BRUSSEL EXPRESS – A documentary about bike couriers in Brussels,  the most congested city in Europe with only 4% cycling traffic. Online soon.

For some reason or another people seem to associate cities with socialism and suburbs with the capitalist American dream. The notion that the strong middle class created American suburbia has been engraved in our minds for all of recent American history. Contrary to popular belief however, it wasn’t always like this. In fact, as far as population trends grow, suburbia is a relatively new concept. And it wasn’t always “The American Dream”. Many people grew up with the idea that prosperity meant the white house with the picket fence, the family, and the big beautiful American car to hit the open road with. That was the American Dream. However this dream of land and home ownership wasn’t the result of market forces occurring naturally, it was the result of government intervention and social engineering.

Lessons from Merry Old England

English Garden hotness.

Even after our succession from England and American independence, there were things that remained highly valued which were still wants from the old empire. And not just tea, but land. The idea that one could own land for themselves to work and prosper on made America a very attractive place, and for most of our country’s history your options were you can take a job in a city or find a place to homestead in a small town somewhere or set up working the land. Even today’s commercials for things like “Scott’s Turf Builder” play into the fact that as a homeowner you can be “King of the Castle” and have a lush beautiful lawn, just like the palaces of the old country (Of course, the old country gets much more rain than most parts of the United States and as such, has some very naturally lush grass, but I digress). In addition to persecution of religion, many people came to America to free themselves from landlords who forced them to work land for little personal benefit.

These ideals stuck with Americans for a long time, and even if you were able to escape the old world landlords, land acquisition became one of the earliest “American Dream”s and as such, something that could be exploited.

Government Intervention, and the American Dream being sold to the American People

Coming out of the war and Depression, Americans were eager to start families and enjoy new lives! The federal government hopped right on board and created programs where banks were forced to make long term mortgages to people as long as they met the qualifications the government provided, both in the neighborhood and the people who were looking to buy. The idea of the long term 20 or 30 year mortgage is not a creation of the market or even banks looking to hook people into forking over their paychecks. It’s not that long ago that mortgages were very short term and required a large down payment. Think along the lines of 50% down and a three year mortgage.

Not only was the federal government now involved with Federal Housing Administration backed loans and Veterans Administration loans for the servicemen coming home, but they were deciding where these loans could be used. Essentially, a number system was invented to determine the loan risk, redlining areas where they didn’t want to grant loans. Basic criteria said that if the number of black Americans in the neighborhood was greater than 0, that you either could not get a loan in that area or if perhaps that neighborhood was only within walking distance of black neighborhoods could you get a loan but at a higher interest rate. If you read this in the context of the modern world it sounds absurd, but at the time, there was even a wall built in Detroit to separate blacks from whites in order to allow for new housing developments and FHA / VA mortgages.

With a severe lack of insight, the government felt that land would always increase in value, and it wouldn’t matter how many suburbs you built since the property values should be able to sustain all the roads, infrastructure, police, fire, and other essential city services. Today, people are questioning whether or not suburban home prices will ever rebound within our lifetimes or at all.

At the same time big government is putting out the racist propaganda to favor single family suburban homes, two more things were happening: war profiteering national security interests felt that keeping American automobile factories strong was vital as a means of national defense; and people got the idea that raising their kids in the suburbs where they could play in a big yard with a golden retriever while dad smokes his pipe and reads the paper while mom fixes dinner was in fact the pinnacle of human settlement.

The 50s Ranch house

So cars it was, the idea was a car in every garage. Maybe even two! You can buy your house in the suburbs with your government created loan package and take the federally subsidized (by subsidized, I mean 90% with 10% funds coming from the state) highway into the city every day for work in your American made automobile rolled off the line by a worker who was forced to join a labor union and works in a factory that the federal government has a war interest in keeping open.

Tell me what part of this is supposed to be the free market capitalism this country was built upon. Somehow I keep missing it.

To top it off, the idea of the crabgrass frontier spread like wildfire through advertising and word of mouth. People were sold this dream and they bought into it. Truth be told, it was an easy sell. You could escape the big bad noisy city for something quiet, pleasant, and most of all, keep the kids in a safe environment. People fell in love with the manufactured American dream, and customs followed suit. The new cool was to be able to cruise your ride up and down the boulevard and, unlike previous generations, as soon as you turned 18 you left the nest and went out to found a family on your own. Just like that, life was different.

It seems that people are being sold this dream, or at least companies are still advertising this dream to the masses. Thanks, Lowe’s.

