Daydreaming a little for the weekend

I thought SDW's readers might like to daydream a little with me and read about the possibilities a community can achieve through a little vision and collective action. Then, it dawned on me that this article was written by the same Chris Turner, author of Geography Of Hope, that was spotlighted here on SDW a few days ago.

Coincidence? I think not...

So, sit back, read the article, and imagine the future we could achieve if we had some equally visionary pioneers here in Windsor.

Beyond buzzwords in Banff.

Going green is often corporate-speak for one-off tree-planting campaigns or buildings with energy-efficient light bulbs. But sustainability can be a guiding philosophy as radical and transformative as democracy was to the last century - and one developer in the Rocky Mountains is putting that thinking into action

By CHRIS TURNER

Saturday, October 20, 2007

BANFF, ALTA. -- The Old Crag Cabin has stood in downtown Banff for pretty much as long as there has been a town. It went up in 1890, not long after the first railway track was laid through the Bow Valley - a simple, elegant structure on Bear Street, built in the same corner-post log style as the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts.

At some point in the 1970s, however, the building that once gave a roof to the town newspaper that remains its namesake was encased in yellowish wood panelling and passersby would be forgiven for failing to notice it at all. Bear Street had become a dowdy retail strip - a couple of blocks of everyday services running parallel to glitzy Banff Avenue, but as distant in function as the laundry room from the presidential suite at the Banff Springs hotel. The Crag Cabin, a victim of a quick-buck tourist town's sloppy modernization, wore the street's neglect like a cheap, out-of-date suit.

But the cabin's fate began a dramatic reversal when a local property developer called Arctos & Bird bought it and a handful of surrounding properties in the late 1990s. Its principal, Peter Poole, not only planned to preserve the old cabin according to restrictive covenants on the land, he saw it as the centrepiece of a much broader renewal - an effort to bring truly sustainable development to a mountain town that had grown so rich on its natural beauty that it was on the verge of forgetting that a pretty view was not the same as a healthy ecosystem.

Sustainability is too often used as a buzzword, a bit of corporate-speak to describe the cosmetic tree-planting campaigns of relentless fossil-fuel burners. But Mr. Poole and his team embraced the deeper meaning of the word: Their redevelopment of the Crag Cabin property - which came to be known as Bison Courtyard - demonstrates the concept's full import as a baseline organizing principle.

They understand that sustainability is as vital as the clean air we breathe, and it has the power to be as disruptive to this century as democracy was to the one just past. When it is done right, sustainability lays the foundations for the institutions a healthy society needs and the way of life to which free people aspire. And it can begin from something as humble as democracy's huddled masses - a tired old relic of a cabin, for example.

CRADLE TO CRADLE

The Old Crag Cabin was built in a "pavilion" style - with all four sides designed to be exposed - so Mr. Poole wanted it to stand as the circumnavigable core of a courtyard showcasing the national park's exquisite natural environment. He also wanted to bring the cultural riches of the Banff Centre downtown and supply the town with a bakery. In short, he wanted something far more than a basic commercial strip.

He began by commissioning designer William McDonough, one of the world's most influential green architects. His other work includes landmark corporate headquarters for Ford, the Gap and Google - and he brought to Banff a sort of condensed version of his hyper-efficient, waste-free design philosophy.

Intended as a pointed riposte to sustainability's more modest ambitions, Mr. McDonough calls his approach "cradle to cradle." His buildings don't just aim to reduce occupants' ecological impact to zero, they also regenerate their environment; he believes human enterprise can be not only sustainable, but also restorative. And this vision has made Bison Courtyard more than a mere preservation project.

An elegant, $10-million multi-use complex, it forms a horseshoe of blond wood, local limestone and triple-paned glass around Crag Cabin, with notches carefully inserted in its roofline to provide postcard views of the area's most prominent peaks. The courtyard also has a large garden of native plants fed by rainwater (which also flushes the building's toilets) and indigenous greenery on flat sections of the roof that both improve insulation and create a sanctuary for the valley's natural habitat. The Arctos & Bird team celebrated the first owl droppings found amid those plants the way another firm might have toasted the signing of a flagship tenant.
"If you have the privilege of paving over part of the park," says operations director John Harrop, "you should bring the park back in."

All told, 92 per cent of the building materials cleared to make way for Bison Courtyard were diverted from landfill, including a significant portion repurposed on-site. This includes one of the two namesake 6,000-year-old bison skulls found during the excavation of the underground parking lot, which greets visitors from a display case in the lobby (the other now resides in Banff's Buffalo Nations Luxton Museum). The complex's energy demand is about 70 per cent less than a conventional building Arctos & Bird manages elsewhere in town.

This, though, is increasingly standard-issue stuff in the green building game, and efficiency, by itself, doesn't demonstrate the full scope of sustainability's promise. What is truly remarkable about Bison Courtyard is its attention to the social side of the equation - its encouragement of countless interactions and collaborations that create not just an impressive structure but a vibrant place. "The multiplier effect," Mr. Harrop calls it, and one way it was created at Bison Courtyard was, ironically, by subtraction.

THEORY IN ACTION

The subtraction in question was applied to the prime restaurant space on the complex's second floor, overlooking Bear Street, which includes a patio with quite possibly the best panoramic view in a town overloaded with world-class vistas.

As part of the design process, the Arctos team researched the average minimum floor space preferred by big-chain restaurants - and then shrunk their space to a size a few hundred square feet smaller. The usual suspects (including a chain of steakhouses owned by media magnate Ted Turner) salivated at the location, but none could find a way to fit into Bison Courtyard.
"We had a lot of chains hanging around our door," Mr. Poole says. "And they would sniff once, twice. Only the boutique restaurateurs would sniff a third time."

Before long, the husband-and-wife team of Ryan Rivard and Camilla Sherret, former purveyors of top-drawer cheeses in Calgary, came calling with a profile that fit perfectly with Mr. Poole's vision. "He had people waving millions of dollars in his face," Mr. Rivard says, still amazed at his luck. "And he said, 'No, I want mom and pop.' "

Mr. Rivard and Ms. Sherret's initial plan was for an unpretentious downtown boîte where visitors could sample regional produce - "Rocky Mountain comfort food," they called it. Soon, however, sustainability's multiplier effect kicked in, set in motion by a gift from Mr. Poole: Mr. McDonough's green design manifesto Cradle to Cradle.

By the time it opened, Bison Mountain Bistro had tables of reclaimed wood and a pressed-tin bar salvaged from the scrap heap. The general store next to the entrance was stocked with sauces and preserves from the restaurant's own kitchen, alongside artisanal cheeses and cold-pressed organic canola oil.

