|
|
What makes a city liveable?Case SummaryMany aspects of urban design and new approaches to city form are based on the concept of liveability. These approaches recognise that design and structure can be very influential in the life of a town or city and indeed to the building of community in and of itself. They also create novel contexts for a community to develop in a more sustainable way. This case looks at two communities of very different sizes, the Town of Okotoks and the City of Vancouver, both of which have been attempting to implement development based on quality of life and sustainable development for a number of years. This case considers the different challenges faced by implementing liveability in these two contexts and the degree to which the liveability agenda has contributed to sustainable development in the two communities. The Town of Okotoks considers the sustainable development of the community to be about liveablity. "The subtle shift in mindset that has taken place in recent years is that today, there is less concern about attracting growth and more concern about managing growth toward a positive and proactive vision we have for the community - an end state that preserves the enviable lifestyle we have come to expect in Okotoks." (Okotoks Municipal Development Plan: The Legacy Plan, 1998) The City of Vancouver has moved from liveability issues towards sustainable development over time in response to grassroots pressure and changing global concerns. In both contexts, market forces, in particular development interests and typical planning design paradigms have made it difficult to fully implement the ideals of liveability, but in both cases, grassroots community support has made the challenges easier. Also in both cases the adoption of a liveability agenda has arisen from the recognition of limits to growth. In the case of Vancouver this was a result of transportation limits, in the case of Okotoks this was limits resulting from the ecological capacity of the watershed. Sustainable development is the prime human imperative of the 21st century (Dale 2001) and in the Town of Okotoks this has been embraced, both politically and throughout the community. Liveability came first in Vancouver however, and there is some degree to which the City needs another shift in thinking to fully integrate the two agendas. Sustainable Development CharacteristicsLiveability is critical to the establishment of a sustainable community, if for no other reason than if it is not present people will not stay in the community. But liveability as a term is exceedingly difficult to define. For some, it is intrinsically tied to physical amenities such as parks and green space; for others to cultural offerings, career opportunities, economic dynamism, or some degree of reasonable safety within which to raise a family. Where liveability is linked to sustainability and infrastructure issues it is normally as an alternative development model to the expansion of sprawling suburbs with low densities of both population and services and where infrastructure provision is costly to ecological, economic, and social capital (Kunstler, 1993): see for example the Federal Transportation Livability Initiative in the US (Fischer, 2000). The definition of liveability appears without limit; yet, somehow it forms part of the sustainability equation. In Canada the liveability agenda cannot be considered without reference to Vancouver, frequently touted as one of the most liveable cities in the world (see for example the Economist Intelligence Unit’s livable cities survey reported by CNN.) The City has developed a liveability agenda since 1976 when quality of life and environmental concerns won out over a city model based on a highway network. It has been maintained as the City saw the need to compete against expanding suburbs to maintain a vibrant downtown, avoiding the decay of the urban core seen in many North American cities. Although the policy has clearly been successful in many respects the liveability of the city, even the downtown core, is not without its critics particularly with reference to service provision for families that wish to live in that downtown core and the many residents who cannot afford to live there. (Where’s liveability without schools? Vancouver Sun, July 6th 2006). The Downtown Eastside community highlights that not everyone has the access or the opportunity for liveability, and homelessness continues to be a major policy issue. This case examines the degree to which to the City is ready to tackle 21 century concerns and wider issues of sustainable development. The Town of Okotoks in its key sustainability document, the Okotoks Municipal Development Plan: The Legacy Plan, addresses liveability through the use of overall themes in establishing planning priorities. Themes include: demographics (integrating generations), leisure (giving individuals and groups recreational opportunities), and cocooning (to redefine and strengthen the sense of community). Community-wide surveys held in 1997 and 1998 assisted in the preparation of the plan with a time horizon of 20 years – relatively long-term in the context of municipal planning in Canada. These surveys defined a set of desirable futures for Okotoks that went well beyond the more mundane issues of physical sustainability. Proposed futures included: improved life long learning opportunities, provision of active and passive recreational and cultural activities, a holistic approach to community well-being, and a place where spiritual, artistic and aesthetic values are respected and encouraged. Of course the degree to which the plan has been successfully implmented is open to question, and the town reviewd progress after five years identifying areas of concern. An complimentary case study of the importance of using transit-oriented sustainable development principles as exemplified by the town of Mont-Saint-Hilaire (just south of Montreal) and the development of Village de la Gare with a concept of liveability not dissimilar to that of Okotoks is considered in more depth as a stand alone case study for this project at http://www.communitycasestudies.crcresearch.org/hilaire. The wider theme of what constitutes liveability remains uncertain. A team of researchers at Queen’s University has joined a multi-university group to address this. The team will focus on three themes that, while not directly related to sustainability, seem to significantly impact liveability within communities. These themes are: § social space; § talent attraction and retention as well as economic dynamism, and § the overall amenability of local governments to the development of a progressive economy. The components of liveability as seen by the City of Vancouver are: § protection of the environment; § maintenance of a diverse economy; § provision of accessibility through land use; § delivery of services for residents and businesses; § housing choices; § balanced city budget, and § the involvement of citizens in planning and delivery. There are certainly frequent parallels between the agenda of liveability and the agendas of choice and New Urbanism approaches to development, often linked to the development of sustainable community. It has to be said that the aims of liveability policy on communities are focused on quality of life, rather than implicitly on sustainable development, but there are inevitable improvements for sustainable development through reduced car transportation, increases in greenspace and opportunities for social capital and participative planning regimes. Critical Success FactorsCritical success factors in the identification and implementation of liveability as an integral part of sustainable communities are: § the value of liveability as an overall theme, among others, in the development of a community’s sustainability plan; § the over-arching role of public engagement in the articulation of what is meant by liveability; § an acceptance that liveability may differ significantly from community to community; § a recognition that liveability extends to economic dynamism and career opportunities as well as