Creative Class

A massive congratulatory shout out and thank you is due to Devon Ostrom and the Beautiful City Alliance on behalf of the city of Toronto. With little but an imperative to act, a willingness to collaborate, and the long-suffering of an ascetic, this determined group of young people were able to establish some cultural sustainability within the city by successfully petitioning council for a new tax on billboards, with a percentage of the monies generated going to a fund for city beautification through local arts. The billboard tax passed a day or so ago, at $10.4 million in revenue annually along with the new bylaw! But don’t take it from me.

From Beautifulcity.ca:

This massive step forward means that thousands of arts projects will eventually be funded and that many of the problems associated with excessive and illegal billboard signage are finally being addressed… It needed to be done this way to get it through Council at the amount necessary to compensate Torontonians properly for use of public space — and not have a bunch of Councillor’s personal projects and agendas eat away at the allotment. To be short, it was the best way to get a clean vote.

While some councilors with their eyes on the corporate dollar are non-plussed right now, I can’t imagine that this is really so bad for them. Canadian cities have a very limited set of tax-tools that they can use to generate income and a disproportionate amount of it comes from property tax. Moving in the direction of diversification in this way should be welcome, even if it feels pyrrhic from their perspective. Especially with all of the public buy-in. Not to mention the overwhelming media support. If you have some time, definitely read up on this initiative. It was a very, very long and tough battle that tested organization, commitment, and resolve but this alliance of artists and supporters got it done.

I had actually been asked to depute on behalf of the alliance before the Toronto city council, but because things were constantly getting pushed back it wasn’t possible. While I won’t break out the full deputation here, I’ll riff on what I wrote briefly to reflect upon the victory.

So Mississauga, where my parents eventually moved to, is west of Toronto. This means to come into the city there were two ways to do it. Either by car taking the Gardiner Expressway, or by public transit – the bus-to-subway mission. Both ways gave you very different entries into the city and I loved them both.

When you’re flying down the Gardiner, just as you hit the curve by Ontario Place, there’s this straightaway where the city just opens up, and it’s pretty breathtaking. One of the things that can be seen is an impressive stretch of billboards on the left. I always liked reading the advice that would come across the Inglis billboard or seeing the new 3-D ones that the airlines would sometimes mount. I had no idea how or when they changed them, and that was cool to me. But then coming in by the subway there were other things to see, particularly the wall in between Keele and Dundas West stations. It was and still is one of the most famed graffiti spots in the city and a place where I saw some of the most iconic images of my young life. That space between those two stations was endearing me to the city every time I’d pass it by. The idea that there were people out there making the city more beautiful of their own volition made it seem more alive and vibrant to me.

This initiative is a way to bring those two experiences of very different art into a mutually supportive relationship, and there’s something about that that’s really cool.

Now, toasting to success, let’s take a look around this beautiful city with the homie Drake:

This week, thousands have flown across oceans or traversed continents to be in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference.  There, politicians, scientists, rock stars, journalists, and academics will discuss reducing the carbon dioxide and monoxide humans are spewing into the atmosphere.

It’s intriguing to me that thousands of people, all theoretically committed to reducing their own carbon footprints, see a reason to be in Copenhagen, rather than listening in from home via technology.

The actual scheduled events, speeches, etc. can all be viewed at home. A few bloggers and writers on site could provide additional context. Yet, thousands had to go for themselves.

Two key reasons why they likely traveled reveals some workplace trends for the 21st century:

1. Making human connections in today’s global economy trumps carbon concerns.

A main reason why so many are in Copenhagen this week is to network — to meet other world leaders, scientists, activists, journalists. Sharing ideas, comparing notes could result in new ideas and innovations going forward. Moreover, making new friends and allies never hurts. Finally, even knowing one’s enemies better can be worth the trip.

Lesson for workplace trends: Even the most ecologically committed will likely commute to the office regularly (even if they telecommute some days), as well as travel to business and client meetings. They’ll do this not for the formal agenda, but for the informal spin-offs from unexpected encounters and conversations.

2.  Being seen at the important meetings is crucial to many people’s personal “brands.” One reason leaders like U.S. President Obama and Canadian PM Harper are going is because a significant number of voters at home are concerned that their country’s government is not doing enough to help the environment. Other aspiring green leaders would not be considered “players” if they were not there, mingling, networking, and being seen.