The kitchen, meanwhile, became a radical, ongoing experiment in gourmet waste reduction. One day not long after the bistro opened, a Saskatchewan bison farmer finished his bison burger with a query for the kitchen: Why waste your money on a few patties or a rib eye or two when you can buy whole animals and save a bundle? The bistro soon became the farmer's biggest customer and now turns out bison onion soup, bison-tail stew and vacuum-packed bison jerky. The chef has also gone literally whole hog - ordering in entire pigs and curing his own prosciutto. What began as a somewhat aesthetic conceit ("Rocky Mountain comfort food") has become a model of efficient regional cuisine.

The rest of the Courtyard's tenants have engaged in similar experiments. The hair salon organizes monthly art shows. The video store donates its late fees to charity. And Wild Flour is not only the first real bakery that Banff has seen in more than a decade, but owner Jenna Dashney has also made it the first to dedicate itself to organic baking. Arctos rewards such efforts with a $2-per-square-foot rebate on rents.

Meanwhile, in the summer and fall, the outdoor courtyard plays host to a small organic produce market and recitals courtesy of the Banff Centre. Bison Mountain Bistro runs pizza nights using an oven specially installed in one wall for just such events.

"I never leave the courtyard," says Ms. Dashney, who rents one of the 10 apartments built into the complex. "If we had a wine shop here, we'd be perfect."

The Courtyard's tenants - several of whom live on-site - cross-pollinate in less tangible ways as well. "It's a very community-minded group of people," says Mr. Rivard, who has been taking advice from Ms. Dashney on how to deepen the green of his restaurant. "My neighbour does give a shit if I use recycled spoons."

It's an incidental detail, to be sure, but the kind that seems to have a way of sorting itself out when the whole project - whether a building in backstreet Banff or a whole civilization - is established on sustainable foundations.

Born of an initially modest effort to restore one of the town's oldest cabins, Bison Courtyard has emerged as possibly the greenest building in the Canadian Rockies, a new civic square for a town sorely lacking such spaces and a magnet for an inspired clique of enlightened merchants who just might change the retail face of Banff.

Calgary journalist Chris Turner is the author of The Geography of Hope, in stores today. His feature appears monthly in Focus.

cturner@globeandmail.com

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 9

Myth Number 9
We have to "grow or die." Growth makes the economy strong and creates better paying jobs.

Reality Check: The short-term benefits of additional growth may not outweigh the longer-term costs.

According to ecological economist Herman Daly, "There is evidence that in the United States growth now makes us poorer by increasing costs faster than it increases benefits. In other words, we appear to have grown beyond the optimal scale."

Daly and others have shown that the growing U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) does not reflect the true economic welfare of the public. While GDP has grown steadily, better measures of economic welfare that consider social and ecological costs, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) show a declining level of prosperity over the past 20 years.

While acknowledging the political difficulty in limiting growth, Daly has argued convincingly that we must move towards a stable or "steady-state" economy. While a stable economy can continue to develop in a qualitative sense, quantitative growth in material consumption and waste production cannot continue indefinitely.

The idea that economies must grow seems to be rooted in a classical economics originating more than 200 years ago. These early economists believed that population growth was inevitable (there was no safe and effective birth control devices at the time). Thus, they believed economies must grow to meet the needs of expanding populations. However, in recent times, many European countries have shown that they can have strong, prosperous economies with little or no population growth.

The bias toward continued growth in grow economic output is apparent in the professional terminology. A non-growing economy is referred to as "stagnant" or even "recessionary", rather than the more accurate and neutral term, stable. The former terms imply rot, decay, and decline, while the later implies balance and equilibrium.

North American society has very little experience with economics that are intentionally stable or non-growing in terms of consumption and pollution emission. The business of crafting a sustainable economy that does not place increasing burdens on the natural environment will be a challenge for the future

Fear of Dying in Eugene, Oregon

In 1995, various members of Eugene's business community were trying to promote a proposal for a new convention center that would cost at least $25 million and require ongoing public subsidies. The vice-president of marketing for the Hilton Hotel (the largest local hotel) was quoted in the newspapers as saying "We have to grow or die." The statement went unchallenged by the reporter in spite of the fact that the hotel had been profitable for the past 20 years without any growth.

for a printable version of the argument against Myth 9, citing references, click here

Just humouring us. Francis and Paul not really different

Big surprise in todays Windsor Star.

How does anyone expect the citizens of this city to care about our community when the institutions of higher education (scratch that - education, period) have all but given up?

Since it's painfully obvious to us that the Board of Governors never intended the new campus to be downtown, and now it seems that Francis is moving on (no offense to St. Clair College, who actually follows through with their plans) to another post-secondary institution - the real question just begs to be asked...

What has happened to the idea of the Urban Village planned since 2002? Just like the multi-modal hub idea espoused in the original Schwartz plan, the Urban Village seems to have died a quiet death somewhere in the halls of power. Why are we insisting upon following the public/private educational model when we have already invested a large sum of money in an excellent mixed-use revitalization framework already?

Maybe Francis was just humouring us as well.

Engineering building doubtful for city core
Mayor 'doesn't expect it,' enters talks with college for expanded campus

Fed up with its inability to get straight answers from the University of Windsor on proposals for a downtown campus, the city has moved on to talks with St. Clair College that could bring hundreds of additional students downtown while creating a new family oriented attraction.
Possible museum

St. Clair College president John Strasser and Mayor Eddie Francis have been kicking around ideas for a second downtown facility, potentially with museum and hall of fame components, that would enable the college to build on its success in transforming the money-losing Cleary into the St. Clair Centre for the Arts with close to 500 students and instructors.

Francis had been hoping for a blockbuster campus cluster involving the university as well as the college, which could have brought at least 2,000 additional students into the core.
But his hopes have been dashed by what he reads as a thumbs down from a cash-strapped university.

Francis, who sounded exasperated, said it's clear from conversations with university officials that their new pride and joy, the $110-million Centre for Engineering Innovation, won't be located downtown.

University president Ross Paul said Tuesday at a board of governors meeting that a decision on a site for the sprawling structure will be made in the next six weeks. "Your patience won't be tested for too much longer," he commented.

For Francis, it's beyond testing. "My sense is that the engineering campus is not going downtown. I don't expect it, based on the conversations I've had." That stings, given that Francis played a key role in persuading the university to chase a more ambitious project than initially planned and was a member of the team that successfully pitched the proposal to the province.

What really rankles is that the university dangled attractive consolation prizes for the downtown, including a law school and school of social work, under the city's nose and then yanked them away.

"We were given false hope that this was do-able, and then, after checking the numbers, we were told it was not do-able because their financial numbers didn't add up," said Francis. Excited by the possibilities, he had city planners do preliminary work which confirmed a dream campus would fit on city-owned land south of the art gallery. He also contacted area museum and heritage backers who showed interest in relocating. And then came the letdown.

A couple of weeks ago a university delegation offered Francis a mea culpa, explaining that they had goofed in mentioning other downtown campus candidates, because the money simply isn't available. "They told me I had every right to be angry and frustrated," said Francis. "They said they were sorry, that they should have done the number crunching first."