After much intervention in trying to create these suburbs, the government didn’t even have to promote suburban housing, just promote housing and make it cheaper to buy a new house than an existing house (which of course means a new house out in the far suburbs). The Bubble that burst in the housing market as a result of this federal intervention was a long time in the making, with Washington trumpeting “Look at all the people who we turned into homeowners who will never be able to afford these homes!”

Human Settlement and the Creation of Wealth

So what’s the problem, you might ask? is it a big deal if the suburbs were created by socialist and racist government intervention, if people think it works?. Well, unfortunately it’s not that simple. Patterns of settlement and civilization since the dawn of man has shown that people like to gather together. We figured out a long time ago that by not settling, we don’t do ourselves any good. When your entire existence is being nomadic and wandering from place to place playing a daily survival game, it’s hard to accumulate wealth or acquire the methods needed to invent new things which will advance society.

A central place where people could live, work, and play was at the core of civilization as we discovered that not only are other people interesting, but we even like spending time with each other. We like being able to meet new people and exchange new ideas and talents. We like being able to trade with each other and discuss recent happenings over a coffee in the town common. And even if you don’t particularly like other people, this can be a spectator sport as well!

Detroit for example, has some fantastic people watching.

By now you get the point: people like being around other people and the natural progression of our species has been to seek out others of our own kind and settle in similar proximity. The federal government created a system that completely ignored eons of human behavior patterns and traded them for separation

Cities are what allow us to prosper: they are the trade, the economic, social and cultural capitals of the world. The clustering of people is what they have wanted, it helps them to move forward. It grants them the ability to do really amazing things, such as send their kind to the moon or find ways to defeat microscopic viruses. Such things are not possible without settlement.

Settlement also allows us to encounter people each day with different view points and we can share ideas and help to understand each other. Instead we live in gerrymandered legislative districts where people exist in segregated lifestyles. Overall, being separated from each other hasn’t done us any good. No wonder partisan bickering is at an all time high and congressional approval numbers continue to drop.

Even sadder than that is that the suburban idea of doing it all for the kids may have backfired. Many social scientists have questioned if separating the kids from each other on to large lots with their cul-du-sac infested subdivision is healthy. It may in fact it may be causing depression, higher suicide rates, kids acting out (think of how much of a problem bullying has become since the suburbanization of America), and increased dependency. How does it create dependency? Well if your teenager can’t get anywhere on their own, you can try all you want to teach them responsibility and independence by making them do chores or cut the grass for some extra cash. But someone still needs to give them a lift to the mall to spend it because there is literally nothing within walking distance. The last 70 years have also been the safest environment for raising kids in the history of man kind. No wonder the next generation is thinking outside the suburban box.

How the future will be different

Suburban growth has slowed. Urban growth increased by 12% from 2000 – 2010. Kids now view driving as a burden instead of a necessary freedom. Online usenet groups, message boards, and social networks have exploded so that even if we are apart in physical body we can still meet, swap ideas, and collaborate with each other. Even if it is through a data network of machines, it’s there. The market is in the early stages of correcting itself. The new generation questions why the government should heavily subsidize the roads which de-value the surrounding land (nobody wants to live next to a freeway), picking winners and losers in the transportation game while ignoring another form of going from point A to point B with transit systems, which are likely to increase the value of adjacent land.

They pose questions such as:

Why is it a crime that I don’t want a house of Value City Furniture 35 minutes away from a metropolitan area with access only to strip malls? Not everyone enjoys driving in four lanes of traffic on their way to Red Lobster. Why is it that for years we tried to drink close to the city, but now we want to venture off to “El Rancho” for cheap tequila and barstools we don’t have to fight for?

Taken from here (an interesting rant about how Americans ostracize those who don’t choose the default American lifestyle)

This is more than just a previous generation rejecting the ways of their parents, this is people shifting back into the patterns they have been doing for long before the age of American politicians. They’re not alone, many people from Ayn Rand to Richard Florida have been  advocates for the city. It’s not a liberal vs conservative thing. It’s not a young people vs old people thing. It’s not even a capitalist vs. socialist thing. It’s something of free will and civilization vs government intervention.

Despite their best efforts, people and governments are realizing that sprawl is not intuitive with human nature and social behavior. So they’re trying something different, you can call it “Smart Growth” or “anti sprawl” measures or whatever else you want to call it. What it is not is some conspiracy effort to make America “more like Europe” or “bring European socialism to America”, we already have our own brand of socialism in America that has been packaged up differently. And it’s certainly not some ridiculous 21st “mandate” from twenty years ago from a phantom government in a league of nations (because as you know, this international government body dictates all domestic policy for the United States and we always pay attention and implement said policy).

