RE: Why Canada's Culture is 'Boring'

This just in, Victoria is the culture capital of Canada.

Hooray! Victoria is the best! Our work is done!

Oh, wait. In the words of The Missus:

"Best in Canada? If I live on a pile of dung, and someone says 'hey, you are on top of the pile!' I still live on a pile of dung."

Why Canada's Culture is 'Boring'.

 This could and maybe will be the subject of book; so, forgive any necessary gaps in thinking, here.

Note: This is full of generalizations that may better apply to more sprawled cities than Victoria, but still apply. 
-----

A great conversation with an Iranian, today.

Why is it that Canada has efficient infrastructure, strong education and health care systems, pristine environments, relatively limited social problems, but somehow suffers from a 'lack of' or boring culture?

A very subjective sentiment, yet one often expressed by Canadians and visitors, alike.

Culture is based on the shared traditions and attitudes of social group. As such, I believe that a primary cause of this 'lack of' (debatable concept, but easiest way to express it) culture is a lack of two types of public, social interactions.

First and most obviously, we lack good cafe culture.

That is, we lack vibrant public spaces (e.g., plazas, patios, parks) full of life -- aka people.

To me, this is almost exclusively down to our auto-oriented as opposed people-oriented and human-scaled built environments. Simple as that.

(p.s., Name a vibrant public space in Victoria. Once a year doesn't count.)

Second and less obviously, we lack casual 'sidewalk' culture.

Jane Jacob's was a huge proponent of urban design that facilitated healthy sidewalk culture:

[There is] an almost unconsciously enforced, well-balanced line... between the city public world and the world of privacy.

This line can be maintained, without awkwardness to anyone, because of the great plenty of opportunities for public contact in the enterprises along the sidewalks, or on the sidewalks themselves, as people move to and fro or deliberately loiter when they feel like it, and also because of... meeting places [e.g., business]... where one is free to either hang around or dash in and out, no strings attached.

 Under this system, it is possible in a city street neighbourhood to know all kinds of people without unwelcome entanglements, without boredom, necessity for excuses, explanations, fears of giving offense, embarrassments respecting impositions or commitments, and all such paraphernalia of obligations which can accompany less limited relationships.

Let's return to Canada. Some say that North Americans are 'obsessed' by privacy. I don't think this is the case; I think this is an inevitable behavioural reaction to our pod world.

Pod world: Go from house to garage to car to parking structure to elevator to cubicle/office to elevator to parking structure to car to garage and back into the house. 'Hi, neighbour!'

In a pod world, one struggles to develop a healthy sidewalk culture. Therefore, exposing ourselves to strangers -- particularly neighbours -- threatens the possibility of those unwelcome entanglements.

Back to Jane:

[The] more common outcome in cities, where people are faced with the choice of sharing much or nothing, is nothing. In city areas that lack a natural and casual public life, it is common for residents to isolate themselves from each other to a fantastic degree. If mere contact with your neighbors threatens to entangle you in their private lives, or entangle them in yours... the logical solution is absolutely to avoid friendliness or casual offers of help. 

As a practical result, the ordinary public jobs -- like keeping children in hand -- for which people must take a little personal initiative, or those for which they must band together in limited common purposes, go undone.

As a result, we are left with what The Missus and I now call Revolutionary Road Syndrome.

Revolutionary Road Syndrome is -- oversimplified -- a symptom of (primarily) suburbanites so isolated from any opportunity for healthy casual public interaction that all social interaction has to be made 'by reservation'.

And, thus, suffers are actually 'happy' to remain in their pods and ever-convey to neighbours that they are 'fully booked', when in fact they are both just watching the same TV show.

-

I think we greatly underestimate the effect of our built environment on our behaviour and so way of life and so culture.

--

Yes, people live -- and live -- on this street, too.

Making Cycling Sexy

This is actually a theme that MVB has been planning to explore (and act on). But, in place of immediate original content, here is some more sharing:

I thoroughly enjoyed this post on Copenhagenize.com. It's essentially a two-article exchange between author Mikael and a reader about promoting cycling by making it most convient vs. making it sexy and high status.

 (For the record, I'm not calling Ellen Page sexy. This is just good Canadian content.) from copenhagencyclechic.com

Here is an excerpt from the reader's 'article':

Last week Mikael wrote [about] U.S. cycle advocates... who [incorrectly] seem to assume that people will take up bicycles as transportation because it’s the right and moral thing to do. 

The infrastructure of Copenhagen is efficient and practical... Really, though, Copenhagenize.com is not selling asphalt and blue paint; it’s selling style.

For people in “developing bicycle cultures,” Mikael offers an alluring ideal, which often involves attractive women (and men) in tasteful clothes, undoubtedly on their way from fabulous apartments to up-to-the-minute offices or chic restaurants and bars, all of which we can imagine filled with well-designed Danish furniture. For a lot of people, this will look like the good life, or at least one version of the good life.

But here’s the problem: for a lot of people in my “developing cycling culture,” the Copenhagenize fantasy does not look like the good life. In San Francisco, New York, Portland, and a few other cities, sure, people are likely to agree. In those few places, Americans really aren’t too different from their urban European counterparts. They want the same things, more or less, and follow the same styles (again, more or less).

But the vast majority of Americans don’t find that lifestyle or its signifiers appealing. It’s not just true that most Americans live in automobile-dependent suburbs; they /like/ living in automobile-dependent suburbs. Even when cycling clearly is the fastest, most convenient way to get somewhere, they won’t do it, and they’ll look with disdain on anyone who does.