Lesson for workplace trends: Image is important. And again, appears to trump carbon concerns. (I assume some at the climate change conference will “green wash” their trips by purchasing “offsets” involving planting trees in Africa — but this is not the same as not flying or driving in the first place.)

There are likely additional lessons, but those two stand out for me.

Your thoughts?

The differences between the U.S. and Canadian housing markets astound me on a day-to-day basis. In my neighborhood in Toronto, housing prices are up and homes sell in a few days, some with multiple bids. In Detroit, where we visited for Thanksgiving, you can’t sell – or in some cases, even give – houses away. Visiting Miami for Art Basel, the numbers of houses and condos on the market are staggering – stunning, brand new towers remain virtually empty.

The Cleveland Fed reports on the key differences between the U.S. and Canadian markets (pointer via Marginal Revolution).

Despite their many points of similarity, housing markets in the United States and Canada have fared quite differently since the onset of the financial crisis. Unlike the U.S., Canada has not experienced a dramatic increase in mortgage defaults, nor has any Canadian bank required a government bailout. As a result, observers such as The Economist have pointed to Canada as “a country that got things right.” …

The Canada and U.S. housing market comparison suggests that relaxed lending standards likely played a critical role in the U.S. housing bust. Monetary policy was very similar in both countries from 2000 to 2008, but housing prices rose much faster in the U.S. than in Canada. This suggests that some other factor both drove the more rapid appreciation in U.S. prices and set the stage for the housing bust. A likely candidate is cross-country differences in the structure and regulation of subprime lending markets …

But while subprime lending also increased in Canada, the subprime market remains much smaller than in the U.S. The most cited estimate is that subprime lenders had a market share of roughly 5 percent in 2006—compared to 22 percent in the U.S. (Mortgage Architects, 2007). Moreover, the Canadian subprime market never expanded significantly into newer products, such as interest-only or negative-amortization mortgages, whose popularity grew rapidly in the U.S. from 2003 to 2006. Instead, the Canadian subprime market mainly offered products popularized in the U.S. during the 1990s, such as longer amortization periods for loans (from 25 to 40 years), and mainly targeted near-prime borrowers.

Securitization has also been less common in Canada than in the United States, with roughly 25 percent of Canadian mortgages securitized in 2007 versus nearly 60 percent in the U.S. The Canadian securitization market has grown rapidly over the past decade, rising from roughly 5 percent of mortgages in 1998 to over 25 percent in 2008  …

Perhaps the simplest story is that Canada was “lucky” to be a late adopter of U.S. innovations rather than an innovator in mortgage finance. While the subprime share of the Canadian market was small, it was growing rapidly prior to the onset of the U.S. subprime crisis. In response to the U.S. crisis, some subprime lenders exited the Canadian market due to difficulties in securing funding. In addition, the Canadian government moved in July 2008 to tighten the standards for mortgage insurance required for high LTV loans originated by federally regulated financial institutions. This further limited the ability of Canadian banks to directly offer subprime-type products to borrowers.

There are also several institutional details that played a role. The Canadian market lacks a counterpart to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both of which played a significant role in the growth of securitization in the U.S. In addition, bank capital regulation in Canada treats off-balance sheet vehicles more strictly than the U.S., and the stricter treatment reduces the incentive for Canadian banks to move mortgage loans to off-balance sheet vehicles. Finally, as noted above, the fact that the government-mandated mortgage insurance for high LTV loans issued by Canadian banks effectively made it impossible for banks to offer certain subprime products. This likely slowed the growth of the subprime market in Canada, as nonbank intermediaries had to organically grow origination networks.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Milwaukee, WI, for the first time (thank you FUEL Milwaukee!). And visiting cities for the first time, to me, is particularly exciting. Arriving for the first time is a pure and unadulterated experience. First impressions matter and how a city presents itself to a first-time visitor is very important. I learned this from my friend Charles Landry.

Milwaukee Art Museum

I arrived via the airport with the typical location outside of city. My host takes the highway toward the city. As we approach the Hoan Bridge, we pass amid the Port of Milwaukee. On both sides, there are mountains of bulk materials and cranes. While not beautiful, there is the appearance of activity and a muscularity that says “we work here.” As we crest the bridge (with its own very strange design element) I am startled because the city presents itself there in panorama. The city in the hills to the left, the waters of Lake Michigan to the right. And to the right, near the lake, your eye is drawn to the white sails of the Santiago Calatrava masterpiece at the Milwaukee Art Museum.  It looks so different and unexpected in the tableau that one cannot help but to stare. Unexpected because this is the Midwest where modern iconic design is not the norm and that is not a shot; I am originally  from the Midwest!  More photos click here.