The mayor insisted he's not bitter, just disappointed an opportunity has been missed to boost the university's image and create a better student experience by integrating it into a redeveloped downtown. "You only build something like this once every 75 or 80 years. This is a huge missed opportunity."

Board of governors chairman Marty Komsa wasn't available for comment but Dave Cooke, who'll take over in December, said the board is trying to make the right decision for the university and the community with limited financial resources.

"We're trying to do the best we can but we're not the University of Toronto," said Cooke, explaining that just the interest on U of T's fundraising drives exceeds what the U of W can raise over two years.

"We want to do as much as we can with the city. But let's not do the Windsor thing and focus only on the negative," said Cooke. He said the engineering and medical schools, regardless of location, are massive achievements that would have been inconceivable a few years ago.

But the city, which might have contributed $10 million or more in cash and land toward a downtown engineering campus, will be far less likely to crank open its wallet for a site with fewer spinoffs.

And so the focus switches to the college, with its track record of working with the city.

"There's nothing concrete at this time. We're just at the exploratory stages of stuff that might work," said Strasser. He said theatre arts, interior design, health sciences and business information technology would be among candidates for a move downtown in the event of a deal.

"I have a lot of faith in the mayor and I'm sure he'll come up with another idea to have a coffee at Tim's and move the idea forward," said Strasser

The city described their initial plans for the lands as "Building on its history, international riverfront and varied cultural attractions, City Centre West is a pedestrian-oriented urban village where people meet, live, work, shop and play."

Does this mean these values are no longer a priority to this administration?

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 8

Myth Number 8
Most don’t really support growth management or environmental protection.

Reality Check: A majority of the public does recognize the importance of environmental protection and the need to manage growth.

Surveys consistently show a broad awareness of environmental issues and a concern about continued growth. A statewide survey of 1,361 Oregonians conducted in 1993 found 75 percent of respondents believe maintaining a quality environment is more important to economic growth than relaxing environmental regulations. Furthermore, 64 percent felt that “environmental protection will become more important than economic growth.”

Nationwide, 70 percent of respondents to a May 1995 ABC/Washington Post poll thought the federal government had not gone far enough to protect the environment. Money magazine found that its readers rated clean air and water above all other factors (even a low crime rate) in deciding where to live, according to its September 1995 survey.

Despite growth often being portrayed as a divisive issue with two opposed “camps,” it really should not be. In areas that have experienced rapid growth, public opinion surveys consistently show that a strong majority of the public will support policies to curb growth. A 1988 survey of Los Angeles residents found that 75 percent favoured slowing or stopping growth (59 percent slowing, 16 percent stopping).

A 1995 statewide survey in Colorado asked: “In general, what do you consider to be the one most important issue facing Colorado today?”. Respondents were not prompted to give any particular answer. “Too much growth” was the most common response, and was given more than twice as frequently as the next most common reply. The following are the top four of 15 categories of responses:

Growth, too much/too fast 34%

Crime/Drugs/Alcohol 16%

Economic problems 6%

Another question in this survey asked “How do you feel about the overall rate of population growth in the state of Colorado? Would you say that in the past two or three years the population of the state has grown too fast, at about the right rate, or would you say that Colorado is not growing fast enough?” The responses were:

Too fast 73%

About right 24%

Not fast enough 1%

Don’t know 2%

For a printable copy of the argument against Myth 8, citing references, click here

U of W engineering site already chosen?

An interesting story in todays Windsor Star. Following weeks of speculation and anticipation (it was widely anticipated that the location of the University's new Engineering Campus would be made immediately following the Oct 10 provincial elections) the Windsor Star prints this...

Engineering centre site to be chosen in 6 weeks

Monica Wolfson
Windsor Star
Wednesday, October 24, 2007

University of Windsor officials are expected to announce a location for the Centre for Engineering Innovation within the next six weeks. "Your patience won't be tested for too much longer," president Ross Paul said Tuesday at a board of governors meeting. University officials have two key meetings with architects on Oct. 29 and Nov. 12.

An announcement on where the building -- or two buildings -- will be constructed should follow those consultations. "We have huge pressures to get this done," said Paul, who declined to be more specific about a timeline for an announcement.

It's unlikely the university will build a tower because Paul said they're more expensive. "A low facility takes up more room, but it's cheaper to build," Paul said. The building will contain classrooms, research areas and manufacturing courtyards, which Paul said can be "warehouse"-like wings. The $110-million project can be one large facility or two smaller buildings integrating teaching, research and manufacturing courtyards at each location. Paul said university officials need a "clearer concept" of the facility to attract partners and launch fundraising efforts.

$20 MILLION NEEDED

The university needs $20 million in additional funding to pay for the project, because it has been promised $40 million from the province and has issued $50 million in debentures. Board member Matthew Moroun, who is vice-chairman of Centra Inc., asked if the construction contractor would be signing a guaranteed price contract and who would be in charge of change orders. "The project will stay within budget," Paul said, after making a presentation about how teams of school administrators would manage the project. The board would ultimately approve large expenditures, but the project will be managed day-to-day by a steering committee of board members, senior university executives and a yet-to-be-hired program manager. "Change orders will go through the steering committee," said Neil Gold, provost, who will head up the steering committee. "(Engineering Dean) Graham Reader and the executive group will deal with those issues as they arise." Paul said the university has a reputation for building projects within budget. The new medical school was originally supposed to cost $20 million, but had a price tag of $24 million when the shovels went into the ground last spring. Paul said the additional costs aren't part of the medical school. The money will go to add a third floor onto the medical building for research space.

© The Windsor Star 2007

Reading between the lines of this article clearly points the reader to believe that University of Windsor president Ross Paul has already made up his mind to move out to the suburbs with the new campus. He appears to be doing a little pre-emptive justifying by saying vague statements like "It's unlikely the university will build a tower", and "A low facility takes up more room, but it's cheaper to build"

The province needs to put stipulations on their $40 million grant, in the spirit of their belief in "Smart Growth", and force the University to build downtown. This is taxpayer money they're doling out, and while I believe that spending on education is clearly one of the best uses for our money, I don't believe that it should be spent encouraging suburban sprawl.

This choice seems to be tilted towards accomodating the Universty's out-of-pocket expenses, not taking into consideration the costs being downloaded onto the municipality to take care of infrastructure costs. Total cost economics must come into play when discussing huge expenditures of public money. This is not even taking into consideration the incredible life-line a downtown campus would provide to our floundering core.

I believe a letter to Sandra and Dwight is in order...

CocoBox before Council this Monday...