In any culture – as far as marketing is concerned – what matters is status. People will buy things if they think they’ll get approval and envy from the people around them. In mainstream U.S. culture, driving a car in a city that has been designed only for driving cars is a high-status activity. It implies that you have a lot of private property (power, wealth, respect) and that you don’t have to enter into public, shared spaces (vulnerability, poverty, disrespect).

In the worldview through which most Americans understand their lives, a car is an extension of the suburban home: independent, private, isolated. And in that worldview, isolation is a good thing. In this world, apartments are bad. Urban life as Mikael presents it is bad. Interactions with strangers are bad. We need protection from strangers, and a mobile steel-and-glass box – the bigger, the better – is the best way to get that protection.

Transportation biking, then, is a low-status activity – a /very/ low-status activity.

What, then, is to be done? I do think it’s possible to market cycling to the mainstream here in the U.S., and in developing cycling cultures around the world. But the way to make that happen is to tie cycling to high-status lifestyles in specific local cultures.

I live in North Carolina... pretty deep in the conservative “red-state” area. Here in Greenville, the current model of the good life includes a big suburban-style house, a really big SUV, a significant dose of evangelical Christianity and a lot of college football. This may not appeal to readers from other parts of the world, but that’s the point: local culture does matter.

But even here, and in much of the South, I can see possibilities. For instance, I think a "Charleston" approach would appeal to quite a lot of people -- blonde sorority girls on updated beach cruisers, tailgate parties with kegs and dogs (arriving by bike trailer), couples who look like George W. and Laura Bush (or even better, Cindy McCain) pulling up on expensive city bikes to big ol' Victorian houses in dense, Spanish-moss-draped neighborhoods right out of Southern Living.

Wherever you live, though, the point is to determine who the high-status people are. They're the ones you need to reach, and they’re the ones you need to co-opt. Others will aspire to follow them. Once cycling becomes a high-status activity, people will do it even where the actual road infrastructure isn’t very friendly – just as they now refuse to do it, even where the roads are pretty good. Like every culture, bicycle culture is all in your head.

Here is the entire article and Mikael's response.

Little girl, where's your helmet?

Yehuda Moon and the Kickstand Cyclery

Hamilton more progressive than Victoria?

Victoria has been humming and hawing over even a partial and temporary Gov't Street 'closure' for decades. MVB post, here.

Anyways, I just saw a poster for Open Streets Hamilton, a street 'closure' in Hamilton on two different Sundays, this year.

Hamilton is joining a growing number of other North American cities such as New York, Portland, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Barrie to “Open Streets” for pedestrians, cyclists and shoppers to enjoy all that the street has to offer...

James Street North... will be closed to automobiles, and open to a festival of people walking, cycling, rollerblading, watching demonstrations, trying a new activity, listening to music and bands, or shopping in the various shops and restaurants along the street.  

Well, this is embarrassing.

The Commuter's Paradox: The effect of long commutes on happiness

I am often amazed at how much time people are willing to spend in traffic to get to and from work, everyday. It never struck me as being 'worth it' (extraordinary situations aside).

(Excerpts and material taken from Commuting by Jonah Lehrer, author of How We Decide)

David Brooks, summarizing the current state of happiness research:

The daily activity most injurious to happiness is commuting. According to one study, being married produces a psychic gain equivalent to more than $100,000 a year.

In other words, the best way to make yourself happy is to have a short commute and get married.

(Well, my commute is about 2 minutes by bike, and I am getting married in a few months. Perfect.)

Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer have 'discovered' the commuter's paradox: When choosing where to live, people underestimate the trouble of long commutes, leading them to thinking that a big house in the suburbs/exurbs will make them happier, even if it means extra driving.

Yet, the time in traffic is agony and a bigger house doesn't do much for you. Frey and Stutzer calculated that a person with a one-hour commute need earn 40 percent more money to be as satisfied as the person who walks to work.

The speculative hypothesis of a psychologist at Radboud University in the Netherlands argues that long-distance commuters are victims of a "weighting mistake," a classic decision-making error in which we lose sight of the important variables:

Consider two housing options: a three bedroom apartment that is located in the middle of a city, with a ten minute commute time, or a five bedroom McMansion on the urban outskirts, with a forty-five minute commute. "People will think about this trade-off for a long time," Dijksterhuis says. "And most them will eventually choose the large house. After all, a third bathroom or extra bedroom is very important for when grandma and grandpa come over for Christmas, whereas driving two hours each day is really not that bad."

What's interesting, Dijksterhuis says, is that the more time people spend deliberating, the more important that extra space becomes. They'll imagine all sorts of scenarios (a big birthday party, Thanksgiving dinner, another child) that will turn the suburban house into an absolute necessity. The pain of a lengthy commute, meanwhile, will seem less and less significant, at least when compared to the allure of an extra bathroom. But, as Dijksterhuis points out, that reasoning process is exactly backwards: "The additional bathroom is a completely superfluous asset for at least 362 or 363 days each year."

Having lived in the Greater Toronto Region and LA, I regularly talk to people that travel 1.5 hours, each way, to work. That's mind-boggling to most Victorians.

What are your thoughts? What do you prefer? How long is your commute? Would you trade size for location?

Avoiding Gender-bending Plastics

The following post is just excerpts from this article at Good.is. Although this isn't exactly typical MVB material, I believe that this is a massively important issue that should be made known.

good.is

Well, before I start, I will point out that my soon-to-be-wife has been preaching about this for two decades. Takes awhile for the masses to come around.
 --

[Phthalates are] a category of chemical plasticizers that has been linked to gender-bendy birth defects in baby boys. Phthalates... are everywhere... in your car, your shower curtain, your moisturizer, your hairspray, your air freshener,  your makeup, your cologne, and your kids' toys. 