The reality is that paying for all this infrastructure is far too expensive and creating communities that are not economically diverse in what the produce. We’re learning that you can’t build economies on strip malls, movie theaters, and fast food. We’re learning that people don’t like being so far apart from everything. We’re learning that people now view the old symbols of freedom as symbols of an outdated and obsolete society. They want to be able to come out and play and be able to walk places instead of getting stuck in traffic and being completely auto dependent.

People are doing what they’ve always done. It’s time to take a step back and let the market work.

The Managing Principal of PlaceMakers, Hazel is an electrical engineer with an MBA. She organizes the SmartCode Workshop and Placemaking@Work webinar education series. Hazel guides governments through zoning reform to allow walkable, mixed-use, compact, sustainable places to develop. She helps developers build under form-based codes.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

Next time you enter into a coffee shop, just stand up and dive into political discourse by speaking out loud to all the welcoming patrons. This is apparently doing it old school, as London historian Dr. Matthew Green describes in his article in The Telegraph. Dr. Green presents a wonderful story into London past, describing the origins of the London coffeehouse (1652!) and how the coffeehouse atmosphere would help transform public socialization.

The highlight of the coffeehouse, its “lifeblood” according to Dr. Green, was conversation. Interaction with strangers was what made the coffeehouse flourish because the agent of coffee provided the mental and physical boost to ramble on for hours. An atmosphere ensued that helped add to the greater socialization of all involved. Democracy in action was found inside coffeehouses, resulting in the sharing of great ideas between people in the topical realms like the metaphysical, philosophical and of course political.

Madcap Coffee, Grand Rapids, MI. Photo by author.

Today it is hard to imagine the city without a coffee shop, but to what degree does it still provide this level of active socialization? Of course we can now point towards the internet as the source of our information gathering (especially since you are reading this article on the internet right now). Yet right now there are some readers in a coffeehouse reading this. The point here is not simply that coffeehouses are great places for public interaction, this is understood. But to what degree of interaction is it currently? Where do we practice such open speech and engagement of strangers in person and in public these days?

Coffeehouses are still romanticized places inside the urban fabric providing a space that meets our need for conversational loitering. It looks like we have nothing on the coffeehouses of the past though.

Kiev Time lapse video

This gorgeous timelapse video shows how people live in Kiev. The more I learn about the 2nd world, the more fascinated I get by it. This is just another example. The video shows varying aspects of Ukranian city life, from subway travel to shopping.

Created by Efim Graboy & Daria Turetski

Music: Adam Burns / Jez Burns – May Flowers

Because of our sentiments to the city and the incoming spring, we bring you a miniature day in a life of Kiev.

The Making:
We shoted MiniLook Kiev with Canon 550D, during 5 days and 2 nights, shoted over 25,000 frames,
from all of them we used about 4,500. The post-production was the hardest part of the creation, it took us a few good months, but finally it’s done!

Imagine everything is new, bright and shiny.  Imagine this new is something that also keeps you out, pushes you away, and finds you abandoning the place you once called home.  When the poor in society are pushed away from where they once were due to a combination of a lack in planning on their behalf, and by the over emphasis on the ‘new and shiny’ (and more importantly expensive), the resulting tradeoffs for society as a whole are an ultimate net loss.  In the global city of Karachi, Pakistan, many are asking if certain development is anti-poor, while looking for any signs of intentional planning on behalf of the lower classes.

From this article highlighting the third annual Karachi Literature Festival, one of the featured talks titled ‘Megacities’ dove into the weighty issue of anti-poor urban planning initiatives.  As is the case for most global major cities, the poor are pushed out of the city core when development runs roughshod in their former beat down and dreary neighborhoods, erecting in its place upscale living and high end shopping.  Sadly, there is a destination on the periphery for the poor, as Karachi has the largest slum in South Asia, the town of Orangi.

Alley in Orangi Town, Karachi Pakistan

Contrasted against the urban renewal efforts of the past in the United States, present development in Karachi takes on a more bullish approach towards improving the city.  Nausheen Anwar, urban studies academic and moderator of the talk, described influential cites like Dubai that provide the benchmark for high end development.  He points out however that it is the culture of the elite and not just the local governments that are inducing the change.  It is said in the article that about 60% of Karachi’s population suffers from living in unplanned areas.  It is this kind of disregard for those who are displaced that is most disturbing.  If the poor are at least planned for, even in the abysmal form of high rise towers of urban renewal past, there is at the least a frame to work with involving an intentional planning strategy.  The absence of any strategy is truly alarming.