recreational, aesthetic, cross-generational and cultural activities; § the ability to embed liveability concerns into the culture of the municipality rather than politically motivated short term initiatives; and § the recognition that the provision of a diverse residential community with a full complement of services for all, means that a system approach to both the city-region and the individual neighbourhood is required. This will to ensure that individual neighbourhoods do not become liveability ghettos, but have a real and vibrant place within the whole city region context. Community Contact InformationRick Quail Municipal Manager Thomas Osdoba Manager, Sustainability Group thomas.osdoba@vancouver.ca What WorkedMatters of liveability need to be addressed early within planning processes so as to reconcile the imperatives of sustainable development. These imperatives can obtain legitimacy if they are explored and integrated within the participatory planning process. Community involvement and support, combined with willingness of municipal officials to accept and work with that grassroots means the question of liveability in the local community is better understood, and the concept is more integrated into policy, planning and political will. Ensuring that, in large residential developments, developers are required to incorporate sufficient service provision for the people that will be living there. Not a sentence. This means that there is concrete provision of services for communities within walking distance – a key component of liveability. This is also implemented if mixed use buildings and development is encouraged as the development of residential capacity is intrinsically linked with the development of commercial capacity. The key elements of the planning process are leadership at multiple levels with political, bureaucratic and community leaders developing strategic alliances between the grassroots, community leaders and bureaucratic leaders. This needs to be supported by, policy diffusion, education and training within municipal authorities, and a system perspective that looks at relationships between municipalities. What Didn’t WorkAlthough early in their study, researchers at Queen’s University suspect that liveability within communities will suffer if they do not:
In short, liveable communities have to provide meaning to people’s lives beyond just being a point of residence. In Vancouver the liveability agenda is in danger of becoming stale. The questions and issues which created the movement are now largely answered and resolved, there are now new issues and questions that need planning for and there is a danger that the city will rest on its laurels and fail to act in a timely and innovative manner – this is clearly a form of inertia that is normally seen in less progressive environments, but is nevertheless a growing concern in the city. The Greater Vancouver Regional District is also a significant player in the liveability agenda, but through political changes in the region as a whole its contribution has become recently muted – stressing the importance of embedding liveability and sustainable development principles within the operation of the municipal structure and to some extent removed from political change in the short term. The danger is that liveable communities become concentrated in downtowns and wealthier areas of a city, with fringe areas and less affluent suburbs being left with lowest cost development leading to highest long term costs to the triple bottom line. This is despite it being easiest to implement liveability into new development. Retrofitting liveability, if this is at all possible, is much harder as it is so based on the design of existing infrastructure and the use of mixed use planning regimes – building this into existing car focused infrastructure and mono-functional planning zones is problematic. Why, therefore, does liveability in Canada seems to be largely integrated into downtowns and infill developments, and not in expanding suburbs? Financial Costs and Funding SourcesThe choice regarding the costs of infrastructure is twofold:
A liveable community is also an efficient community, and will cost less to maintain in the long term. For example green building programs in Vancouver from the 1990s have shown that there are real economic and sustainability benefits to such design – unfortunately residential developers are way behind in adopting such technologies (www.e-dialogues.ca). Detailed Background Case DescriptionTown of Okotoks Okotoks is facing a period of growth, which for many communities would mean the growth of car orientated suburbs and a steady decline in the vibrancy and vitality of the downtown core. This would lead to a lower quality of life or a decline in liveability, for the town as a whole. The challenge for the municipality is to put in place an urban growth policy that allows for controlled development of the town expansion of population and economic opportunity without reducing the social and natural capital that gives the town its competitive edge and character. In 1998 in the Municipal Development Plan the community set limits to growth of: “a Sustainable Community of no more than 30,000 citizens.” (Okotoks Municipal Development Plan: The Legacy Plan, 1998) This is based not on economic or social limits but on the carrying capacity of the watershed. Thus its future development uses a framework or principles of ecological limits to growth. Combined with this has been a long standing realisation that the key to a successful and liveable town is the downtown core: “The business districts of our towns and cities, with their shops, services, civic functions, and cultural opportunities, historically have been the magnetic centres of towns, places where people are drawn to do business, shop, visit, spend money, wine and dine themselves, and just watch other people. Main Street is the core of a community, a place that sets the tone, creates the identity and personality that makes the community memorable. We can perceive its roots in the style of buildings and the layout of the streets and public spaces. We can see the current level of community interest and pride reflected in the development of amenities to attract people, and in the care shown for everyday upkeep” (Downtown Idea Exchange, 1993 cited in Okotoks Municipal Development Plan: The Legacy Plan, 1998) The focus of the community therefore has been the development of good quality of life over unlimited economic growth, based on ecological limits and principles of quality urban design. As the plan states: “Neglect of the downtown core would be like creating a heart without a soul.” (Okotoks Municipal Development Plan: The Legacy Plan, 1998) Okotoks displays the characteristics of full community engagement in the planning process found in many examples of sustainable infrastructure development and sustainable communities detailed in the various cases studies on this website. This strong linkage between the community and the municipality delivery an urban form that aggress with many of the concepts detailed in such planning and design philosophies as Smart Growth and New Urbanism. These types of community are what people want, and that is what makes for a liveable community. The challenge is providing a mechanism that delivers this type of development without stifling the ability of the private sector to work in partnership with the community to create a diverse economic base upon which the community will depend. This has been a concern in Okotoks: “In the past, revitalization efforts have largely failed due to lack of grass roots and resident business community support and initiation of revitalization ventures.” (Okotoks Municipal Development Plan: The Legacy Plan, 1998) This development plan was reviewed in 2003 to assess the degree to which the plan had been successful. Overall the plan delivered an improvement in liveability and the degree to which Okotoks was becoming a sustainable community whilst incorporating growth within the ecological limits of the watershed. There were however some shortcomings in implementation (Okotoks MDP Review 1998-2003, 2005).
