Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Parking first, women and children second
Check out these incredibly depressing photos of downtown Atlanta. Lots of parking! No people anywhere....just what you needed on a grey day like this, right?
Daily Dead Birds
You can find the numbers dead, oiled and released here. The BP spill is still gushing.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Woodstock: The City That Wasn't?
I finally finished "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" this spring, on my way to the placemaking workshop in NYC. Since then I have been thinking continually about places in general, Woodstock in particular, and how our culture becomes visible in the buildings we construct, the town we live in, and our attitude towards public gatherings.
I've also been reading a lot by Richard Sennett, an academic who has a very interesting perspective on history, the private vs. public realms, buildings, theatre and culture. Right now I'm working through "The Fall of Public Man," which deals with the ways people present themselves in public now vs. they way they did in the 1700, 1800 and 1900's. Apparently back then it was completely normal to address strangers in public, to see oneself as a 'performer' in public, much like an actor, and to assemble in public places for celebrations.
I look at a town like Woodstock, with its small but preserved public square and I start thinking about who really built this town, how it has evolved from two small settlements (one at Upper Woodstock, one at the Meduxnekeag and St. John rivers).
If you look at the Census information for Woodstock, the population really hasn't changed much since its founding. Add to that the fact that Woodstock is at an ideal geographic location - the meeting point of two rivers, at the junction of TCH #2 and Interstate 95, the fact that it is equi-distant between Portland, Maine, Halifax, and Montreal, and it would appear that Woodstock has all the geographic characteristics of a city.
But it hasn't grown. Why?
I think there are several reasons. First, because the people who settled here were Loyalists, people who were averse to taking risks, preferring instead to follow rules and leave the American Colonies to preserve their social status and avoid conflict.
Also, I think this conservativeness (and I mean that in a general sense, leave the blue guys out of this) has implications for public gatherings, the encouragement of creativity and the status of young people. Creative young people want to socialize, try new things, experiment and take risks. All of which are seen primarily as negatives around here. Challenge me on that if you can think of examples of risk-takers being lionized in the public realsm, but I can't think of any ready examples.
A culture that sees young people as a threat or a liability or a culture that is uncomfortable with sexuality outside of monogamy/heterosexuality is not going to meet the needs of many young people. And many profitable enterprises are started by risk-taking, creative people in their teens and twenties. Look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. This reticence has a big impact on the future of small towns.
An overemphasis on marriage and families causes people to withdraw from public life. I think it would be fair to say that many people around here conside cities and families incompatible. As in "you can't raise a good family in the city," or "I would never raise kids in the city." I guess cities are associated with crime, but there are break-ins (and even the occasional shooting) around here frequently and nobody labels Woodstock as a "dangerous" place to live. So why do we feel that way about cities?
The other day my friend and I were listing all of the organizations that attempted to locate in Woodstock and were denied: King's Landing, McCain Foods, the Nackawic Pulp Mill. Those are some pretty heavy hitters and if you took those and added them to Woodstock as it stands today, you would be well on your way to "city" status.
I will likely write more on this topic, as it's something I think about a lot. Add your two cents: why do you think Woodstock is not a city?
If people in Woodstock wanted to grow the town into a city, how could we go about doing that?
Hmmm.
I've also been reading a lot by Richard Sennett, an academic who has a very interesting perspective on history, the private vs. public realms, buildings, theatre and culture. Right now I'm working through "The Fall of Public Man," which deals with the ways people present themselves in public now vs. they way they did in the 1700, 1800 and 1900's. Apparently back then it was completely normal to address strangers in public, to see oneself as a 'performer' in public, much like an actor, and to assemble in public places for celebrations.
I look at a town like Woodstock, with its small but preserved public square and I start thinking about who really built this town, how it has evolved from two small settlements (one at Upper Woodstock, one at the Meduxnekeag and St. John rivers).
If you look at the Census information for Woodstock, the population really hasn't changed much since its founding. Add to that the fact that Woodstock is at an ideal geographic location - the meeting point of two rivers, at the junction of TCH #2 and Interstate 95, the fact that it is equi-distant between Portland, Maine, Halifax, and Montreal, and it would appear that Woodstock has all the geographic characteristics of a city.
But it hasn't grown. Why?
I think there are several reasons. First, because the people who settled here were Loyalists, people who were averse to taking risks, preferring instead to follow rules and leave the American Colonies to preserve their social status and avoid conflict.
Also, I think this conservativeness (and I mean that in a general sense, leave the blue guys out of this) has implications for public gatherings, the encouragement of creativity and the status of young people. Creative young people want to socialize, try new things, experiment and take risks. All of which are seen primarily as negatives around here. Challenge me on that if you can think of examples of risk-takers being lionized in the public realsm, but I can't think of any ready examples.
A culture that sees young people as a threat or a liability or a culture that is uncomfortable with sexuality outside of monogamy/heterosexuality is not going to meet the needs of many young people. And many profitable enterprises are started by risk-taking, creative people in their teens and twenties. Look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. This reticence has a big impact on the future of small towns.
An overemphasis on marriage and families causes people to withdraw from public life. I think it would be fair to say that many people around here conside cities and families incompatible. As in "you can't raise a good family in the city," or "I would never raise kids in the city." I guess cities are associated with crime, but there are break-ins (and even the occasional shooting) around here frequently and nobody labels Woodstock as a "dangerous" place to live. So why do we feel that way about cities?
The other day my friend and I were listing all of the organizations that attempted to locate in Woodstock and were denied: King's Landing, McCain Foods, the Nackawic Pulp Mill. Those are some pretty heavy hitters and if you took those and added them to Woodstock as it stands today, you would be well on your way to "city" status.