First, let's make one thing clear: The effects of phthalate exposure have been fairly conclusively established, and that research is acknowledged by countless public-health experts and environmental-health organizations—but not by the FDA. (Naturally, the chemical and cosmetic trade organizations that sell and use these ingredients also claim phthalates are safe, but never mind them.)

... their ubiquity in beauty products is suspected to be the reason why so many baby boys are born with hypospadias (which is a birth defect where the opening of the urethra is in the wrong place) and undescended testes (which is exactly what it sounds like), and why so many girls have breasts before their 10th birthday.

There are a lot of instances where we can't control our phthalate exposure, it's true—but there are tons where we can. Here are some easy places to start:

	1. Pick another shower curtain. New-shower-curtain-smell is a dead giveaway for the presence of phthalates. Phthalates are used to soften PVC, so avoid vinyl curtains altogether. Instead, try cotton or hemp, or go for polyester, which is made from petroleum (bad) but is recyclable and phthalate-free (good). Ikea has cheap PEVA ones, too.
	2. Ditch your perfume or cologne. Fragrance almost always contains phthalates, which are used to make smells stick to you and last a long time. In a perfect world, in addition to perfume, you'd also avoid anything with artificial fragrance in it—including your moisturizer, shampoo, shaving cream, deodorant, and so forth. But if you don't want to go whole-hog, at least chuck your cologne. Everyone in the elevator will thank you.
	3. Use DBP-free paint and nail polish. Nail polish and wall paints needs plasticizers of some kind of another to make them spread easily, but not all contain phthalates. Thankfully, lots of companies have phased out the use of DBP, a particularly gnarly phthalate, making it easier to avoid than ever. For nails, opt for O.P.I.—which phased out DBP and other nasty chemicals a couple of years ago—or an eco brand like Priti nails. For your walls, there are plenty of low-VOC options at all the big-box stores.
	4. Don't use air freshener or chemically scented candles. They give people headaches, and usually smell kind of gross. If you want to make your place smell nice, make some cookies, simmer cinnamon sticks in a pot on the stove, or burn soy- or beeswax-based wax candles scented with essential oils.
	5. Don't use hairspray. And if you must, get some from the health-food store or make it yourself out of vodka. When you use hairspray you are basically spraying flexible plastic onto your hair to make it stay put. It can be inhaled and absorbed through the scalp—and it almost certainly contains artificial fragrance, which makes it a phthalate trifecta. Stay away.
	6. Use plastics with the recycling codes 2, 4, or 5. This is an admittedly inexact way of figuring out if plastics in reusable food containers contain these stealth chemicals, but those codes mean the plastics are less likely to contain phthalates or BPA—another hot-button chemical you probably don't want in or around you. Plastic #1, which is what most water and soda bottles are made of, as well as many shampoos, leach phthalates if you reuse them. So, don't.
	7. Start reading labels on your personal-care products. Fragrance is a no-no (see above), but because of a legal loophole, the ingredients that make up that fragrance don't get listed on labels. Anything with artificial fragrance—and that means just about anything in your bathroom or makeup bag—should be avoided if you're pregnant, and, depending on how hardcore you want to get, the rest of the time, too. Sometimes phthalates are on labels, and those should be avoided as well: DBP, DMP, DEP, and BzBP are verboten.
	8. Buy toys and teethers carefully. Favor wooden and cloth toys, but anyone who's ever been around a baby knows how much they love plastic. Get to know different brands, and how ethical their manufacturing and labeling practices are. And don't let your kids chew on anything that isn't specifically listed as being BPA- and phthalate-free. Speaking of which....
	9. Be wary of product claims. It would be against the law for a product to call itself phthalate-free if it isn't ("misbranding" is the fancy term), but the truth is, there are just not that many people checking these things yet. In the meantime, err on the side of caution—especially when you're talking about babies.
	10. Don't drive. OK, not totally realistic for some people, but dashboards and other pliable-plastic car parts contain these chemicals. Do with that what you will. But when you go to the carwash, and they ask you what "scent" you want, say "None, thanks."

A Layman's Guide to the new (Draft) Victoria Core Area Plan

This may seem like a boring subject to some, but it is vital to the future of Victoria.

If you want a non-layman's discussion, then feel free to bring up issues in the comment section!

You can download the full draft plan here for your own reading.
---

The City of Victoria recently released a Downtown Core Area Plan (DCAP for my purposes)

This post will present:

a. A One-sentence Summary

b. The Good

c. The Interesting

d. The Strange

e. Concluding Thoughts

-----

I got back from Mexico, last weekend, and read nearly all of the 183-page plan in one-sitting -- not as daunting as you think: Most of the DCAP is either a) repetitive material that can be summed up in brief or b) a pre-occupation with views and site lines.

a. One-sentence Summary
The City of Victoria will strive to make the downtown core better by a) increasing residential and service density, b) prioritizing pedestrian- and cycle-oriented built form, and c) improving transit, while d) maintaining the character of the area and e) considering some policies that actually might accomplish this.

b. The Good


1. The intentions: enhancing the livability, vibrancy, and strength of the downtown core by prioritizing people rather than cars and by increasing density.

Check this out. Wow!

2. The plan emcompasses a greater geographic area than past plans, potentially bettering more of Victoria.

3. Specific plans include....

... extending the Government Street 'Mall' (translation: the good part) further north, through Chinatown to Rock Bay.