Of these, possibly the most crucial for sustainable development would be the lack of economic diversity represented by points 1 and 6, and problems with transport represented by points 4, 5 and 10 as well as the lack of delivery in ecological improvements in degraded areas (point 2). They all represent ways in which the town could become more liveable. Many of these issues reflect the difficulty of getting the local business community on board with the sustainable development agenda. Businesses, particularly industrial ones, find it challenging to shift thinking to a more long-term holistic approach where economic activity is intrinsically linked to liveable and sustainable communities. City of Vancouver The planning process was strongly influenced by a basic decision taken by Vancouver in the 1970s following vocal opposition to the routing of a Freeway through the city. This led to a generation of planners focused on liveability and secondarily sustainability. This has strengthened over the last few years as the popularity of greening and sustainable development has grown in the community at large, nationally and globally. The highway proposal in the 1970s was designed to keep people in the suburbs coming into the downtown in order to maintain the commercial and economic core of the city thriving. Suburban development in surrounding municipalities led to the need to attract people into the downtown otherwise the centre of the city would die. The city did this by promoting and implementing self sufficiency – in effect saying to suburban municipalities that they should provide for themselves, while at the same time providing new opportunities for living in the downtown – rather than accepting that people will move to the suburbs and providing transport for them to get to the downtown, a model adopted in many other North American cities. Instead Vancouver started building residential development in the downtown core to ensure the vibrancy was maintained without the need for suburbanites - partly triggerd by the need to revialtalise the downtown core to complement development taking place for Expo 1986 at the edge of that core. In many ways now the liveability agenda is actually holding back sustainable urban development. It is the new inertia and to some extent the city is coasting on successes of the past, and not addressing newly identified issues of the future. The frame of reference has not adapted or evolved to respond to new challenges and changing contexts. Actual sustainable development as a concept has not gone very deep in the senior levels of management within the City and has little transformational impact to date – it has been left at the level of urban form and design and often limited to the downtown core. Inertia is deeply ingrained as a result of the self-sufficient approach taken to counteract the expansion of the suburbs. As an extreme example, the municipality even has its own asphalt plant developed to insulate the city from cost shocks. Development like this creates huge capital inertia to overcome, the existing infrastructure choices shape future decisions. The question therefore is: How does the city shift from the current generation focused on liveability which is limited in its impact and not necessarily sustainable to a position focused on sustainable development – and making real advances in infrastructure and sustainable communities? Fundamentally there must be a move to multifunctional / interdisciplinary approaches within the municipality and a shift in functional alignment. What this means is to recast engineering services as ecosystem services – for example back lanes currently used for garage access and emergency access and garbage collection. It could be argued that these represent municipal subsidies for motorists wishing to store their vehicles off the road - should the municipality subsidise single occupancy vehicles? Should the municipality be in fact utilising these spaces multifunctionality and bringing ecological, and social uses into these spaces in the form of urban agriculture, composting and community gardens? For other considerations, see the Downtown Eastside case study on this website. Pressures to change are again coming from the very motivated and activist grassroots in the City – this in turn is reaching the attention of politicians, who see the rewards of pursuing such an agenda at council. This is a similar cycle of change that was observed in the 1970s and as such is a positive sign for future development, and supports evidence from many of the case studies considered in this project that grassroots and community initiatives combined with senior city level champions are the driving force behind the development of sustainable community in many situations. Regional concerns are also a problem for the City. Translink - the regional transit provider is now looking at the regional perspective for the development of infrastructure, this has bought them in to conflict with the City which has had to lobby for increases in services to keep up with in City demand but Translink is more focused on the wider region. The region as a whole recognises that road building is not the answer – although there is pressure from the provincial level to further develop the highway system. In the past the regional partnership within the Greater Vancouver Regional District was very proactive in driving a liveability and sustainable development agenda but the GVRD is so constrained by its mandate and the municipal politics of the region. In the 1990s GVRD had good ideas in support of planning for sustainable development but new elections changed the board and sent the GVRD back to a policy less focused on sustainable development, and the sustainable regional plan gathered dust on a shelf without real application. In reality, low density suburban development is still the norm in almost all new subdivisions across the region. This is beginning to be addressed but it is a slow process. There are signs of change and progress, the City is instituting a framework based in part on the Natural Step (primarily for internal communication as it is rather overly technical for use in community engagement.) and partly on See-It, a software framework tool developed by Real Living Solutions to link all aspects of the policy for which the City of Vancouver has influence to the Triple Bottom Line. These approaches all consider the importance of a long-term integrated perspective to planning and management, and can help to create a common framework for moving forward. Then a consensus or consent needs to be built around these sustainable development principles – all conflicts can then be referred back to these principles. This process in Vancouver can be built on existing strong foundations already in place from decades of progressive urban policy provided the inertia of existing policy can be overcome. Research AnalysisAlthough both the concepts of liveability and sustainable development can be difficult to define, both are crucial to the well-being of communities, that is, their resilience, their stability and their future. Therefore, need to be defined and continually refined by each community embedded in a dynamic planning process. There is clearly an accepted general conceptual definition in the planning and academic milieu, but it is not a straightforward concept to communicate. Everybody would agree that ‘liveability’ is a good thing, but are unlikely to agree to what that means. For some it would be choice, for others new urbanism style development, for others perhaps urban forms that would be the antithesis of sustainable development – large house, large lots, large cars. Similar problems are faced with other, certainly