As everyone who's been reading SDW knows, we have an elevated level of interest in all things "Sprawl". You have been reading about our regular updates and recommendations on Jenny Coco's big-box proposal on the far-west end, right in the midst of the Ojibway complex, and the impacts it will have on our community. Well, it has made it past the Planning Advisory Committee with endorsements from WECEC and ERCA, and now it is going before City Council. The request is for the zoning change that will enable it to build its 420,000 square feet of monotony and 2,300 parking spaces for minivans and SUVs. Here's the notice as well as supporting documents;

PAC 1 1223244 Ontario Limited, rezoning, northwest corner of Sprucewood Avenue and Matchette Road, commercial development consisting of big box format commercial uses (PAC Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G1, Appendix G2, Appendix H, Appendix I) (Administration Report) (Administration Appendix) (Additional Information) (Town of LaSalle Comments)

Also of equal and stunningly similar importance is the second PAC item...

PAC 2 Smart Centres (Wal-Mart), rezoning, 7100 Tecumseh Road East, increase size of the Wal-Mart store

Both of these items pose a huge threat to Windsor's quality of life and local economic development. We urge you to learn as much as you can about the proposals and contact your councillors to voice your concerns.

From the desk of the General Manager of Public Works comes this little gem - also going before council this Monday night...

Item 1 City-wide Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy and Community Improvement Plan Consultant Selection

Read up on this one, because it contains some long-term ramifications. We'll delve a little deeper later on this later in the week.

Canadians fatter -- and we know why

According to an article posted on Canada.com today, Canadians have the highest percentage of obese adults of 63 nations investigated. Here's a link to the article. I wonder if anyone has stopped to ask why?

SDW has been asking why -- and providing real solutions for the issues impacting Canadians, and Windsorites, alike. Check out this recent post.

Geography of Hope

The message that we share at SDW is that we can make a difference. Often, it is a message that is lost in the cacophony of fear that mass media spreads. Imagine my surprise when I caught a news story on CTV about a new book by author Chris Turner called The Geography of Hope. Turner wrote the book after the birth of his daughter. The message? The changes that we keep saying should be made, but never quite find the time to do, advocate for or invest in are already happening.

Turner travelled the world to document that successes that individuals, communities, cities and countries have had in building the communities of tomorrow today! Check out the link above to buy his book or this link to his webpage. I think it will give you the hope we are all looking for to continue to fight for the change we want to see.

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 7

Myth Number 7
If you don't like growth, you're a "NIMBY" or an "Anti".

Reality Check: NIMBYs have valid concerns.

The overused NIMBY acronym, "not in my backyard," is supposed to reflect a selfish attitude, an unwillingness to accept some undesirable development in, or near, the neighbourhood. Similar rhetorical labels include "anti's" (people who are against everything), "gatekeepers", "drawbridge raisers", or "I've got mine." There are far too many examples of how these negative labels have been used against concerned citizens to neutralize opposition to growth.

These labels seem to have the primary purpose of invalidating what may be a very legitimate concern about growth and development. A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it. You can thank all the great NIMBYs of the past for keeping hazardous wastes dumps, major polluters, and other nuisances out of your community. The more people join together to preserve the quality of their "backyards", the better off the world will be.

People who move to a community and then express concerns about growth are sometimes referred to as “pulling up the drawbridge after them”. Again, this is like to be a distortion of the person’s real motives. Often, newcomers to a community move there because they recognize it has some special qualities. They may also have lived in other towns where they’ve watched similar qualities be destroyed by growth. Thus, they may have a keen awareness of how vulnerable their new community’s assets are. This outside experience can be valuable to a community that has not recently experienced the consequences of rapid growth.

People who want slow growth tend to be those who care very much about the future of their community and want to protect what they value for generations to come. They are usually volunteers who are willing to contribute their time generously in a charitable civic capacity to improve the community and the environment. Is it more accurate for the local newspaper to refer to such a person as anti-growth or as pro-community? Negative labeling distorts and marginalizes legitimate viewpoints. It also tends to polarize issues and discourage productive dialogue. Are you an anti-growther or a dedicated civic volunteer concerned about the future of your community?

read more of the argument against Myth 7 here

Creating an Alt. Trans. Mental Picture

We have so little in the ways of examples of truly progressive municipal thought processes locally that it is difficult to picture what a lot of the global experts are talking about when it comes to thinking generationally about transportation planning. It is hard for the everyday Joe/Anne on the street to envision any alternatives, when we are constantly surrounded by an asphalt-loving road-widening mentality. This is precisely the reason we occasionally must look to other countries on far-flung continents to help us build our alternative-transportation mental picture.

Which is why I'm leading you across the pond to Bodø. The city of Bodø in the County of Nordland in northern Norway wants to become a bicycle city. NPRA and the municipality of Bodø have suggested building in a foot and bicycle path between the College of Higher Education and the city centre to make cycling easier and more attractive. Some years ago a glass roof was constructed over a part of the main street and the experience with the project was so positive, now the inhabitants of Bodø gladly look forward to the tube being built. The idea, which was introduced by the City Plan Director, Jørn Roar Moe, is to construct a framed structure covered with transparent plastic plates. The bicycle tube will have a number of roofed openings for access and ventilation. There will also be internal illumination. The tube will hold physically separated roads for cyclists and pedestrians.

Some people take the idea of traffic abatement seriously. I just wish we didn't need to look to other countries to find examples such as this. Want an idea of what they're thinking of? Click here.

How about a little closer to home? Bill, a reader here in Windsor, sent along this link he found to The Indianapolis Cultural Trail. It turns out that Indianapolis, Indiana is making what could be the boldest step of any North American city towards supporting bicyclists and pedestrians. Known as an extremely auto-oriented city, most closely associated with the Indianapolis 500, this is one of the last cities we would have expected to see systematically removing vehicle lanes and replacing them with bicycle and pedestrian space.

Now, tell me why we have such a difficult time implementing even the slightest change here in Windsor?

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 6

Myth Number 6
Growth is inevitable. Growth management doesn't work and therefore we have no choice but to continue growing. You can't put a fence around our town.

Reality Check: You can establish limits to growth and you can create a "railing" around your community.

Because it is impractical and also illegal to build a physical barrier to the movement of people and goods within the country, growth advocates suggest that there is nothing productive you can do to keep your community at the size you like.

The statement that "growth is inevitable" implies that we are helpless victims of change, that we must accept whatever growth is thrust upon us, and that our only choice is the manner in which we accommodate it.

It is true that our communities cannot erect tall fences, build insurmountable walls, or use drawbridges over alligator-filled moats to keep people out. There is a constitutional right to travel that prevents communities from erecting these kinds of rigid barriers. But that doesn't mean there is nothing we can do to rein in growth. We can use a wide range of responsible policies and regulations to influence whether or not people and businesses choose to locate in our community. We can also set limits to the rate of growth and even cap the ultimate size of our community.

One option is to adopt policies that will discourage undesirable kinds of growth. By enacting specific standards, a community can create what might be termed a "railing." This railing, unlike the proverbial fence, might be composed of environmental, social, and economic standards that will direct growth and change in the community without blocking it entirely.