While many question the value of “starchitects” and iconic design, I have to say that my impression of Milwaukee was and is shaped in no small part because of that building. It is different and it says something about Milwaukee that no amount of advertising and marketing could equal. It says in a profound way “we are not what you expect” and that Milwaukee is looking to the future and beyond the beer brewery image of its past. The building says it in a visible and demonstrable way that one cannot deny.

Cities that are arguing over the cost/benefits of such iconic architecture should consider the context in which the new building will occur. In starchitect-rich Singapore, one more Calatrava or Libeskind is just keeping up with the crowd. In cities with a dearth of quality architecture (lots of those) or cities that need to redefine themselves in the 21st century, a new building can be a catalyst for new design and a whole host of other values.

About 14 months into the downturn in Canada, about 20 months in the U.S.A., and I’ve been examining how the recession has affected workplaces and what some longer-term implications may be. Today, I offer a Canadian perspective. I invite you to add your own. Next week I’ll try to create an American list, or compare and contrast the recessionary experience in the two countries.

Four ways the recession may have changed creative class workplaces in Canada

1. The rapid spiral from booming economy to downturn in the fall of 2008 both forced and allowed many companies to re-focus, fast. Many quickly removed employees not seen as having a long-term future with the firm; they also sharpened scrutiny on various business lines or projects, canceling those not deemed likely to be profitable in the short term. In Canada, economists now say the job shedding happened much faster than in past recessions.
2. For some employees, the “golden hand cuffs” came off and they have had an opportunity to move. For staff with bonuses tied to the profits of particular projects or the company generally, a down year can mean you’re not leaving as much money on the table if you quit. The significant increase in self-employed workers is likely a consequence of this. People are going out on their own.
3. The government “may” start to recognize that North American economic future is in knowledge-work, high technology, more than old-style industrial manufacturing. In Toronto there are now more jobs in the Finance Insurance Real Estate sector (FIRE) than manufacturing (324,000 vs 316,000), and by early 2010 there will likely be more in Professional Scientific & Technical Services as well (at 315,000 now).  Already, the financial services industry in Toronto has created an alliance to educate and lobby the government to provide a further boost to this successful sector.
4. As in the U.S., women’s jobs have tended to be less affected by the recession, which hit manufacturing and resource industries harder than service and knowledge work. This may be the start of a big shift in how families with children live and work as well.

What else?

Here’s the abstract for a new paper on said with Charlotta Mellander and Kevin Stolarick.

Economists have argued that individuals choose locations that maximize their economic position and broad utility. Sociologists have found that social networks and social interactions shape our satisfaction with our communities. Research, across various social science fields, finds that beauty has a significant effect on various economic and social outcomes. Our research uses a large survey sample of individuals across US locations to examine the effects of beauty and aesthetics on community satisfaction. We test for these effects in light of other community-level factors such as economic security and employment opportunities; the supply of public goods; the ability for social exchange, that is to meet people and make friends; artistic and cultural opportunities, and outdoor recreation; as well as individual demographic characteristics such as gender, age, presence of children, length of residence, income and education levels, and housing values. The findings confirm that perceived beauty or aesthetic character of a location has a positive and significant effect on perceived community satisfaction. It is one of the most significant factors alongside economic security, good schools, and the perceived capacity for social interaction. We also find community-level factors to be significantly more important than individual demographic characteristics in explaining community satisfaction.

The full paper is over at the MPI site, here.

New research by the Gallup Organization finds that 700 million people – 16 percent of the world’s total population – would like to move to a different country than the one they currently call home.

The first map below shows the percentages of people in various regions of the world that desire to permanently move to another country.

The second map shows the places these movers would most like to relocate to.

Gallup also compiled a very interesting index of potential net migration which compares “the estimated number of adults who would like to move out of a country permanently subtracted from the estimated number who would like to move to it,” as a proportion of the total population. Here are the top five and bottom five countries. Interestingly, the United States did not make the top five.

Today, we take it for granted the streets are there to move cars, and also to carry buses as well as cyclists, pedestrians, and the occasional skater, scooter-rider, and Segway user. The typical solution is to keep pedestrians on the sidewalk and paint lanes on the street to separate cars from cyclists or create express lanes for buses.