positive but nebulous concepts such as quality of life. For the delivery of sustainable infrastructure it is the components of liveable communities that support sustainable development that should be encouraged, other components of ‘liveability’ such as those espoused by Vancouver and Okotoks, will develop as the result of public participation in the planning process – this means that liveability should be seen as a policy of participation and inclusive planning rather than any preset physical infrastructure goals. If this policy is implemented on a neighbourhood scale it will also ensure a development of local distinctiveness, a sense of place and community identity. These are important components of sustainable communities (de Figueiredo, 1998). Many case studies, including this one, show that real success in delivering liveability and sustainable development requires both grassroots activism and political leadership. What then should be proposed for those communities where neither or only one of these is present? Perhaps liveability is a suitably all encompassing term that can win the necessary support for a more progressive urban policy? Strategic QuestionsThe danger is that liveable communities become concentrated in downtowns and wealthier areas of a city, with fringe areas and less affluent suburbs being left with lowest cost development leading to highest long term costs to the triple bottom line. This is despite it being easiest to implement liveability into new development. Retrofitting liveability, if this is at all possible, is much harder as it is so based on the design of existing infrastructure and the use of mixed use planning regimes – building this into existing car focused infrastructure and mono-functional planning zones is problematic. Why, therefore, does liveability in Canada seems to be largely integrated into downtowns and infill developments, and not in expanding suburbs? How can plans and planners for that matter, avoid becoming static and realize the dynamic nature of the planning process, that is, adapt and evolve over time as the community itself evolves and yet, shape that course sustainably? One question that involves from is case study is a question of spatial scale. Is there a threshold of community size that is too big to create a sustainable downtown at the expense of other regional centres? Okotoks, a relatively small community is based around a sustainable downtown. Vancouver, a large city-region, has tried to develop liveability around a sustainable downtown, yet the city has serious transport problems and could certainly not be described as sustainable in its current form. To what extent can planning impact the development of a sustainable community? In both Okotoks and Vancouver there are many ideals in the planning documents and urban policies affecting the communities, yet delivery seems problematic. ReferencesDale, A, 2001, At the edge: sustainable development in the 21st Century, Vancouver: UBC Press de Figueiredo, P., 1998, Local Distinctiveness Strategies to promote economic competitiveness, in Context, Vol. 60, on-line edition. http://www.ihbc.org.uk/1main_pages/context.html Fischer, E, 2000, Building Livable Communities for the 21st Century, Public Roads, May/June, pp 30-34 Kunstler, JH, 1993, The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's man-Made Landscape, New York: Simon & Schuster |
Comments
closing comments
Two minutes to go.
Making a city liveable and sustainable is critical. there are linkages but we need to be cognizant of both terms. One does not necessarily beget the other. I guess, like others have said keeping ecological, economic and social balance in mind.
I thought this was a lot of fun, thanks all.
wrap-up rebellion
I feel too rushed to wrap-up at the moment and think it would only dilute the quality of my other posts.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions. I really liked this disucssion forum, although that sucks that Ian was not really able to contribute. Perhaps you could add-in some comments post-discussion Ian. I don't have a problem with that.
My final reflections…
For me the first step in achieving a “sustainable†community is to recoup waste due to inefficiencies. Communities should be designed to reflect this, and the first thing that should be visited is getting people out of their cars. Since when did we loose walking as a mode of transportation. People will circle the block five times to find the “perfect parking spotâ€, what happened to walking a few blocks to get where you are going? Have we become so dependent on time that we can’t spare ten minutes to get where we a re going? And this dependency on time is emphasized by our work. Be there by 8 leave at 5 mentality. People should try and live closer to where they work, again I see this as efficient thinking. But a new problem arises? How many people spend their entire life at the same organization? It appears our workforce is way more fluid than in previous generations (generations whose design or concept for urban planning is usually built upon). In short, if I were supreme ruler I would take three initiatives…Tough on crime (take back the streets and stop living in fear); tough on vehicles (access to the downtown core would be accessed only by service vehicles (delivery, transit, cabs), and tough on sustainable development (holding developers accountable for what they “say†they will do). I acknowledge that these efforts are difficult to enforce and only exist in the fantasy of my head…
Getting the Price Right
One final comment.
My earlier points boil down to one key message "getting the price right". Considering the true value of ecological services and social impacts (positive and negative). Thanks. Jim
Finding A Common Measure?
I would agree with Alex and Ian that compared to economic factors, the ecological and social components of sustainability (positive and negative impacts or aspects) are more difficult to convey/understand within a decision making context. I believe the underlying contributing factor here is "measurability". Like Eric mentioned in class, if you can measure it you can manage it. Our society is very familiar with economic measures such as the common Canadian dollar. What if we could translate the social and environmental services into dollars and use this as one decision support tool among many to start a healthy conversation or debate?
As I am sure the team likely anticiapted :), I would like to table the concept of full cost accounting. The coupling of market/economic values (based on generally accepted accounting priciples) + non-market use and non-use values (based on such valuation methodologies as those in environmental economics) sets out another model or decision support tool that city planners could add to their "tool kit". This tool (with all its recognized measurement limitations) could help "start a conversation" on the value (benefits and costs) of ecological and social services/impacts (both positive and negative).
The ability to assign "holding" values to ecologlical and social services using the commonly recognized dollar would help to promote understanding/recognition and consensus building. The reference to "a holding figure" suggests that they these values are still considered "plastic" and would change and become more refined over time as new valuation methodologies and experiences are known/become generally accepted. Caution of course would need to be taken to not oversell the tool so that if inhibits the value potential of the land use planning process.
This is particularly relevant given that land use planning typically involves "discussions and coversations" and learning within in a multi-stakeholder/interest setting.