Dozens of communities have established limits to their rate of growth and to their ultimate size to protect the local quality of life and to respect the physical limitations of their natural environment. These growth limits have yet to be thoroughly tested in the courts. But the ability to establish limits seems like a reasonable, if not essential, tool for community governance. The idea of unlimited, or forced, growth is repulsive. It implies a horrible sickness, like a cancer.

Some growth limits will cap the ultimate population size of a community. This must be done in a manner that does not prevent people from coming and going. While the size of the population may be stabilized, the composition can remain dynamic within the bounds set by the community. As long as new births and in-migration do not exceed deaths and out-migration, the community does not grow.

As more and more communities realize they want to preserve their small town character, the ideas of establishing limits to growth will become more commonplace. As some communities reach the limits they have set for themselves and stop growing, the courts – and society – will make decisions about how this transition to a stable community may properly occur

click here for a printable copy of the argument against Myth 6

Reminded of the one...

I just want to say thank you to The Windsor Star for reminding me that we have one member of city council who isn't afraid to speak up and tell people the way it is.

Alan Halberstadt wrote a letter to the editor today calling for people to realize that the first order of business is to REDUCE the number of trucks on the roads - not just accomodate them (which, in the end, only encourages that method of transportation)

Route fixation keeping focus from border fix

I sympathize with the opinion of occupational health activist James Brophy, Oct. 12, that the City of Windsor's plan to spend $1.6 billion on a road solution to bury border trucks is the wrong approach.

Mr. Brophy is bang on. We should be looking first for ways to reduce the number of trucks crossing the Detroit River. Unfortunately, the city has been backed into a corner by senior governments who have decided more and more trucks will keep rolling through Windsor and somehow we have to accommodate them over the next 50 to 100 years.

The alternative to burying trucks in tunnels is to continue the practice of mixing them with cars and stopping and starting them for six kilometres from the 401 to E.C. Row. The stoplights on Huron Church Road offer the worst-case scenario for creating and spreading poisonous diesel fumes.

Mr. Brophy fails to mention that the original Schwartz plan, unveiled in January 2005, includes other components every bit as vital as the Huron Church access route.

Sam Schwartz advocated the following "balanced transportation" elements to subtract 2,000 trucks per day from city streets:
- Increase the capacity of the Detroit-Windsor truck ferry from 50-80 trucks/day to 1,000.
- Build a CP rail tunnel beneath the Detroit River to support double-stack rail containers that carry SUVs, etc.
- Build a multi-modal hub at Windsor Airport aligning ground, air and rail transportation. Rationalize commercial and passenger rail lines and rail yards to eliminate 15 public railway crossings in Windsor and 94 in Essex and Kent counties.

The city needs to revisit the original Schwartz plan, which envisioned a five-phase construction schedule:
- Phase 1: Huron Church bypass, existing ferry, bridge and tunnel improvements.
- Phase 2: New rail tunnel, rail consolidation, multi-modal facility, new rail station.
- Phase 3: Lauzon Parkway and Manning Road extensions to the 401.
- Phase 4: Highway 401 improvements and extension.
- Phase 5: Build the new crossing.

The timing on some of these green elements has become muddled and even forgotten given the fixation on the truck access route.

The city needs to get cracking on them to alleviate Mr. Brophy's grim warning that the Windsor-Detroit border transportation plan will be unsustainable in 15 years.

ALAN HALBERSTADT
Ward 3 Councillor

The article which Halberstadt is citing, features James Brophy decrying a huge investment on an option that will be deemed obsolete in twenty years, while doing nothing to curb emmissions. Unfortunately, the Star's archive service was down at the time of this writing, so I cannot reprint it here.

We must encourage Alan to keep up the good fight, and being the sole member of council willing to tell the truth - no matter how hard it is to hear.

Halberstadt for Mayor in 2010!

SDW - The latest effort to combat obesity

It seems that, after years of fighting to get the message out, that people in high places are finally starting to listen. Oh yes, and the media has picked up on it too!

According to an article posted on MSN this morning, the British thinktank Foresight has analyzed data involving 250 health experts spanning two years and determined that our environment, that is the infrastructure and amenities that comprise the world we live in, that is contributing to the rise of obesity. The predicted that, even if we acted immediately, it would take 30 years to reverse the trend that is set in place.

"Tackling obesity, like tackling climate change, requires a range of changes in society, from increasing everyday activity through the design of the built environment and transport systems to shifting the drivers of the food chain and consumer purchasing patterns to favor healthier options."

It looks like SDW can chalk up one more reason for fighting the good fight -- the health of future generations will rely on our success in transforming our community and making passive "exercise" a part of every day life rather than the exception to the rule.

Dumbing down at our expense

There is a fear in the halls of political power to broach certain topics with honesty, regardless of expert opinion.

Take the war on drugs. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that prohibition doesn't work and that legalization would lead to regulation, revenue for addiction treatment and law enforcement, and a more honest and open discourse on the topic. Yet the general populace, who are fed only token, filtered information, would not accept this, and the political leaders opt to entertain their votes instead of the hard science. This does our society a disservice.

The same is true of the current debate over our border crossing. Don't get me wrong. This is an immeasurably difficult situation for our community and we should not be bearing the brunt of it alone. We are forced to deal with an issue that culminates with 30,000 transport trucks per day flowing through our neighborhoods.

Yet, the issue that we are dealing with is not the trucks. They are the symptom. The issue our municipality is dividing itself over is the federal issue of our national transportation framework. The Canadian government's choice of highway expansion at the expense of neglecting our rail infrastructure has tilted the playing field towards an ever-increasing number of transport trucks moving our "stuff" down our highways and through our neighborhoods. This is an unsustainable method of trade, yet we continue to pour money into it in the hopes that it will get better. Our disappearing rail network, while infinitely more efficient than the transport trucks, doesn't have the powerful political lobby and is therefore failing in attracting the necessary funding to sustain it.

Even in last night's throne speech from "Canada's New Government", they are perpetuating this misconception;

"Our Government will announce an infrastructure program, the Building Canada Plan, to support our long-term growth. By investing in our transport and trade hubs, including the Windsor–Detroit corridor and the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, our Government will help rebuild our fundamentals for continued growth.

The result will be safer roads and bridges, shorter commutes, more competitive business, improved cultural infrastructure and a better quality of life for all Canadians."

I have no doubt that many pieces of our current transportation system are in dire need of funding, and that we have a responsibility to do so. I am not asking our country to just "Stop Right Now". That would be a disastrous decision to make so abruptly. There have been generations of decisions and expenditures that have brought us to the point we're at right now. What I'm asking is why are we not even addressing what we all know is true and the impacts those realities will have on the transportation choices we are currently embroiled in? We know that oil is getting more scarce and more expensive. We know that our reliance on global trade (read: China) has eroded our manufacturing industry to a mere shell of its former self. We know that the products we are importing are of questionable quality. We know that we cannot afford the immense road network we currently have, so why are we increasing its scope. We know many things, we're not stupid.