... turning Rock Bay into a 'sustainability area', including increased densities and a waterfront public park.

... returning Fort Street to two-way traffic. 

(Before reading the plan, I was coincidentally thinking about the possibility of doing this to Johnson or Pandora in order to increase transit/cycling mobility in relation to Shelbourne Street.)

... prohibit the development of new surface or above-grade parking structures. Nice.

c. The Interesting

1. Consider specific and 'other' TDM Strategies. Progressive!

Transportation Demand Management, "a general term for strategies that result in more efficient use of transportation resources."

Examples: Reducing parking requirements/supply, cycling infrastructure, car share, bike share, cycling policies, carpooling, employer-purchased transit passes, improved transit, educational materials, etc... See the above link.

This is only a consideration and so why I deem it as only 'interesting'.




2. Consider reducing the number of required vehicle parking stalls.  And, consider setting maximum parking standards for CBD and Historic CD.

Brilliant, progressive, but ditto to #1.





3. Considering using parking revenue to fund TDM initiatives, such as bike infrastructure.

Ditto.

4. Turn Douglas Street into a Transit Corridor.

Sounds good, but the details are non-existent. This essentially means denser development, more transit stops, and presumably an attempt at efficient links to the Western Communities. Rail?






5. (The well publicized, thus far) Density bonus system

Essentially, this allows developers to pay the city (goes into the Public Realm Improvement Fund) or pay the building owner to increase densities around historic buildings under the condition that the refurbish the accompanying heritage building.

More thoughts on this to come, but I feel as though this could be done in a better.



d. The Strange

1. Preoccupation bordering on obsession with maintaining site lines and ‘views’




There is no less than 43 pages of appendices dedicated to maintaining specific views. Perhaps, this is a little too much of a concern in relation to what will really make downtown vibrant, attractive, and better. Or is that just me?

e. Concluding Thoughts

In its intentions, the new DCAP is brilliant and encouraging.

Yet, before we get too excited, reading the DCAP brings me back to my previous posts about piecemeal change. Urban change needs to be (and only can be) evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Therefore, this plan needs to act as a guide -- a mission, a series of goals -- to achieve via many smaller initiatives. In turn, the DCAP needs to lead to policy change and initiatives that will not only allow but also encourage such change to happen.


I fear that much of this will be implemented in a half-assed way as to not offend the powerful voting population in the suburbs (i.e., Bureaucracy vs. Balls). I also hope that Victoria does not spend millions on assessments and studies. As Nike says, Just Do It.


All of that being said, the main theme of pedestrian- and cycle-oriented and transit-supportive built form is fantastic. Additionally, I believe that Victoria has only scratched the surface as a cycling city, and I hope this goes a long way towards furthering that.


So far so good. Maybe lay off the views/site lines a little?

Crowdsourced Placemaking: An introduction

 cooltownstudios.com

Crowdsourced Placemaking: 

The act of taking development traditionally performed by real estate conglomerates and outsourcing it to a large, undefined group of people in the form of an open call, to transform the places we find ourselves into the places where we live, as ‘places of the soul’ that uplift and help us connect to each other.

Why?

Think of your district as a traditional encyclopedia, full of resources and places to see. However, hardly anyone uses a traditional encyclopedia anymore, they’re predominantly on the crowdsourced Wikipedia. Think of applying ‘wikinomics’ to your neighborhood - wow. (ref)

Food for thought:



In action (this project was just made permanent by the city):



Commentary and thoughts on this to come in future posts.

The debate continues: Repeal bike helmet laws!

Several people have asked about seeing the facebook helmet legislation debate, as mentioned in previous posts/comments.

I don't have that for you; however, here is a link to a debate that I'm in the midst of on Vibrant Victoria.

Also, I just found this nice little quote:

Between 1995 and 1997, four provinces of Canada introduced helmet legislation either for all cyclists or for those under 18 years of age. Later in 2002, Alberta also enforced helmet legislation for cyclists under 18 years of age.

Comparing provinces with helmet legislation to provinces without for the period 1994 to 1998 shows a relative net benefit for those without legislation. It appears helmet legislation has not provided the benefits expected, infringes civil liberties and has caused more harm than good.

- assessment by Safer Cycling author, road safety instructor and former British Cycling Federation coach Colin Clark

MVB reading material:

Bike helmet laws -- stoopid.

Not for the Faint of Heart: Helmetless cycling images!

Bicycle Helmet Laws? No, car helmet laws!

Bettering Shelbourne, Part 4: Pedestrian uses at parking lots

See the below for links to parts 1-3 in this series. 
-

Parking lots -- particularly those at the front of buildings (front setback) -- are one of the greatest eye-sores in our built environment. Beyond that, they contribute very heavily to our car culture -- making driving more convenient while making active modes less convenient, safe, viable, and efficient.

Unless you plant shruberry!

Ultimately, the above lot and others like it should never have existed. But, they do, and most of them aren't going anywhere any time soon.

So, what do to?

Well, how about use the land for something other than cars -- like for people!

This could be done in two ways: 1) new built environment (e.g., buildings); 2) new uses.

This post will focus on the latter. Constructing a new built environment is incredibly important for this area, in order to increase density and proximity (to services). However, that is very expensive and time-consuming, so less likely to happen in the short-term. Here is an (attempted) example of that in Victoria, however.

Creating new uses for parking lots can enhance the streetscape, enhance the community, enhance local business, yet still be inexpensive enough to be not only pilot-tested but also act as a stand-in for more permanent change (like new buildings).