Jim
Wrapping up-Calinda style
Alright, here are my concluding thoughts.....
I think that if sustainability is looked at as an integrated whole and worked on as such (as is usualy the case/attempt) by looking at the social and economic aspects the environmental ones could eventually take a front and center place on stage. The reason why I think this is because of my previous work experience. Working in the compliance sector in AENV has taught me alot about human nature. When I first started and the A economy wasn't as hot, individuals were willing to make environmental sacrifices and they could justify them. Now that economic stability is relatively widespread (i.e. more fat cats), there is more money coming back into social programs which were once drastically cut, we are experiencing extrememly large volumes of public complaints (individuals regulating and setting the environmental bar high for those in their communities as well as looking to regulators for accountability) and we are also experiencing public engagement like never before. When individuals social and economic needs are met or stable people tend to look at those things that they consider extenal, or around them and focus on those.
I think finding the economic oppurtunities and social services including recreation and basic services are a very important first step in ensuring all encompassing sustaiablity inititives and ways of living are entrenched in your community lifestyle. This will in turn attract those with similar points of view and help to ensure success(providing positive case studies for others who ish to follow the same path) for sustainable communities. - Calinda (Sorry, I think I went off on abit of a tangeant there).
Youth and experiential learning
Yes, I agree Calinda that we must consider youth when looking at these issues. And, building upon what Solveig mentioned (yeah, epigenesis!) how can we take this a step further and actually involve youth in decision-making?
I think experiential learning would definitely tie-in to this. I think it would be awesome if schools (including RRU) altered their curriculum to centre around on-the ground problem-solving for current issues. For example, a grade 4 class could spend a semester looking at how to make their schoolyard more "liveable" and, in the process, integrate required curriculum.
Buying locally
I think there is a paradox of modern individualism - choice is the goal of retail. Sorry - choice at the lowest price. So a few companies make lots of different tomato sauces so we have low-cost centralized production and choice at the supermarket shelf - but very low diversity in choice between communities. The same tomato sauces across Canada. And the same cheap furniture/stuff from China at Walmart.
I think this globalization of trade - at the expense of local production and retail has been fuelled (excuse the pun) by cheap energy. It is artificially low cost to move the Tomato sauce across the country - there is not room, economically, for the local producer to compete against centralized production and artificially low transportation.
I think this aspect of liveable cities cannot be solved by the communities themselves - but is an issue of global trade and global energy policy. (Of course the cynic in me suggests this will all work itself out soon, when the oil economy shifts, and we have to grow vegetables in our own back yards again. Progressive policy will soften that drop/shift.)
Al
Wrapping Up
I agree Al.
I would also include economic benefits/opportunities to any livable community. If people do not have the opportunity to work near where they live, they will either need to commute or end up homeless/on-the-fringe contributing to crime.
hierarchy of needs tool
I think this is a creative and interesting tool for looking at the needs of different people living in a city. I think that if this tool were to be used on a practical level, again accessibility must be considered. How do we make sure to include people who speak a different language, people who are mentally unwell, people who do not have a set "home" so that their needs and perspectives are not forgotten?
Taking Human Nature
Talking about the suburbs...
You make perfectly logical arguments Jim. And I completely agree with some of your peak travel pay ideas. I am a huge proponent of limited sprawl by way of reducing highways/increasing the cost of parking in the city/creating economic development outside of the downtown core.
It is interesting though, that the people of Surrey/the valley have been crying for a bigger highway to the suburbs for years now. Their argument is that they can't afford to live in the City center, so the city must make access from the suburbs easy. A toll system is being introduced which made people irrate. They claimed that Ian's castle of downtown affluence was being built.
I disagree. I think that people should be responsible for their choices in living. If they want a big house with lots of environmental impacts for a cheap price and a big commute, they must realize the consequences. Supporing wasteful living by making it cheaper (making bigger highways that are free) is not sustainable. There is no "need" to help people live unsustainably.
In defense of Dockside
The original proposal from the City did not have the social housing component as a very important part of the project (in fact Windmill have done more than they were asked to do by the City) http://www.victoria.ca/cityhall/currentprojects_dockside.shtml
The City saw the social component being mainly in the quality of the neighbourhood and the public amenity.
Wrapping up
Here goes with what may be my final thoughts.
There are a number of good ideas in this dialogue that can be condensed for an action plan. I think the discussion has two flavours - "the problem" and "the solutions". Some may match up.
We seem to have focused on the urban issue - living in the core, and that there are divisions between urban, suburban and rural communities. I agree. And there should be. Communities need to self organize based on the motivations that brought them together in the first place. In some cases, the steel mill or the car plant are the unifying force. In some cases, the community is a rural network of widely dispersed living centred around a small community hub.
I think finding services within your community is important. People are now finding they have to travel to another "community" for basic services, including food, medical care, culture, etc. The more they find those services within their own "place", with all of the emotional connections described above, they will feel attachment.
Al
schools yes but more
I agree with you totally Calinda but why are kids still littering? Anti-littering campaigns hae been part of the school curriculum at least since I was a kid and that was quite a while ago and the roadside ditches next to school are absolutely filled with chip bags and pop cans. Perhaps a different kind of learning is necessary, experiential learning. I'm not an expert in experiential learning but I picture children and youth going into nature to experience it and connect with it. Will litter then be more meaningful to them?
I think I may be going into a tangent.
Dockside Test Case
Yes Alix, you are absolutely right. This venture is risky - and to send the right message it must be successful. If they start dropping components of the initial design (first its affordable housing, next goes the onsite waste treatment, next it will be the sustainability showcase center...next thing you know it is just another overpriced overhyped land development). They must follow through on the complete package and we as consumers should be encouraged to reward them (by buying up the units) and demand more developments like this. And the circular argument ends back at costs...we have to pay the price (which I have no problem with) as long as they provide the service as promised.