We recognise the many, individual problems plaguing our society, and now it's time to start linking them together.

I just want to see our community and country start to admit there's other factors at play in our border crossing dilemma, regardless of the political repercussions. I want to know the full ramifications of the governments major funding announcements prior to spending the windfall on an unsustainable system. The saying goes; When you've dug yourself into a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging and explore your options. Why are we so welcoming of an industry that is so damaging to our overall quality of life - on so many different levels - when there are alternatives.

It's not immediate answers that I'm looking for at this point in time. I'd be happy with some good questions.

I want informed decisions.

Is that too much to ask?

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 5

Myth Number 5
Environmental protection hurts the economy. We must be willing to sacrifice local environmental quality for jobs and economic prosperity.

Reality Check: Environmental protection is good for people and the economy.

A 1993 comparison of environmental standards and economic growth by Bank of America Vice President and Senior Economist Frederick Cannon, found that the economies of states with strong environmental standards had grown nearly one-half of a percent faster per year during the previous 14 years than in states with weak environmental standards.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question: Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain? He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:

· states with stronger environmental policies consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all economic measures;

· the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development;

· there appears to be a moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth, and

· there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards well produce economic growth.

read the rest of the argument against Myth 5 here.

Investing in Olde Walkerville

I find it inspiring when people are courageous enough to start a business, let alone when they decide to start it in economically depressing times. Luckily for Walkerville residents, there are still people who believe enough in our little corner of the city to invest their hard earned dollars and make a go of it.

Two developments are happening at the corner of Wyandotte and Chilver. In the old Bank of Montreal building, formerly occupied by T'Dye For Hair Spa, extensive renovations are underway for The Gourmet Emporium. I was invited into the building last week to see for myself, and let me tell you, BJ, the owner, is sparing no expense. I am looking forward to their Grand Opening scheduled for early November.

Across from The Gourmet Emporium on Chilver is the mystery development happening in the old Complex nightclub. I don't know exactly what is proposed for this building - but you know they are serious when Rosati is hired as the developer. Is seems as though the entire complex is being gutted. Keep an eye out for something here.

Over at the seemingly ever-under-construction Club Lofts, the windows are finally going in!

I attended their open house at Willistead Manor what seems like years ago, and the renderings I saw for these suites made me want to sign up on the spot. I do hope that the real estate market picks up in time so that the adaptive reuse of underutilized buildings such as Hiram Walker's warehouse becomes economically viable. These kinds of development really infuse life into a community that's experiencing rough times.

And then over on Walker Road, the old Hydro Sub-Station that was snapped up during Enwin's sell-off of unnecessary properties is seeing some life happening within it's walls. I was told that an architect had purchased the property, but when I was there, there was a host of cameras, lights and models strolling around the building and the grounds. The building has been beautifully restored - the windows are amazing - and work is obviously continuing.

So keep at it, Windsor. there's still a lot of life left in you!

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 4

Myth Number 4
If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up.

Reality Check: Growth controls can produce many benefits for a community and may even result in a better distribution of affordable housing than market-driven growth.

Housing affordability has the potential to become a key issue in any local debate about how to control growth. The development industry has repeatedly used the housing affordability issue to defeat growth controls on the grounds that anything that restricts the supply of housing, or pushes up the cost, will affect housing affordability.

Concerns about how growth controls affect the availability of low and moderate-income housing are legitimate. But such concerns should not be used merely to thwart and undermine growth controls. Rather, these concerns should serve as the motivation to create responsible policies that truly address the community's housing needs.

A 1992 study compared housing prices of seven California cities having growth controls with comparable cities not having growth controls. This study compared each community's home prices every year from 1980 to 1987 and found that "median single-family home prices did not rise any faster or to higher levels in the seven case-study cities than in their counterpart pro-growth cities. Indeed, by the end of the 1980's, housing was more affordable in some of the growth control cities than in their corresponding comparison cities."

read the rest of the argument against Myth 4 here.

The Sky has fallen

Well, five years since Nina Fontes took possession of the (Martini) Sky lounge on Pelissier, it has closed it's doors for good after last night's farewell performances by The Hung Jury, Travis Reitsma, and Ron Leary.

One of my favourite downtown watering holes, a night at Sky would promise excellent home-grown music and no drunken Ohio teens throwing up on your shoes. Nina always booked great acts - including perennial faves Ron Leary ("The closing of Sky is a major, major blow to the local roots music community") and "Mr. Chill" Kelly Hoppe ("A chapter is closing on a great venue, and Windsor's infinitely poorer for it") - and supported the local scene with an energy that is sure to be missed. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of one of Nina's contagious smiles knows it - this was one place where everyone was treated like a guest in Nina's home.

Please come out and support the remaining local clubs and indie music scene. They are all here as a part of Windsor's collective cultural heritage, and if we don't embrace them - nobody will.

Speaking of trains...

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, along with the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced a new funding package for VIA Rail Canada Inc., a Crown corporation, to revitalize inter-city passenger rail services in Canada. The funding totals $691.9 million over the next five years.

"Today, Canada's New Government is acting to provide faster, cleaner, more frequent and reliable passenger rail service across Canada," said Minister Cannon. "The corridor between Quebec City and Windsor has the largest passenger volumes and will benefit from infrastructure improvements that will make the entire passenger rail system more efficient and accessible."

...Of the total funding package, $516 million in capital funds will be allocated over five years for infrastructure improvements and equipment refurbishments, beginning in 2007. This investment will be targeted towards:

- fleet renewal, through refurbishment of the F40 locomotives and Light, Rapid and Comfortable (LRC) passenger cars;
- strategic infrastructure improvements to eliminate bottlenecks in the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor; and
- station refurbishments.

The equipment refurbishment will also help improve the company's environmental performance through increased fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions per passenger.

Now, let's see if some of that cash makes it all the way down the 401.

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 3

Myth Number 3
We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs.

Reality Check: Traditional economic development programs are often little more than corporate subsidies that act to fuel local growth.

This is a variation on Myth 2 that emphasizes business growth. The reasoning goes like this: People want good jobs; jobs come from businesses; therefore, creating a good business climate will result in more good jobs. A "good business climate" roughly translates to one with less government regulation, lower taxes, and a higher level of business subsidies.

A study by Dr. William R. Freudenburg of the University of Wisconsin evaluated how well business-climate ratings predict the prosperity of the people living in those areas. He used the three best known business climate ratings (Inc. Magazine, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Fantus Company) and compared the performance of each state, five and ten years after its rating. States with "good" business climate ratings experienced $585 to $1,100 more growth in per capita income after five years than did top-ranked states. The disparity was even greater after ten years.