Note: This should be done in combination with making Shelbourne more conducive to walking and cycling.

Note: I realize that this would require cooperation from both public and private sectors.

OK, so what are my bright ideas for the over-sized Shelbourne Corridor parking lots?

1. Create small public plazas.

 archpaper.com

Planters, paint, chairs, tables, umbrellas?, bollards/cones = done. Use in combination with items 2-5.

Does the Shelbourne corridor have the density of Manhattan (above)? No. Will that matter? No.

2. Create outdoor food 'courts' with street food vendors.

stylepeterson.com -- nice name!

Work with the pertinent parties to rent out space to street food vendors -- a la in Cook St. Village.

Obviously, parts of the Shelbourne Corridor are not exactly bustling with street activity during the weekday (or ever). However, I would betcha that there would be no shortage of vendor applications and that the university/college/high school crowd would make up for the lack of nearby office workers.

3. Creating more and better ped/pedal pathways to the storefronts and these other uses.

If it's uncomfortable to walk or ride there, then this is all pointless. Prioritize ped/pedal pathways to all uses and stores. Create new and better pathways upon the existing 'system'. Sidewalks that disappear into nothing are not good enough. Use paint (and eventually textured surfaces) pathways for safety and convenience.

Bike parking, anyone?

4. Greenery.

streetsblog.org

I joked about token shrubbery above. But, in all seriousness, the more green the better. Potted plants, new garden beds, new trees, anything and everything green/alive.

Better yet, plants can not only be used as physical barriers but also as barriers to noise, vehicular pollution, etc. I'll address the creation of microclimates in future posts.

5. Create/extend patios of existing food vendors



This may require some change in the car routes -- but that's the point: prioritize people.

Allow cafes, restaurants, juice bars, grocery stores, and so on to create/extend patios in order to accommodate more... life.

6.  Community garden
This may be a long shot, but why not? You don't need much room, could be done over the pavement, and there's a lot of demand. Maybe, Thrifty Foods could grow some of their own food. Weird!

Not too dissimilar.

Other uses

7. Basketball courts? Hockey and soccer rinks?

8. Skateboard parks?

9. Outdoor pianos?

villagevoice.com

10. Giant chess?

simlihong.wordpress.com

11. Public art?

Carry on yourselves.

In other words, create attractive, human-scaled places that are a) separated from traffic yet b) open to the world and c) connected to an improved ped-/pedal-network.

Such places will attract people. Some people attract more people. People are better for business than cars, and thus there is no need to fear the loss of parking.

Now for the politics and red tape.

Remember: All of this can be done inexpensively, very quickly, and so pilot-tested. Trial periods -- then final decisions: kindergarten-style. And, these spaces do not have to threaten property owners future plans, as they are, in many ways, portable.

----

Shelbourne Street Corridor Series:

Part 1 - Bureaucracy vs. Balls

Part 2 - Implement Progressive Ideas Now

Part 3 - Bike Lanes

----

Coming soon: My thoughts on the new Victoria Downtown Core Plan (draft).

Canada giving control of our food systems to companies like Monsanto

This is on the edge of what falls under MVB topics, but it is of great importance.

Long story short: Canada and the EU are negotiating an agreement (CETA) that would essentially give control of all seeds and farming in Canada to private companies, like Monsanto.

You can watch Food Inc. or The World According to Monsanto (documentary) to learn more about such companies.



In brief:

The Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiations...

- are progressing quickly and with little public scrutiny until now.

- will concentrate even more power in the hands of corporations.

- would give biotech, pharmaceutical, pesticide, seed, and grain companies powerful new tools to force farmers to buy seeds at high prices, on corporate terms, giving corporations even more power to ultimately decide who farms and how.

- would almost entirely eliminate the rights of farmers to save, reuse, and sell seed.

- allow plant varieties to be protected as intellectual property through Plant Breeders Rights as well as patents on genes, giving rights holders an unprecedented degree of control over seeds and farming.

- give seed breeders the right to collect royalties on seed at any point in the food chain.

- allow biotech corporations to seize the crops, equipment, and farms, and freeze the bank accounts of farmers who are deemed patent infringers, like farmers who find unwanted contamination in their fields.

- would commit Canada to reducing or eliminating agricultural subsidies and other government supports to farmers over time.

Call me a conspiracy-theorist, but that doesn't sound good to me.

I used this site as one easy way to speak up.

(Thanks to Jenny for passing on Mary Lowther's letter from the TC. )

Manhattan School gets its own rooftop farm

Keeping the theme of the day going:

Archpaper.com

"Construction is due to commence this fall, and by next spring, school children should be planting vegetables on a 3,000-square-foot roof deck with spectacular views of the surrounding neighborhood. This experiment in urban agriculture... will be integrated into existing school courses on science and nutrition. The children will also have the opportunity to eat the food grown on the roof in their school cafeteria."

Read more here.

Rabbits: Eat 'em!

In light of my previous post and resulting comments, I wanted to share an older article I enjoyed.

good.is

No, this isn't about UVic. However, rabbits are close to the ideal for meat for human consumption.

And as it turns out, rabbit is one of the healthiest, leanest, and most environmentally friendly meats you can eat.

“The biggest reason that rabbits are a sustainable meat choice is that they eat forage, which is not useful for humans. This means that rabbits don’t compete with us for food calories."

Rabbits are small and can easily be raised and butchered by the DIY homesteader. They are easy to fit in a small backyard, and are happy to help you compost your leftover food.