Taking Human Nature as a Given
I would agree and believe that we must take self-interests, profit and economic gain motivations and the potential for conflict as givens. By understanding the underlying behaviors of individuals and taking these realities as give, it is from here that real tangible and lasting solutions will become apparent.
For example, to cut down on the suburban sprawl there is a need to look at what are the underlying contributing factors for this. I will illustrate this thinking using one of the aforementioned "givens" (the incentive for wealth maximization). This in my view is a dominant tendency in our society.
People will continue to move to the suburbs as long as it is economic and convenient to do so. Perhaps the current regulatory regime and bylaws that govern travel between downtown and the suburbs as well as suburb land purchase/housing development are not "integrated" in a way that promotes sustainability. (i.e. no consideration of fees to travel during peak periods between downtown and the suburbs or no consistent and enforced regulation that promotes "green building development" and design features. The federal and provicial taxation system could also be integrated to the local bylaws to help promote sustainability (i.e. various tax credits for investments for recognized green building standards).
Jim M
more on transportation
Yeah, Toronto's transportation system in the downtown core is excellent. They have done a great job of integrating the subway system throughout the city and linking it up with streetcars and buses.
I agree that transportation along with focusing on decreasing car usage is key. As Rob Abbott said, we need to give people alternatives. This morning Wendy R. was telling me about how in many German cities, they have publicly available bikes that anyone can sign out using their credit card. In turn, they receive a code for the bike lock. Bikes are tracked using a GIS system -this helps for determining bike locations and limits incentive for theft.
Local economy
So how do we get people buying from local suppliers? Whether it is food or furniture? I think this will come with an increase in socialization. (Is socialization a word?) As people become acquainted with their neighbours and feel connected to a community I think they will consider buying from the small business's that are operated by neighbours. Am I naive? or will they continue to go to walmart?
A diverse local economy is more sustainable: keeps profits in the community, resilient to economic bust, etc.
Good points John, but note
I actually do know my neighbors. I used to live in Kitilano, and now downtown (Yaletown) in Vancouver. In both places the people were really friendly. I can't get over the amount of times people have held the elevator for me, helped with bags, made great jokes waiting for an elevator. I know several of the neighbors in my current bulding, as with my old one. Someone posts "Far Side" cartoon in the elevators all the time, and everyone loves it.
I think dense housing leads to social interaction which is really healthy.
recommendations
I think we first of all need to integrate sustainabilty concepts including social, environmental and economic concepts into elementary/junior and high schools within communities. I think it is amazing how much influence the young have on their parents, and how often young people come home and share what they have learnt in schools with there parents and friends. Get the conversations happening early so that for the next generation it is a way of life, not something for the elite.-Calinda
Dockside Green
While I agree that Dockside is not doing much to meet the 'social' componenent of its "sustainable" development, I think it is important to look at the context in which they are implementing this initiative. Dockside is a business initiative and relies on private sources of money. What they are trying to do is extremely risky and expensive.
I see Dockside as a jumping point. What they do can be an example from which governments can follow. This is an interesting case study- the private sector is taking the risk, and hopefully our local government will learn from the results and will follow along by implementing more sustainable building policies that also integrate social concerns.
3 points
I used word for my first post (Sustainability as a disguise) but found that process to slow so I tried to get caught up on the discussion via reply and type...so I don't have a copy of it.
The coles notes version is…
1. Safety – I have a huge issue with the amount of break and enters in the city (and property crime).
2. Close to amenities – Usually the only time I can get out for a walk is to go to the store; more people should do this.
3. Size of condo shoeboxes downtown – How can you raise a family in a 500 sq foot “studio†apartment. Downtown living is great for single yuppie types, but once married with kids you are forced to the ‘burbs.
Sustainable Architecture
I agree, that sustainable living may be expensive for the first while, at least until it becomes the norm and not the "new way of thinking/living". I am not surprised and think that it is excellent that there are many companies out there taking the initiative to practice the sustainability talk, as is the case with your friend and his employer. How do we make sustainability sexy, so that everyone jumps on board and integrates a sustainable way of thinking into their daily lives? Some communities are already taking up the concepts and running with them, but unless everyone buys in and it becomes a selling feature and/or attracts the individuals into the communties that the community is looking for, it won't become the norm.-Calinda
recommendations
Everyone has a different view of liveability and as such dialogue is necessary to determine the vision.
The long term imperative of sustainability may not be considered without government intervention. People aree protecting their own interests , as Ian mentioned, and these are usually short term.
Getting to the need
Good stuff Jim. I think that Ann Dale's on-line poll is attempting to collect this type of data.
I might suggest that as we move up the needs (to number 4 or 5) different people have different needs/wants as well though. You can not group everyone together as wanting the same things, which is why a livable city should have the ability to offer many different choices.
Having stakeholder dialogue and local voting is important to develop all of this.
localization
Interesting question Calinda. I think that one way to address this is by re-localizing communities. If a community is dependent on its local environment to meet its needs, it will quickly come to realize the importance of its surroundings. For example, if communities shift towards relying upon local food, suddenly the issue of how agricultural practices impact the soil becomes very important, very quickly. But if a community receives all its food from somewhere far away, it is unlikely that it will notice the effects of unsustainable practices with any immediacy.
Interesting Point Mr.
A friend of mine works for a "sustainable design" architecture firm. They are developing some great ideas. However they do NOT revolve around affordability. They focus on energy conservation, interesting design (I think that livable cities are interesting to look at) and live/work developments to reduce the reliance on the car.