The study did not address short-term gains. However, over the long run, an individual can expect to receive higher personal income gains in states rated as having bad business climates. This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by good-business-climate states on investing resources in business rather than directly in people.

for a printable copy of the argument against myth 3, click here.

A Crossroad and a Borderline

When the city of Windsor took down a roadside sign notifying visitors that “You have left the American sector” the response was polarizing to a few, but largely unnoticed. The sign was actually an art installment by Sobey Art Award nominee Ron Terada and, while the general populace failed to notice the pandering of city council to a clientele that are generally viewed more like obnoxious third cousins than close friends, James Patten, the Chief Curator at the Art Gallery of Windsor took the opportunity to begin an examination of border zones.

Nadja Pelkey, an artist working and living in Windsor, has been tapped as the marketing mastermind behind the coming Borderline Case at the Art Gallery October 12th and 13th. “Terada’s work was really just a banal sign meant to stimulate thought and conversation about the nature of borders.” Pelkey said in a recent email interview. Banal or not, the profile of the Windsor-Detroit border as both a social and economic link has been thrust into the open with Terada’s sign being one of the many guideposts leading the way.

The Borderline Case: A Symposium on the Cultural Geography of Windsor/Detroit is the product of the hype and fear-mongering surrounding the art flap above. The result of the efforts of the Art Gallery of Windsor, led by James Patten, hopes to capitalize on the “several academics in the area that are specifically concerned with post-industrial and border cities” according to Pelkey. “There is a great wealth of thought and action” she continues, “not really being tapped right now.” The Borderline Case is intended to bring together academics, activists and interested citizens to discuss and examine the issues at hand through lectures, open forums and art.

With Windsor at a crossroad, a point of view that even Mayor Francis has adopted in recent days with his GreenLink idea, engaging in an intellectually stimulating discussion on the possibilities for sustainability in Windsor is quickly approaching a fever pitch. “Windsor is a very special place” according to Pelkey, “in that the citizenry really has a big stake in the future of Windsor.” An engaged citizenry is essential to the success of any region, large or small. True democracy is not achieved through the simple act of marking a ballot. Democracy is speaking up. Democracy is an action. We must be informed and prepared to act on that information. Patten and Pelkey are doing their part to inform the citizens of Windsor that our current status quo is sub-par by international standards and that, although we may not see it ourselves, we live in the midst of a treasure-trove of diversity and beauty that will sustain us for generations to come. Democracy is powered by people and knowledge. We have both in Windsor, so the buck stops here.

A Borderline Case is taking place at the Art Gallery of Windsor this Friday through to Sunday. Click here for schedules and details

Alt. Trans Big Part of Windsor GreenLink

After many years of debate, the Provincial and Federal governments finally came through with their new cross border plan for Windsor. I'm not sure that this is what we wanted, but it's pretty close to what we expected! The one positive thing is the environmentalists finally got them to consider using rail as part of the plan

View details of the city's new border access route plan, with public meetings next week, schedule and more available here.

Relocalizing Windsor

I was making a pitch about this blog the other day. The feedback we are receiving is great and I can see …Scale Down entering other forms of media in the effort to reach more people. When I was asked about the purpose of the blog, I went on to explain our emphasis on our built environment and our need to refocus our attention to strengthening the physical and social infrastructure that we've already invested in as opposed to our current drive to continually spread ourselves too thin. Removing any roadblocks currently in front of our local economy as opposed to seeking out and subsidizing big-box "solutions" to our current economic crisis. It was then that it struck me, …Scale Down is another group pursuing many of the ideals of the Relocalization movement.

Whereas the established "Relocalization" movement is focused on abating the effects of peak oil, with a fundamentalist demeanor, we are more focused on community quality-of-life goals. In the end, however, the two routes taken will inevitably lead to the same destination - a more compact, self-sufficient community who's time is spent more on community ethics than consumption values.

What is the traditional definition of "Relocalization"?

Relocalization is the most hopeful alternative to unsustainable corporate globalization is a reinvestment in our own communities, building vibrant local economies based on cooperation instead of competition, meeting people's needs instead of manufacturing desires, and respecting the natural environment around us.

Relocalization is the rebuilding of our societies on a human scale, forging strong local economies based on mutually beneficial cooperation instead of predatory competition, meeting people's real needs instead of manufacturing desires, and respecting the natural environment that is the basis of our existence.

Relocalization is an essential adaptation to the depletion of non-renewable resources (oil, natural gas, coal, and even water), and a solution to global warming and other ecological crises.

Relocalization means the democratization of our social, economic, and political lives — an antidote to the community disempowerment and “race to the bottom” fostered by corporate globalization. Regaining control over our future is the key to building healthier, happier, stronger, and more equitable communities throughout the Commonwealth and beyond.

Calling all Volunteers

The Windsor Essex County Environment Committee, through the Active Transportation Sub-committee, is looking for volunteers to participate in a focus group to examine and provide feedback on the current status of active transportation in Windsor. Anyone who is interested can contact Heather Nash at heather4hclv@sympatico.ca to put their name forward. I don't know how many members are going to be needed, but I am sure this will likely be an 'all hands on deck' exercise.'

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 2

Myth Number 2
We have to grow to provide jobs for people in the community

Reality Check: We can't grow our way out of local unemployment problems. Growth makes the problem bigger.

The overly simplistic logic goes like this: Everybody agrees that people need jobs, therefore, anything that creates jobs must be good. If you oppose growth, then "you don't care about people who need jobs." According to University of California, Santa Barbara Professor Harvey Molotch, "A key ideological prop for the growth machine, especially in appealing to the working class, is the assertion that local growth 'makes jobs.' This claim is aggressively promulgated by developers, bankers, and Chamber of Commerce officials. "

The real question is not whether growth creates jobs, but whether it reduces local unemployment. Presumably, if growth reduced unemployment, a fast-growing city would tend to have a lower unemployment rate than a slow-growing one. To test this, Molotch examined two decades of census data on growth rates and unployment. He compared unemployment rates in the 25 fastest growing cities in the U.S. with the 25 slowest growing. He found no statistical correlation between the growth rate and the unemployment rate. Faster-growing cities are undoubtedly creating new jobs, but, it seems they are also attracting new residents who don't find jobs. The faster-growing city ends up being a bigger city, with a similar unemployment rate and a larger number of people unemployed.

Economic booms may provide temporary relief from unemployment woes, but experience clearly indicates that growth is not the long-term solution to unemployment.

Click here for the rest of the argument against Myth Number 2.

Clone Town

Think we're the only one's dealing with the onslaught of big-box retail and the bland, monotonous environments they create? Think again. Across the pond in the UK, London's New Econoomics Foundation (nef) is leading the charge for local economic development.

They are an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being by aiming to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environment and social issues. nef works with all sections of society in the UK and internationally - civil society, government, individuals, businesses and academia - to create more understanding and strategies for change. Clone Town is one of their latest campaigns.