“You can feed a rabbit on your kitchen scraps,” says Wizansky, and then use their waste as fertilizer.

Rabbits have a much smaller carbon footprint than other animals because they convert calories into pounds more efficiently. According to Slow Food USA, “Rabbit can produce six pounds of meat on the same amount of feed and water it takes a cow to produce just one pound.”

Read more at good.is

What about the rabbits at UVic? Well, that's a hot topic that may be talked about later. First, I would to know about fertilizers used on the grass on campus. Then, I will talk about ideas.


When are you going to start your rabbit farm?

Food not lawns: Urban Farms big and small.

Growing up, I used my back and front lawn more than -- I'd wager -- 99% of the population. Yet, I still used the street(s), the schoolyard, and local parks way more.

In my opinion, we don't need lawns. Most lawns are of the ornamental, look-don't-touch variety, and all of them waste water and usable land. Considering the various problems with our existing food systems, I am a strong support of urban agriculture that grows clean, healthy food within a few feet or even KMs from its final destination. I would ultimately hope that this could become a dominant function of our suburban yards.

Fortunately, we live in a country that is generally very open towards urban agriculture. See my other urban farming post, here.

Anyways, this post is just to share a few stories of interest:

Mary Ann Bodenberg of Victoria (theglobeandmail.com)

Victoria's Mary Ann Bodenberg is one urban gardener profiled in this mostly useless article from the Globe and Mail.

1. Article: Meet four budding gardeners from across the country.

More so, we live in the garden city which lives up to its name. There's a growing trend -- in Fernwood in particular -- to grow food on the boulevard, as well as in the yard. This is permitted in Victoria as long as it does not interfere with sidewalk use.

2. Article:  Community Gardens: The movement is growing.

greenkeepers.ca

Pretty cool stuff.

Yet, NIMBYism is always a problem:


3. Article: In Vancouver, one neighbour's garden is another neighbour's blight.


At least, they do not live in Orange County, where a couple is being sued by the City for digging up their lawn in order to save water and plant a garden. Wow.

4. Article: here.

"It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money," Quan Ha said. "Doesn't it waste funds to go back and forth in court, rather than sending pictures, e-mails and having phone conversations?"

[T]he couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009 [as well as $215/month on watering and a gardener].

Meanwhile, people in London and NYC are cramming gardens onto balconies, rooftops, and any other surface they can find. In the UK, 200,000 public garden plots exist for a demand of 6 Million.

urban farm design in NYC. (ft.com)

5. Article: Highly productive [in small spaces]

And, finally, we end with Detroit -- formerly, the Motor City. Detroit has been nearly annihilated by the 'recession' and the collapse of the American auto industry.

Apparently, Detroit now has a population of 700,000 in a city built for three-times that population.

6. Article: Detroit is looking to save itself with urban farming.

money.cnn.com

Yes, one of the wealthiest men left in Detroit, John Hantz, is looking to spend $30M on a urban farming project in Detroit: HantzFarm, which is set to be the world's largest urban farm even in its initial pilot project form.

.A large-scale, for-profit agricultural enterprise, wholly contained within the city limits of Detroit. Hantz thinks farming could do his city a lot of good: restore big chunks of tax-delinquent, resource-draining urban blight to pastoral productivity; provide decent jobs with benefits; supply local markets and restaurants with fresh produce; attract tourists from all over the world... Hantz is willing to commit $30 million to the project. He'll start with a pilot program this spring involving up to 50 acres on Detroit's east side. "Out of the gates," he says, "it'll be the largest urban farm in the world."

 Your thoughts?

Speaking of Mexico: Bye, bye, helmet legislation.

I just got back from a short stint in Mexico (congrats to newlyweds Chris and Amy!).

In February, Mexico repealed their bicycle helmet laws. Mikael over at Copenhagenize gives us the commentary, if desired.

MVB presented its case for repealing BC's bicycle helmet legislation.

Here's a related quote via copenhagenize.com from the Metro (Vancouver) article:

Last September, Colin Clarke, a bike safety expert and former coach with the British Cycling Federation, published a detailed report entitled “Evaluating bicycle helmet use and legislation in Canada.”

According to his report, “helmet law effects in Canada appear to have resulted in the public being fined, subject to police involvement, loss of cycling health benefits and a reduction in civil liberties, as well as additional accidents and longer hospital stays for head injury.”

Canada, his research concludes, should emulate the cycling culture of the Netherlands, where helmet laws are unnecessary because of “good cycling facilities or wide on-road cycle lanes that avoid high speed and heavy vehicle traffic.”

Sadly, the sensibility that exists in Holland and even Saskatoon has yet to prevail in B.C. And that means cyclists like Kilburn will have to continue riding on the wrong side of the local law.

A Choice is a Vote: Your actions make our city better/worse.

When I started MVB, I made a list of posts topics so that I would not run out while waiting for more ideas. Turns out, I am yet to cover a fraction of that list. I guess that that's a good thing.

Post Synopsis:

- Every action/choice you make is a vote for more of that action/choice.

- Therefore, little lifestyle changes can make our cities better.

- Government should aid this process.

- Two great examples from NYC

"Be the change..."

MVB developed from both my collective interests and a desire to promote action and change at 'home'. We seem to be at the peak of a trend in which responsible and progressive individuals are committing money, ideas, and action to humanitarian work overseas.

That is great and all, but we need a greater emphasis on improving the way we live our lives at the individual level in the Western world. (And, the way we live is inseparable from where we live.)

To me, our ability to enact positive change in our lives and cities is far greater than we think, and our individual influence comes in many forms.

