannot possibly hand out a loonie coin or quarter to everyone who asks.

Visiting Toronto this time caught me off guard. In the past, I’ve been there more often in the winter and have seen a homeless person on every street vent, keeping warm – although they rarely ask for anything. But this time, I saw almost no one.

Has Toronto solved the homeless problem? Or do they relocate in the summer?

Is it just that Vancouver has more services for the homeless near downtown?

I’m writing this on the plane home, so have no access to the Internet to look up stats on homelessness. I’ll do that soon. In the meantime, if you live in Toronto and have some insight, please share it. Or if your city has done something innovative, I’d be intrigued to hear about it.

Category: downtowns, poverty, public spaces /
  Recent Entries »