Yule Heibel's Bookmarks tagged cities →  View Popular

Just eight years after the end of the last century, it's clear that the word "urban" no longer means quite what it did. Indeed, for the first time in human history, more people now inhabit cities than don't. Canada is no exception.

"Canadians don't think of themselves as an urban nation," Miller notes. "But the fact is that we live in cities. The economic ingenuity of cities is what's going to lead us into the future."

But as Miller points out, we have a little governance issue here that we have yet to deal with; namely weak cities, a federal regime apparently unaware of them, and provinces with their own priorities.

"Politically," Miller continues, "cities in Canada don't exist, especially at the federal level. As far as I know, this is virtually unique in the world. Throughout the world, federal and national governments invest in cities, but we don't see that here. All cities in Canada are suffering from lack of federal spending."

According to Miller, "We have tied ourselves up in political correctness and NIMBYism. People have such a fear of change, but at some point things have to change."

The status quo, he warns, will lead inevitably to declining productivity and quality of life.

And while cities everywhere else are busy renewing themselves, Miller fears Canadians have grown complacent, taking the nation and cities' prosperity for granted.

"We need to develop a sense of urgency," he says. "Toronto is such a rich city, but we're not marshalling our strengths in an effective way."

At this point, Miller suggests, the best way to overcome inertia and get some momentum going is simply to pick a project and start.

Broadbent shows the shortcomings of the current model of large-city municipal governance, in which cities of millions of people, with complex social and infrastructure needs, are governed according to rules set out in 1867 when Canada’s largest cities were little more than towns. While there are many individual problems, such as revenue sources restricted to property taxes and fees, the crucial problem is that cities are entirely dependent on provincial governments for permission to do anything new in any field of activity.

This situation makes it impossible for Canadian cities to develop coherent, long-term programs and infrastructure to deal with the challenges faced by jurisdictions with millions of residents and billions of dollars of economic activity, because funding and powers can be arbitrarily changed or removed at any moment. The various current programs and proposals to “share” federal and provincial revenues (gas taxes, 1% of GST) are not much use because they can be taken away at any time, wrecking whatever programs were dependent on them. Broadbent argues

Control of destiny is at the heart of the new deal for cities. Cities need to be able to have a vision of their future, to create a credible plan to get there, and to implement the policies and programs that make that future vision a reality. (76)

People worry that cities would make mistakes, but, as Broadbent notes in a key passage:

The practice of provincial and federal governments treating city governments like children tends to make them act like children. And anyone who has raised children knows that they become responsible people by being given responsibility. (77)

It’s time that big city governments were allowed to take full responsibility for managing municipal issues as they wish, with all the risks and possibilities that entails.

excise taxes on gasoline and the municipal grants pegged to them are levied on volume, not price. The less gasoline people buy for private automobiles, therefore, the lower the value of federal grants for public transit. If those grants were pegged to sales rather than excise taxes, they would be the next thing to a perfect carbon tax.

Meanwhile, the free market is applying its own time-tested solution to the problem of overconsumption, with salutary political as well as social consequences. Hillary Clinton never stooped lower than when she promised a summer "gas-tax holiday," joining John McCain in the promise. Barack Obama never looked better than when he condemned it.

left-wing doppelgangers predict that high gas prices will bring about "the end of suburbia," destroying uncountable billions of dollars in real-estate value and devastating the sprawlscape like a nuclear weapon. Neither view accounts for the capacity of people to adapt. Most Europeans pay more than $2 a litre to fill up. They pay more in gas taxes than Canadians pay for gas. Both here and there, the price of fuel accounts for about one-fifth of the total cost of owning and operating a vehicle, behind depreciation. People will cope with high gas prices by moving to smaller cars. It happened before, it's no big deal.

The big deal is what's happening to the skyline of our own city, its dramatic growth the purest expression of a post-carbon age.

Fifteen years ago, all new housing in Toronto had to have a front door. The high-rise market was dead, the 905 was booming and surface parking lots pocked the face of the central city. But things have changed - and once again prices reveal all. A beautiful house in central Mississauga with parking for four cars costs less than $200 a square foot. A slice of a midtown Toronto "filing cabinet," as Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion calls high-rise condominiums, costs well more than $400 a foot.

Why? It's the subway, stupid. It's the power of proximity, the value of choice, the enduring appeal of urbanity. As reckoned by the free market, the price of gas remains a minor factor in the total cost of the suburban lifestyle. Many ordinary people in Toronto today, especially those of the new generation, are more than happy to pay their voluntary carbon taxes - simply by moving into the suddenly fashionable, high-rise city. So let the Ottawa gang play their "revenue-neutral" shell games. The real leaders are ordinary people responding to clear market signals, calmly building a new city for the new age.