For example...

Not too long ago, I was involved in a debate about whether or not an individual person's action/vote can make a difference.

No, a single vote or action never has or never will make the difference, which is why my vote and individual actions don't really matter.

vs.

Yes, each vote or action does and will make a difference or even the difference, which is why my vote and individual actions do matter.

Long story short, my future-wife (and I) successfully defended our position, and we all ended up agreeing that...

1. Every choice you make is a VOTE for (more of) that particular thing.

2. Each vote and VOTER is also a voice that accelerates the difference made by encouraging others to make the same choice/action.

Therefore: Shop at local businesses = vote for more local business. Buy locally-grown produce = vote for more local food production. Cycle to work = vote for more bicycle infrastructure. Don't vote or have a say = let the yokels have their way.

Consider choice=vote in making Victoria better!

peoplepoweredmovement.org

I think that government can play an important role in this process by collaborating with the public in order to facilitate Do-It-Yourself change.

MVB has a lot of DIY and YIMBYism posts/links, but I just came across to great examples of this:

1. New York City has a MillionTreesNYC initiative in which the city will deliver a free tree to any resident/business upon request and also offer a free workshop on tree-care to each recipient.

2. New York City has a CityRacks initiative which (conditions apply) the city will install a bicycle rack -- free-of-charge -- to any business or resident upon request.

Brilliant!

I know Toronto has/had a similar tree initiative. What about Victoria?

 

Piecemeal Change: An Example.

In Mexico for another few days, so expect more thoughts on these recent posts once I am back.



My previous post presented the competing forces of a) the erosion of the city by automobiles and b) the attrition of automobiles by the city.

In her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacob's goes on to advocate piecemeal -- or evolutionary rather than revolutionary -- urban improvements. This piecemeal approach is not only supported by other seminal planning/design texts -- e.g., A Pattern Language -- but is also seen in many real-life examples used here on MVB:

- Copenhagen reducing parking by 2-3% per year since the 1960s.

- NYC street closures and trial-and-error projects.

- Many cities having street closures on particular days of the week/year before fully pedestrianizing a street.

Anyways, this video is another example of both piecemeal attrition of automobiles as well as inexpensive, trial-and-error projects.

I will use this video, again, when talking about bettering Shelbourne, next week.

The Erosion of Cities or The Attrition of Automobiles -- Jane Jacobs

As mentioned, I am out-of-town, so my posting will be intermittent and not as thoughtful as I'd wish. 

streetsblog.org

In previous posts, I have talked about the 'perpetual cycle' that is created when attempting to increase mobility via private automobile. Cars beget cars.

In her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs -- amateur-activist-turned-urban-guru/prophet, whom I shall talk about much more -- has a chapter entitled 'Erosion of Cities or Attrition of Automobiles':

Today, everyone who values cities is disturbed by automobiles.

Traffic arteries, along with parking lots, gas stations and drive-ins, are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction. To accommodate them, city streets are broken down into loose sprawls, incoherent and vacuous for anyone afoot... City character is blurred until every place becomes more like every other place, all adding up to Noplace. 

 Noplace.

Keep in mind that this was published in 1961 -- that's 50 years ago.

Too much dependence on private automobiles and [emphasis added] city concentration of use are incompatible. One or the other has to give... Depending on which pressure wins most of the victories, one of the two processes occurs: erosion of cities by automobiles, or attrition of the automobiles by cities.

...

Erosion of cities by automobiles entails so familiar a series of events that these hardly need describing... Because of vehicular congestion, a street is widened here, another is straightened there, a wide avenue is converted to one-way flow, staggered-signal systems are installed for faster movement, a bridge is double-decked as [etc.]... More and more land goes into parking...

No one step in the process is, in itself, crucial. But... each step, while not crucial in itself, is crucial in the sense that it not only adds its own bit to the total change, but actually accelerates the process. Erosion of cities by automobiles is thus an example of what is known as "positive feedback." In the case of positive feedback, an action produces a reaction which in turn intensifies the condition responsible for the first action. This intensifies the need for repeating the first action, which in turn intensifies the reaction, and so on, ad infinitum. It is something like the grip of a habit-forming addiction.

 LA - famous junky.

Anyways, I just wanted to share that, as someone interested in such matters, I have come to understand this phenomenon (which is not readily available in the literature) a mere 5 decades after someone published a book telling of such things.

Today, any traffic engineer or city planner would be considered radical, innovative, and -- usually -- very unpopular should he/she suggest and act on such wisdom.

--

Related: Expanding roadways = urban laxatives

James H Kunstler dissects suburbia | Video on TED.com

James H Kunstler dissects suburbia | Video on TED.com

The Most Efficient Machine in History

Courtesy of renowned bicycle historian Iain Boal via Mikael of Copenhagenize.com

I am not sure of the methodology behind this, but... very cool.

Two videos: The Dissecting of and The End of Suburbia -- watch 'em.

I am in Mexico for a wedding; so, my posting may be a little less content-intensive. Nonetheless, I will still have lots to share.



I finally got around to watching The End of Suburbia, on the plane ride down. Awesome one. Highly recommend it. Watch it (more than just the trailer)!

On the same note, I had just watched this TED talk with James Kunstler, who is very much featured in The End of Suburbia.  It's a pretty quick and very pointed talk, so check it out!



More to come...

Play 'Find the [Healthy BMI-challenged] Person' in Utrecht

Found this on Good.is, today.

As one of the youtube commenters suggests: Play 'find the fat person'.

Hey Victoria, Go Back to Kindergarten!