Arif Hasan, town planner and historian, cites a new development along the water called Port Grand.  Though not entirely opposed to Port Grand in principal, Hasan points out that established cultural activity has come to an end in the area as a result of blockades and a gated district that planners created.  Intentional separation of the classes through urban design hinders public cultural interactions, further distancing the haves and have not’s.

Port Grand in Karachi, Pakistan

Hasan is not unfamiliar to raising action on the behalf of the community.  He led a petition and protest against the since abandoned Karachi Waterfront development, contending it would limit access to the beach area for many citizens of Karachi.  The petition specifically outlines the gentrification process of the beach area.  It is argued in point number four of the petition that the lower classes would “not be able to afford the cost of the expensive entertainment being proposed and will be excluded simply by the nature of developments that are to be implemented.”  Hasan clearly states in the petition that the waterfront development is not wrong, but that the issue of access is at hand.  It is voices like Hasan’s that are needed to help give voice to the lower class and have their concerns spoken for, and hopefully see them entering into the planning process.

The Urbanist Dispatch is proud to be a collaborating partner for the Living Labs Global Award 2012. New innovative ideas are needed to move cities forward, and the 2012 nominees have been announced! Please check out the following press release:

Living Labs Global jointly with 21 global cities has announced a shortlist of over 100 innovative, citizen-centred and sustainable technology solutions selected from 555 entries to the Living Labs Global Award 2012. Nominated solutions meet challenges covering areas such as Affordable Housing, Prevention of Obesity, Transport & Mobility, Tourism, Access to the Knowledge Society and Inclusive Governance, to improve the lives of 110 million citizens in these 21 cities in four continents. Winners will be announced at the Rio Summit on Service Innovation in Cities on 2-3 May 2012, bringing together leaders from visionary cities and pioneering entrepreneurs.

Barcelona (Spain)/Copenhagen (Denmark), 5th March, 2012 Today 21 global cities jointly with Living Labs Global, partners Citymart, Oracle and The Climate Group have announced the results of its first round evaluation of 555 entries received from 55 countries, which was carried out by an international expert jury as part of the Living Labs Global Award 2012.

The 109 shortlisted solutions have been announced here: http://llga.org/nominated

Shortlisted companies and organisations are now invited to provide in-depth supporting information, leading to the announcement of the winners at the Rio Summit on Service Innovation in Cities on 2nd May, 2012.

The winners of the 21 city categories of the Living Labs Global Award 2012 will be invited to carry out a full-scale pilot in the cities, to evaluate impact, provide input into product development, and improve procurement or regulatory decisions by cities later on. This has transformed the way waste management is planned in Barcelona, the way venture capital is provided to social entrepreneurs in Cape Town, or community healthcare is delivered in New Taipei City.

Councillor Paul Tilsley, Deputy of Birmingham City Council (UK), one of the 21 participating cities, which is seeking solutions for waste management, said “We think the Living Labs Global Award is a real opportunity to help find an innovative solution, fully utilising emerging technologies to efficiently and effectively process food waste, resulting in a sustainable energy source for the benefit of Birmingham business and residents.”

About the Living Labs Global Award 2012:

Living Labs Global, a non-profit association based in Barcelona and Copenhagen promoting digital service innovation in cities, is organising the 2012 edition of the Living Labs Global Award in cooperation with the Cities of Barcelona, Birmingham, Caceres, Cape Town, Coventry, Derry~Londonderry, Eindhoven, Fukuoka, Glasgow, Guadalajara, Hamburg, Lagos, Lavasa, Kristiansand, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Rome-Lazio, San Francisco, Sant Cugat, Santiago de Chile and Terrassa to choose the companies and organizations that have developed solutions that add high
value to users in cities around the world with the aim of helping over 110 million citizens in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe.

The Award is organised in partnership with Citymart, Oracle and The Climate Group, with winners being presented during the Rio Summit on Service Innovation in Cities, at which 4 experts/journalists will moderate discussions among the 21 cities and over 100 shortlisted companies will participate.

For more information please contact Living Labs Global:

Email: media@livinglabs-global.com / Tel.: 0034 93 1855110

###

If you have thought recently ‘I wonder how hipster my city is,’ hoping that you are catering to this segment of the population, think no longer.  With no better judge of hipsterability than Austin, Texas, we are provided a list of the up-and-comers supplying hipsters just the right ingredients to do, whatever it is they do.  Being a member on this list is a bit polarizing however, as my local town of Detroit, Michigan made it on the list, prompting some critique of the article’s specificity of Detroit’s hipster landscape.