But maybe there’s another approach: Why not consider devoting different streets to different kinds of transportation? And surely cities need more green space and some are actually getting it. Inspired by the High-Line Park, by D.C.’s Rock Creek Park, and Toronto’s extensive ravine system, I have been noodling about the possibility of creating linear green belts or what I like to think of as sliver parks through cities. I literally feel this when I walk through Toronto’s ravines, or in the past when I cycled through D.C.’s Rock Creek Park. It provides a natural environment in the city and creates green zones for cycling, walking, picnicking, or other activities. But I thought this is far too pie-in-the-sky to actually be implemented or even proposed.

So I was more than pleasantly surprised to see The New York Times’ Nicolai Ouroussoff highlighting just such an approach coming out of  a nine-month design competition for the Bronx’s “faded” Grand Concourse.

A proposal by the New York office of the international design firm EDAW that would create a strip of communal farmland down the middle of the Concourse verges on cliché. But it improves when you keep in mind the grittiness of some of the urban gardens in New York or Berlin and imagine them stretched out along several miles. A new light-rail line would run the length of the boulevard; traffic would be reduced to two lanes in each direction, down from the current six.

A raucous proposal by the French team Nadau Lavergne Architects would pile more activities on top of existing structures to add density to the neighborhood and create unexpected urban frictions. Schools and cultural institutions would be stacked over apartment complexes, freeing up the street level for commercial use. A graffiti-covered streetcar would run up and down the Concourse, linking it to Manhattan. The Concourse would be packed with trees, transforming it into a linear urban forest.

Part of what is moving about these proposals is that their approaches have become so familiar. Not long ago the notion of building farmland in the middle of a busy urban roadway would have seemed like madness; today it seems too obvious. So does the idea that segregating urban functions can drain the life from a city.

Check out the terrific images from the project website, including this slide show. A full gallery of all the submitted projects is here.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Do you live and work in the same building?

In various North American cities in recent years, planners, residents, and others have introduced the notion that there should be more housing built that can also be a person’s workplace. Live-Work differs from “mixed use,” in which an apartment or condo tower may exist above an office or retail building, however apartment dwellers will not necessarily or even likely work in the commercial space below.

Under these discussed Live-Work scenarios, a self-employed individual would work from home. The developer of the housing (and/or the municipal zoning) would need to make accommodation for this type of use. I’ve seen some older buildings converted into artist Live-Work spaces, designed for an artist to have a studio space often at ground level, and their home above it. Newer buildings have often been designed with an office beside the front entrance to the apartment or condo, theoretically allowing someone to receive a client without the client needing to see or enter the rest of the home. However, many units in “live-work” buildings simply have an office off the master bedroom.

A few weeks ago in a casual chat, Richard raised the question of whether Live-Work capacity would be something that residents of future apartment buildings in downtown Toronto might require. Given shifts that happened during the recession in which tens of thousands of Canadians shifted to self-employment, one could wonder if this accelerated a trend toward more free agents. Live-Work might be a trend in both how we live and how we work.

All this got me thinking about the attempts to implement Live-Work in Vancouver with some of the new towers (such as The Hudson or Shaw Tower), and how, according to some observers, almost no purchasers bought with the intention of having a home office (they just wanted to live downtown, either because they work in an office building, like the abundant amenities, or both.)

In the case of artist Live-Work spaces, I read (I believe in Elizabeth Currid’s book) that in New York these spaces are typically sub-let to lawyers, accountants, and others who love their locations and trendiness – and who have a lot more money.

In both cases it may be that typical downtown workers (such as lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc.) end up wanting the live-work condos or artist studios and can afford to pay more for them. But these people work in an office building where they interact with myriad other people all the time.

Most people I know who “work from home” as private contractors or consultants do so largely to avoid a commute and because they prefer to live in quieter, suburban, or exurban surroundings rather than in a dense urban area (in part they may prefer more distant living because of the ability to afford a larger home for the same money as a condo).

So, I am wondering whether Live-Work places downtown (or in denser, urban areas) will grow in the future, or diminish – or stay the same, somewhat fringe phenomenon that they are now.

Do you or any of your friends, clients, or colleagues live and work from a downtown apartment? Or from an urban artist-studio?

Would you want to?

Kevin Stolarick and our MPI team map Toronto’s personalities featured in this article from the Toronto Star. The patterns could not be more striking.

Thoughts, anyone?