Economic systems that favour the large, remote and uniform threaten our local economies and communities, diversity and choice.

Creating the right balance between local and global economies will help to increase individual well-being, reduce inequalities and promote environmental sustainability. nef is pushing to fight ghost town britain and relocalise the economy through the local works campaign and by empowering communities through enterprise and innovation.

The tools for local economic renewal help people create their own futures. Our flagship inner city 100 project shows the power and dynamism of inner city business, and our work on access to finance addresses the problem of people being excluded from mainstream finance.

Debunking the Growth Myth...

I have been spending a lot of time rereading the urban studies and planning tomes that I have accumulated over the past 20 years. They are many and I've got my work cut out for me. I've been doing this for a number of reasons, one being the fact that I am soon to be unemployed and I hope to actually find employment in the field of study that I went to college for. The other is to better understand the way our built environment is holding Windsor back from becoming the livable and creative community I know that it can be.

One of the first books that I chose to reread is one I cited a few weeks ago on this blog. "Better Not Bigger" by Eben Fodor is a resource geared towards community activists, politicians and planners to educate them on how to take control of urban growth and improve your community. It is a great read, and I am going to be using some of its lessons here on SDW to try and debunk a lot of the long-held myths about the urban growth machine. "The Twelve Big Myths Of Growth" is one chapter that our city councillors need to know, so over the course of the next month, you will get the chance here.

Myth Number 1
Growth Provides Needed Tax Revenues

Reality check: Growth tends to raise local tax rates. The direct and indirect costs of urban growth place new demands on local resources and divert money away from other important public services.

We hear that the more people and businesses we attract to our community, the more tax revenues we will have. Supposedly this will generate surplus funds and enable us to get more public services or pay for a new library or concert hall we couldn't have afforded otherwise, without increasing our individual tax burden. Citizens hoping for a tax windfall from new development are likely to be disappointed. While growth does result in a larger overall tax base, it usually costs more money than it generates, resulting in a net fiscal drain. Harvard economists Alan Altshuler and Jose Gomez-Ibanez report that:

"The available evidence shows that development does not cover new public costs; that is, it brings in less revenue for local governments than the price of servicing it."
In spite of the available evidence, there is an astonishing lack of awareness about the relationship between urban growth and local taxes. One possible reason is the number of good studies looking at this relationship is still quite small. While our local governments spend billions of dollars every year on new infrastructure to serve growth, few have deemed it worthwhile to examine how much it costs, and who pays for it and who benefits from it.

Read the rest of the argument against Myth Number 1 here.

First, we kill all the architects...

Danny Lyon, of the New York Times, has been asked to help design a city.

Here's what he recommends.

A random Thanksgiving news article

“GROWING COOLER” --
AN INESCAPABLE CHALLENGE

By Neal Peirce

WASHINGTON -- Increasing the fuel efficiency of the cars we drive -- the environmentalists’ perennial battle to get Detroit to improve vehicle gas mileage --is a great cause.

But it’s not enough. We have to go a giant step farther with sharp cuts in how far, and how often, we drive. If we don’t, there’s virtually no chance we can reduce our cars’ massive greenhouse gas emissions -- now responsible for 45 percent of automobile carbon emissions worldwide.

The message and the math are incorporated in a just-released report -- “Growing Cooler” -- issued by the prestigious Urban Land Institute in collaboration with Smart Growth America and allied organizations.

The problem’s complex and fierce. There’s now broad agreement among scientists that to restrain an upward spiral in global warming -- with dangerously rising seas and spreading deserts -- global temperature rise must be limited to 2 degrees Celsius. And that to reach that goal, the U.S., up to now the world’s champion polluter, must cut its carbon dioxide emissions between 60 to 80 percent by 2050, relative to their 1990 levels.

The authors projected that even if stiffer new fuel economy standards currently now before Congress are approved, and even if there’s progress on hybrid cars and lower-carbon fuels, the nation’s transportation-related CO2 emissions in 2030 would be 12 percent above the 2005 level and 40 percent above the 1990 level, casting a deep shadow across the 2050 goal.

So is there any way out? Yes, they reply: cut back sharply on the miles we drive our vehicles. Since 1980, total miles driven by Americans has grown three times faster than the rise in our population, even twice as fast as vehicle registrations. The vast majority of new development is laid out assuming people will use cars for virtually all trips. Homes have been built ever-further from workplaces. Shopping malls, big retail boxes, office parks and new schools are routinely built without a thought to pedestrians or public transit. The net result: more and longer auto trips, most often driving alone.

But what if we switched to develop more compactly? Surveys show at least a third of us would now prefer more compact communities in which homes, town centers, shops, parks and schools are in walking or biking distance. It’s true that many young families feel obliged to “drive ‘til you qualify” -- ever-longer commutes for an affordable mortgage. But 88 percent of household growth from 2000 to 2025 is expected to be by elderly people or childless families. Aging baby boomers will be driving less and looking for walkable environments; one survey shows Gen Xers tend to value diverse, compact communities and show disillusionment with “bland vanilla suburbs.”

“Growing Cooler” offers a “smart growth” recipe of walkable, transit-served and “New Urbanist”-style developments, more compact new housing, shops and offices filling in vacant lots or sites of failing shopping centers rather than replacing forests or farmland. In such developments, people typically drive 20 to 40 percent less than on the suburban edge.

The chance for change could be great because there’ll likely be a massive two- thirds turnover of the nation’s building stock by 2050 -- close to 90 million new or replaced homes, 190 billion square feet of new offices, stores and institutions.

If only 60 percent of that development is clustered in compact, mixed-use areas, the “Growing Cooler” authors calculate vehicle miles traveled would be cut back enough to slash transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by a significant 7 to 10 percent.

But declaring such a vision and achieving it won’t be easy. As Rick Cole, urban author and city manager of Ventura, Calif., observes, our predominant dream “remains a suburban one, enforced by rigid zoning codes and churned out by developers on autopilot.”

And changing it will churn the political waters. Cole cites the political firestorm set off when California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued rapidly-growing San Bernardino County and pressured other counties to show how their development plans will reduce greenhouse gases. Brown's San Bernardino suit spurred opposition from the building industry and the state Chamber of Commerce, as well as local officials and Republicans in the state’s legislature. But the county recently did agree to devise strategies to reduce CO2 emissions.

Beyond court suits, Cole suggests cities themselves must be more proactive by finding room for more people in their already developed footprint, and assuring prospective new residents the attractions Americans are sure to demand -- “far greener urban building, far better urban schools, far more attractive urban parks, far safer urban streets.”

Plus, I’d add, develop the same kind of comprehensive, reliable rail and bus systems that Europe and Japan offer – real alternatives to the private car.

Carbon-saving communities may be a 21st century imperative. But the transition to them is likely to be one of the most challenging adjustments Americans have ever made.

For Release Sunday, October 7, 2007
© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group