This is a follow-up post to yesterday's Different Schools of Thought post.  This post also looks at our comparative perspectives/attitudes towards (progressive) change.

I recently watched this TED talk, and it indirectly brought together much of my recent thinking around bettering our cities.

sorry, struggling with the formatting. Just click again to go to the TED page.

In brief, the Marshmallow Challenge is a teambuilding exercise in which groups of people try to build the tallest tower -- made from spaghetti noodles, string, tape, and a single marshmallow to be poised on top -- in a given time period.

The most common project time line is this:

Orientation (brief)  >>   Plan (most time-consuming by far)  >>   Build (rushed) >> Ta Da! 

... often immediately followed by an Uh Oh! (tower crashes).

The 'uh oh!' comes as the marshmallow is placed on top at the last second, causing the tower to buckle under its weight, leaving no time to fix it or to try something else.

Tom Wujec (the guy) has found that adults, particularly business-oriented ones, have a tendency to over-plan and develop one 'right' or 'best' idea (as they are taught to) and then put all of their proverbial eggs in that basket.

Meanwhile, KINDERGARTEN students are the best at this challenge(!).

taken from marshmallowchallenge.com

Why?

They use a completely different approach:

Build Prototype >> Test Prototype >> Build Prototype >> Test Prototype >> repeat.

... all with the marshmallow already in place. AKA: Trial and Error.


This serves as a brilliant example for many real-world projects: A tonne of time and money are invested into a single, politically-charged 'solution' that is hurriedly built on or after the deadline (and above budget)... and then ends up dropping the said marshmallow, leading to a crisis, fiasco, or complete mess because of ignorance, poor design, an oversight, or all of the above.

This is not necessarily a good example (it's art, after all), but definitely comes to mind:

Public Art FAIL

... as do the new parking metre signs that cannot double as bike parking.

To illustrate this further/better, we will go back to New York City.

In an earlier MVB post, I noted the (generalized) difference between urban progress in NYC and LA: NYC pushes innovative projects through the red tape, pilot tests them, and then makes them permanent if good. Meanwhile, LA hums and haws for a decade -- while things continue to be done in the same old way -- until the opportunity for change is lost.

Let's make that example a little more explicit.

NY City is on fire right now -- on fire with positive change, that is.  I have used the example of the closing of parts of broadway to pedestrian traffic.

 newyorktimes.com

Well, with the help of Gehl Architects, NYC is PILOT TESTING (read prototype test) many, many other public space improvements. The ones that work are being made more permanent; the ones that fail are being altered and/or undone.

The beauty of pilot testing is the ease and lack of expense of these 'prototypes' -- especially when compared to the cost of fixing or inability to fix a failed permanent project/change. Also, keep in mind how much money is spent on 'developing' and 'assessing' on-paper proposals that are never built or are ineffective in the real world.

How cheap/easy? Some paint, potted plants, patio furniture, and traffic cones -- and voila! (as opposed to 'ta da!/uh oh!')

Streetsblog

archpaper.com

torontoist.com

torontoist.com

These pilot tests can last a week, a month, or a year, as in the case of the Broadway/Times Square closure. Sort of like setting a marshmallow challenge time limit.

Now, let me tell you why NYC is will succeed in most (if not all) of their current marshmallow challenges (i.e., public space improvements):

1. Like the kindergartners, New York's leaders can and will make necessary adjustments -- while keeping the most important thing (the marshmallow / livable streets) the most important thing -- until they are successful. Trial and error.

2. Like the 'uh oh' adults who return later to build successful towers, NYC can draw upon -- and so hypothetically not repeat -- a history of unsuccessful prototypes (namely car-oriented ones) that buckled under the weight of the marshmallow.

3. Like the engineers and architects, the most successful tower builders, NYC can and is using existing prototypes-made-permanent -- be it projects in Copenhagen, Melbourne, Malmo, etc. -- that can be custom-fitted to its new environment.

Re-emphasizing #2 and #3:

Nobody is using LA, Atalanta, Hamilton, Auckland, or even Victoria as treasure chests of good urban ideas.

If the City of Victoria and its adjoining Municipalities cannot see this, then they're a bunch of idiots.


Re-emphasizing #1:

If they can separate the bad from the good, then they need to a) go back to kindergarten, b) get some cojones, c) stop humming and hawing, and d) better Victoria.


Try it out. What's the worst that can happen? Even kids know this -- duh!

The Infinite Resources: Human Ingenuity, Human Stupidity, and Poo Bricks.

This is just a quick post to share some links (below), so you can pass over the text.

 inhabitat.com

As expressed in my 'green' vs green post, I feel as though 'green technology' is largely an oxymoron.

This is because the energy used and waste produced in developing and manufacturing most technology makes any energy savings redundant.

That said, I do think humans are capable of wonderful innovations that make real impacts (see links below).

That said, I also think that we already know most of what would/could/will/does make a real impact. Housing design and materials are a great example of this.

Anyways, I digress. Here are some potential, actual 'green' technologies that are quite amazing (in theory):

Ingenuity (potentially):

Transformaning waste plastic into alternative fuel

Bio-Grow Uses Electronic Waste to Make Algae for Biodiesel

Researcher Grows Durable “Bio Bricks” From Sand, Bacteria, and Urea

POO BRICKS: Students Develop Cow Dung Building Bricks

and, as previously posted, all tings mycelium.

 

inhabitat.com

Stupidity:

You don't really need my help for this one. Though, I would propose the fact that there is so little known and invested in actual green methods and... 'retrovation'.