Again, sustainability may be expensive. So livable/sustainable cities need economic opportunity and support to those living on the edges.
Consolidation
Try to answer questions/themes with the reply button right below them.
If everyone could also try and label their subject with the subject they are responding to it would potentially make things a little bit easier.
Hmmm, Interesting point Mr.
Hmmm, Interesting point Mr. Anonymous.......
I agree with your points. I thnk there is a real danger in touting th word sustainability without looking at the true purpose and meaning behind it. When we were at Dockside Green last year, I too noticed the cost of living despite the proclamation that they were doing multi-income housing. At 750,000 a condo, your mrket is going to be pretty exclusive.
While I was getting ready this morning there was a commercial for an architectural school proclaiming ther focus on sustainable architecture, throwing the word around lots without a whole lot to support the calim. This is the same example that was provided to us yesterday with Royl Roads. the word is being tossed around alot, but how much is actually getting done? That also appears to be part of the City of Vancouvers problem. They recieved the label of a liveable/sustainable city, flew the flag for a hwile, and are now dropping the ball!! - Calinda
My liveable city
What does my liveable city look like:
My liveable city is one made up of little communities where people feel connected. These nodes are comprised of housing areas with families, students (as long as they don't party to all hours of the night and respect their neighbours) and seniors living in proximity to each other. These nodes need places or events where people can congregate and meet. Streets are small and safe (I find traffic noise stressful). Green space is required, it does not need to be an expansive forest but it does need to be more than a grassed soccor feild. recreational areas are good but people need to re-connect with nature (whether they think they do or not). And lieability also means being able to exit the city in a reasonable amount of time, to get into the country. In Hfx I can be floating among the costal island in 20 minutes and I live downtown. Active transportation opportunities is imperative in my liveable city. New developments just outside the city are absolutely car-centric, very depressing.
S
Can we consolidate some recommendations?
I see it is easy to debate the issues in this dialogue, but harder to consolidate recommendations. Ideas?
Al
No cars
I agree that decreased car dependance is very key to a livable City.
Although it leads us down the path that Ian mentioned, of building a castle where no cars can come inside. Livable cities need fast/efficient/safe forms of public transportation that are far-reaching. Toronto's transportation system is really good.
"Getting to the Root of the Behaviour"
I would agree with Al and John's comments on how the economic side of the equation tends to often dominate decision-making (both at the individual and societal - governance) level when its comes to make choices (i.e. where to live). However, I would suggest that given today's rapidly growing knowledge markets and globalization the opportunities for individuals to move from one city to another is ever increasing. Therefore, there is a need to strategically "look at the entire suite of value added components" that comprise a livable city(organization).
First a note on process and then an application. I believe there is a need to think first(look at local, national and global trends and changes that are/may potentially be influencing the city and to reflect back on what has worked and what has not worked in the past. Then use the stakeholder and community engagement to re-affirm existing and mold new beliefs and opportunities. This is essentially a systems approach.
One of the models that I came across that is particulary relevant in helping to understand behavior and emotion is the classic Maslow's Hierachy of Needs (1954). This model helps to explain what energies and sustains human behavior.
To demonstrate the usefulness and application of this model within the context of this case study I will focus on a 40 year old professional now living in downtown Vancouver. This professional has a working spouse and a small 2 year old baby. This professional is close to finishing his Masters program in a field that opens up career advancement and opportunities across Canada and abroad. This professional also loves the outdoors and recreational activites/sports for both his and his family's enjoyment.
1) Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.; [the city would need to offer a 40 year old professional an ability to accesss economic resources to sustain the health and well being of both himself and his family](career opportunities and growth & cost of living/shelter) This would not only be in the context of what exists today but also what the needs of the individual or family unit will be in the future (accessily of senior housing and likely work opporunities for children).
2) Safety/security: out of danger; [ensure the safety of his family- safe surroundings)
3) Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and (could be the closeness or accessiblity to recreational activities, parks, green spaces.
4) Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition. (linkags to career advancement - being in a place where you can apply your skills and abilities and make a differnce for society either through paid employment or volunteering)
5) Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore; (opportunities to expand one's current understanding of the world - access to arts, culture, education facilities, etc.
6) Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty; (love of nature- ability to walk to work, clean air and water, etc.)
7) Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential; and (being in a place where you can truely make a differece and have access to the tools/facilities to support the success of your family and children in the world)
8) Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential. (opportunities to volunteer (i.e. serve on boards, etc.) to give back to society)
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
The application of this model helps establish a "needs profile" for the particular stakeholder or interest group (in this case young professional with family). This model could be applied to other stakeholder groups and other profiles to generate "integrated" approaches to adding value to city living.
- Jim M
back to transportation
I'm really enjoying the chaos of this discussion. And great ideas from everyone. Good to hear from you Anonymous (aka. Calinda). And where are Ian and Jim? Hope to hear from you guys soon.
With respect to transportation, I really agree with New Urbanism's focus on walkability. The more that people walk, the more likely they will interact with other members of their communities. These interactions then foster social capital formation. Other benefits to increasing walkability in a city include increased fitness/wellbeing for people and decreased car-dependence (and all the negativities that go along with car-usage- air pollution, CO2 output, etc).
I see the sustainability of
I see the sustainability of communities as so much more than the environmental parameters that we are discussing here for the most part (and agree with John's Wikipedia posting definitions) I believe that until a sense of pride in community and loyalty is created you won't have individuals looking at environmental issues simply because it isn't their issue, it is someone elses. -Calinda
Sustainability is a disguise
This process is painfully slow - I'm constantly losing connection here - but here are a few thoughts on evils of sustainability.