Gauging the hipster quality of a city actually is key for the attracting of the creative class.  It isn’t something that a city can enact as a policy, it isn’t exactly the kind of thing that you remedy by bringing up in some city board meeting and creating a non-binding resolution of  hipster intent.  It is something though a city should monitor.  Particularly if there are overly restrictive policies in place that damper youthful creative expression.  Here are a few highlights from the CultureMap Austin article in light of urbanity:

• Density of hipster activities is critical, as the example from Burlington, Vermont demonstrates.  Because it is a small town a large amount of hipster activity (“local brew pubs, art galleries,…dive bars” to name a few) are all within a few city blocks.  With a stress of multi-modal transportation in this culture, keeping things close helps people to share ideas and experiences by simply walking or bicycling .
  

  SoCo Street Shot Austin, Tx (Credit: Payton Chung on NabeWise.com)

• Adaptive reuse made simple, as in not making it too hard with many hoops to jump through to turn an abandoned building into a place of creativity.  Detroit is cited in the article for its ample amount of abandoned properties, and what helps the hipster who prefers to reuse a building is not only supply but a local municipality with a bit of a laissez faire approach towards a hipster’s at times non-traditional methods of reuse.
• Music venues are key, and the promotion of public spaces for music performance should be encouraged.  Fostering an environment that likes to be loud (or unplugged) is key to accommodate the neighbors who go to bed at 8 in the evening.

Though there are certainly other characteristics to watch, each city will have to understand what it’s specific scene is like.  Retention of hipsters is also a priority to note for the long run, fostering an environment where young adults can not only find themselves for a brief period in life, but truly consider making there homestead there for the long-haul.  Just like the longevity of the 1925 sewing machine they joust bought.

As Director of Design & Urban Environment for the City of Melbourne with nearly 40 years experience as a practising architect and urban designer, Rob has produced a large number of strategic urban design solutions and projects in addition to design-research based urban projects and strategies, and has attracted over 100 state and national awards for excellence. A champion of both the arts and environmental sustainability he has worked to ensure that good urban design is established as a platform for city development into the 21st Century.

TEDxSydney 2010 was organised by General Thinking and took place on Saturday 22 May 2010 at CarriageWorks. Almost 2,000 people enjoyed the day live, over 700 in the theatre and the rest via big screen simulcast in The Forum. Thousands more watched the lives webstream. It was a grand day.

About TEDx, x = independently organised event

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organised events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organised events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organised TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organised.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

When the Obama administration announced the REO to rental program in the beginning of February there was finally a sense of large scale action on the abysmal housing situation in America.  Real-estate-owned (REO) properties, held by such federal entities as Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and the Federal Housing Administration, will be converted into rental properties by selling them off in bulk to private investors.

One take on this program provides what I would consider a fair assessment of the challenges ahead, especially at local levels.  Thomas J. Fitzpatrick IV of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland describes these challenges in this well researched article.  I highly recommend reading this through, but essentially Fitzpatrick covers what the REO to rental program will face in weak housing markets, specifically the Midwest.  Particularly interesting are issues of local government compliance, where code and building inspections will have to occur in greater frequency to track these rental properties.

San Antonio, Texas Foreclosure. From MSNBC.com

One of the other concerns is bulk buyers and their willingness (or lack of) to stabilize these properties.  Investing into vacant homes and providing good landlord services is not a guarantee.  Reuters now reports that Fannie Mae’s strategy will in fact be bulk sales, maybe 500 to 1,000 REO properties at once.  These large sales “will saddle investors with unwanted, less attractive or unfamiliar properties,” which only compounds the situation of bulk buyers who may already not be too interested in filling vacancies at a quick enough pace for the local communities.  The Reuters article highlights in contrast to this approach Freddie Mac’s proposed strategy, where investors will be able to “cherry-pick” properties that they will find suitable for the rental conversion based upon their intimate knowledge of their local area.

Fitzpatrick offers three recommendations for the issues he raises in his article, leading to proper actions that local governments can take for markets witnessing a low demand for rental housing and/or having to deal with bulk purchasing investors who may not ‘invest’ back into the community.  And for the federal agencies involved, there should be a clear, cohesive plan developed to help both buyers and local government alike from the get go and not create differing systems of implementation.  Doing this process slower but right will be better than moving too fast on a program of a national scale.