What Ed seems to be railing against -- with good reason -- is the unhealthy reliance some cities have on the shiny new physical bauble to be a magic bullet for what ails them. (Keep in mind that Buffalo is planning to make a major public investment in a Bass Pro Store on its waterfront.) Ed's message was, invest in people, not buildings. And when physical investments are made, he favors flexibility.

"There is little evidence that development projects fix decline," Ed told his audience.

On the other hand, Ed makes a strong case for density, which is "particularly valuable for an idea economy" since "proximity enables ideas to move quickly."

"People learn from one another," Ed said. "You get smart by hanging out with smart people. It's the way you build skills."

1. Invest in building skills not building buildings.

2. Quality of life is economic development.

3. Always ask who benefits from policy. (Too many place-based policies tend to benefit either the connected business.)

4. There is little reason to favor one region over another. But it costs more to provide services to people who start with less, which provides a strong rationale for state and federal governments to pay for social services. And different forms of development have different environmental impacts so that should also be taken into account in state and federal policy and funding.

Put people ahead of place, Ed admonished.

OTTAWA -- The rate of return to businesses and individuals of government investment in infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and sewers, is at least as great as the government's cost of raising the funds for that investment, a new Statistics Canada study suggests.

"Public infrastructure, the roads and water and sewer systems that comprise the foundation of Canada's economy, provided a rate of return to public capital at least as high as the government long-term bond yield over the period from 1961 to 2005," according to a summary of the study, which estimated that return "centres" on an annual average of 17 per cent.

The findings support the case for more such investment, a labour economist argued.

"Although we also need interest rate cuts, there is legitimate doubt about how quickly lower rates from the Bank of Canada will translate into lower borrowing rates for consumers and businesses," Weir said. "In this context of financial uncertainty, direct public investment becomes even more important as a potential source of economic stimulus.

"Infrastructure investment would be a particularly effective type of stimulus because it would necessarily create employment in Canada," he added, noting the construction work would have to be done here and that many of the materials used in construction, such as concrete, would be produced here as well because it is impractical to import them.

The federation released poll results Tuesday that it said "shows Canadians overwhelmingly want the federal government to provide greater financial support to municipal governments."

"More than 90 per cent say the federal government should help municipal governments deal with infrastructure issues, a view shared across the country, including in Quebec and Alberta," the federation said.

The opposition Liberals also say the federal Conservative government should have spent most of last year's $10.2-billion budget surplus on upgrading the country's public infrastructure rather than paying down more debt.

Under the Liberal plan, any surplus greater than $3 billion -- which would be used for debt repayment if not needed for emergencies -- would be added to the $33 billion the government has already committed to infrastructure from 2007-2014.

While the author of the Statistics Canada report, economist Ryan Macdonald, said the study didn't attempt to measure whether there was a net benefit to government investment in infrastructure, it did stress the importance of such investment to the economy.

To a great many contemporary architects, this must seem precious and all rather beside the point. Their job is to deliver their client's bidding as cheaply and painlessly as possible, and to hell with the rest.

And the city, why should they worry about that, it's not their concern?

Condo critic

THE LIBERTIES, 717 BAY ST.: This nasty slab sums up the ethos of a generation of architects that may be well trained, but was certainly poorly educated.

There isn't a single element of this complex here that engages us at any level; more disturbing, there wasn't meant to be.

It comes to us as one of those poor architectural creations unloved by those who gave it birth. Its justification is strictly an economic one.

The miserable green metal columns that support the glass canopy clutter the sidewalk and the building. You just want to get past it as fast as possible.

The frontage on Bay and Gerrard Sts. has been broken up into a series of bays that reach up from a four-storey base.

The bricks are beige and the results aren't pretty.

GRADE: D

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Email us at condocritic@thestar.ca

4. How can we maximize our needs today?

We can maximize our needs by reconsidering our wants.

We must commonly alter our wants so they reflect what is needed for a healthy interconnected civilization on a delicately finite planet.

6. Should a city stay in its current form forever?

No. A good city, like a good tool, should reflect its purpose and function.

Cities should be constantly learning, improving and reflecting the collective and imaged ethos of its occupants.

The physical form of a city will inspire and catalyze cultural crystallizations that will be inscribed in formless media. The content of the formless media will change the form of the city as reflected in the configurations of our past and possible experiences.

10. Is agriculture the next form of urbanism?

If we define agriculture historically as the cultivation of organisms, then some of the most profound innovations in agriculture are on the near horizon of biotechnology.

The communities and buildings of cities will be the fields and fertilizer of the new age of agriculture, sprouting living things that help us find new life. Organisms will take root that produce endless harvests, including energy (food and otherwise), medicine and environmental assistance.

Our deepest societal values and civilizational needs will make themselves known through our collective biotechnological agricultural practices.

How we engineer the undertakings of living things will establish the next form of urbanism as a platform for the birthing and reflective pondering of life itself.