I believe too many people use the label sustainability to protect heir own interests instead of the true nature of protecting common goods. At first I applauded the forsight of Okotokos – it must have taken great vision and resolve to cap the growth of their town. But, there is a downside. This strategy creates a culture of elitism – a “we were here first†mentality. Also, just to speak to John’s point of DocksideGreen. Yes, that development is trying to enhance the liveability of the area, but I take issue with their commitment to affordable housing. My observation with large scale developments is that they are not always what they seem, and in this case, there was a report stating that Dockside was not committed to onsite affordable housing, therefore they could achieve their commitment by providing affordable housing in another part of the city. Yes, funding is funding, but for the developers to tout integration of low, medium, and high class living in one neighbourhood is a farce if they already intend to segregate out those in lower income groups.
On the idea of elitism, I think it is a part of human nature to protect our castles. Squabbles between neighbours over the size of out-buildings or home additions, or developers buying up residential lots to build condos are a common occurance in my neighborhood. I believe most people just want their own sanctuary separate from others (although I recognize that there are those who crave human contact and fully enjoy living in concrete boxes or row houses that are separated from their neighbours by a foot or so). In the spirit of keeping this brief, I feel that those who want to protect what they have will try to limit development around them – and will use sustainability as the concern.
- Ian
I see what you
I see what you mean.
Wikipedia (actually Vukan Vuchic's work) defines three objectives for a livable city. Do these work into sustainability?
Human-oriented and environmentally friendly, with features that make it attractive and make living in it conveient, safe, and pleasant; a high degree of sustainability is a component of this characteristic
Economically viable and efficient
Socially sound -- that is, without social, economic, or ethnic barriers, or wide variations in income, crime, and unrest; there should be a sense of togetherness and pride in the city and region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livable_Cities
I am not anonymous!!
I am not sure why I am coming up as anonymous, but it is calinda!!
Solveig, I agee with you that people live for the here and now and I believe we somehow need to shift our communities to more sustainable thinking, but how can that be done when in some many communities the environment isn't even on the radar? Through offering more programs (possibly free) to some of the younger individuals in the community )i.e. summer day camps) teaching them about environmental issues and inititatives within these communities? -Calinda
liveabilty and sustainability are linked
liveabilty and sustainability are linked. I beleive I agree with you Solveig. If we do not plan for an regulate these key factors of sustainability, the city will be liveable today and not in the future. The residents, through local community influences need to identify those intrastrucutral issues (transportation, energy, water, in my mind) that must be deisgned to sustain their liveability.
Al
Good points John, but note
Good points John, but note that alot of what you love about Vancouver are social aspects (whihc of course apply to liveable cities).... I believe that the more social aspects and parameters beyond economic and environmental options that are avilable to people within a community create a sense of belonging and cohesiveness, which will help to reak down some of the individualist issues that the team was talking about earlier. John, do you know your neighbours? How many people do?
Re-Group
This must be coupled with economic opportunities and good enforcement.
does liveability = sustainability?
Again it depends on the definition of liveable. There is a temporal aspect to liveability. Al you mentioned that intensive use of energy, water, etc can be part of a liveable city but this is not sustainable. In the long term this city would not be liveable if brown-outs and water shortages become a regular occurence. Today, I think people live for the here and now and as such the longterm sustainability objectives are often missed in disucssion until a crisis is looming as was the case for Okotoks.
Interesting question John.
Interesting question John. When I was at the World Urban Forum this summer, it was brought up that there is an increasing disconnect between urbanites, suburbanites, and rural inhabitants. With respect to suburbanities, I think that one solution, as mentioned in the case study, is to create holistic suburban communities with mixed residencial, commercial, and industrial facets so that suburbanites do not have to rely on the downtown core for their amenities.
I must admit, I struggle with how to meet rural concerns. Any ideas?
On another note, I agree that as urbanization increases, people in North Amerian cities may need to make a cultural shift and accept living in higher-density spaces. I was recently in Hong Kong, which is an amazing city from an urban planning perspective- it has extremely high densities in the urban core which leaves tons of space outside the city for wilderness.
Re-group
I think that social programs/housing are important aspects that make a city livable.
A determination to develop true mixed housing is also important.
Regroup, group
Maybe we should get back to Solveig's question - How then do we define liveability? And I might add - what are the principles a city should set for itself to avoid some of the problems we are discussing?
Al
Cooperation
I like the bus idea that Wendy posted about. It is a service for cost, but a great idea showing how business innovation can help a city's livability.
http://www.callabike-interaktiv.de/kundenbuchung/ process.php?proc=english&f=500& key=13c62aa8244c27a95cf55199c74840ed...00002
What do WE want in a city
Just curious.
Getting past all of the politics of this assignment, and initiatives that could make a city.
What do each of us want in a city? Could everyone just mention a couple things in their posts?
I agree Alix, There needs to
I agree Alix, There needs to be a shift from "individualism" as a motivation for city living to cooperation. Cooperation in housing, transit, sharing expensive things (If there were a kayak/rental rental place in every town, maybe I wouldn't need to have a car big enough to haul my boat all over the region, but I digress.)
Al
Al/Alix
Good points, and you are both right.
I just don't see that happening in Vancouver, the "sustainable golden child".
Vancouver...
All of that being said, I can afford it and I absolutely love living in Vancouver thanks to its diversity in people and services. The amazing views, great restaurants, good core transit system, ect.
I am willing to live in a tighter space though. Most people still dream of a big house/yard, so Vancouver is too expensive, so they live in the suburbs with the hope that they can still get parts of the Vancouver amenities while living 1 hour away.
The government recently placated these masses by deciding to double the capacity of the main bridge linking Surrey to Vancouver. Thiswill only encourage suburban sprawl which really sucks...
Hmmm. Am I being a snob trying to keep the suburbanites out of the city? Tough question...