I will likely write more on this topic, as it's something I think about a lot. Add your two cents: why do you think Woodstock is not a city?
If people in Woodstock wanted to grow the town into a city, how could we go about doing that?
Hmmm.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Can you say "escrow" ?
Looks like BP had better start saving for the billions they will have to pay out in damages and compensation. Not that the ecosystem can put it in its RRSP, of course, but you know what I mean, right....??
Thursday, June 03, 2010
More on NYC
Trying to balance my oily despair with something positive. Here's more on what I learned in NYC. This might appear soon in the Bugle-Observer.
What makes a good public place?
This is one of the questions I tried to answer during a short trip to New York City at the end of April. On April 29th and 30th, I was part of a group of businesspeople, city employees, sustainability advocates and students from around the world who came to learn "How to Turn a Place Around."
I went because I am concerned about Woodstock's downtown. When I look around downtown, I see two beautiful rivers, some remaining historical buildings, friendly people and high-quality small businesses.
But the downtown is also occupied by a large number of vacant lots, such as the one at the corner of Queen and Main streets. Many parking lots used during the day are vacant during evenings and weekends.
Thinking that workshops on "How to Turn a Place Around" could provide fresh ideas, strategies and insight, off I went to Manhattan, the only person from a small town in a room full of "city folk."
We looked at lots of photos of great public places, spaces where people go to relax, walk dogs, buy sandwiches, play with their kids or go on dates. These places were more than "parks" - they are intended to be the "backyards of people who live in the area." What a great notion!
Although Connell Park is the "backyard" of people living in the Creighton and Deacon neighbourhoods, downtown Woodstock doesn't really have a place where you can sit in the shade, take your shoes off and spend an afternoon or evening.
We also learned about "Placemaking" - that every successful public place needs four things: to be accessible and well-connected to other important places in the area, to be comfortable and project a good image, to host activities people can participate in, and to be a sociable place that people will gather over and
over again.
We learned about some very simple processes to engage local residents in improving public places. We also learned how to observe how people actually use a place - where they will and won't cross the street, how long they will stay, which age groups are or aren't present, etc. This information helps lead the improvement process.
One simple piece of advice we were given was "start with the petunias." If a place looks cared for, poeople are more likely to visit and also to respect the space.
During the sessions, we heard the fascinating story of Bryant Park, which is located just south of Times Square. Apparently it was a notorious haven for drug dealers and criminals in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Using the "placemaking" process, some of our workshop presenters helped revitalize Bryant Park. They eliminated the concealing hedges, made the entryway open, added furniture and a sandwich stand to encourage people to frequent the park.
I visited Bryant Park the evening before I left and it was truly the most beautiful, serene, and magical place I have ever seen in a city.
Sometime in the future I would like to share some more information about what I learned and see what the residents of Woodstock can do to create a shared "backyard" in our downtown. Let's start with the petunias!
What makes a good public place?
This is one of the questions I tried to answer during a short trip to New York City at the end of April. On April 29th and 30th, I was part of a group of businesspeople, city employees, sustainability advocates and students from around the world who came to learn "How to Turn a Place Around."
I went because I am concerned about Woodstock's downtown. When I look around downtown, I see two beautiful rivers, some remaining historical buildings, friendly people and high-quality small businesses.
But the downtown is also occupied by a large number of vacant lots, such as the one at the corner of Queen and Main streets. Many parking lots used during the day are vacant during evenings and weekends.
Thinking that workshops on "How to Turn a Place Around" could provide fresh ideas, strategies and insight, off I went to Manhattan, the only person from a small town in a room full of "city folk."
We looked at lots of photos of great public places, spaces where people go to relax, walk dogs, buy sandwiches, play with their kids or go on dates. These places were more than "parks" - they are intended to be the "backyards of people who live in the area." What a great notion!
Although Connell Park is the "backyard" of people living in the Creighton and Deacon neighbourhoods, downtown Woodstock doesn't really have a place where you can sit in the shade, take your shoes off and spend an afternoon or evening.
We also learned about "Placemaking" - that every successful public place needs four things: to be accessible and well-connected to other important places in the area, to be comfortable and project a good image, to host activities people can participate in, and to be a sociable place that people will gather over and
over again.
We learned about some very simple processes to engage local residents in improving public places. We also learned how to observe how people actually use a place - where they will and won't cross the street, how long they will stay, which age groups are or aren't present, etc. This information helps lead the improvement process.
One simple piece of advice we were given was "start with the petunias." If a place looks cared for, poeople are more likely to visit and also to respect the space.
During the sessions, we heard the fascinating story of Bryant Park, which is located just south of Times Square. Apparently it was a notorious haven for drug dealers and criminals in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Using the "placemaking" process, some of our workshop presenters helped revitalize Bryant Park. They eliminated the concealing hedges, made the entryway open, added furniture and a sandwich stand to encourage people to frequent the park.
I visited Bryant Park the evening before I left and it was truly the most beautiful, serene, and magical place I have ever seen in a city.
Sometime in the future I would like to share some more information about what I learned and see what the residents of Woodstock can do to create a shared "backyard" in our downtown. Let's start with the petunias!
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
The madness continues
Follow up to yesterday's post: Greece announces plans to sell its railways and public water systems as per its agreement with the IMF. Bye, bye public assets.
On the oil front, the latest attempt is looking like a failure. Had a dream last night I was clinging to a fake leather couch covered in oil, trying to avoid falling into the oily water. Wonder what those pelicans must feel like...
On the oil front, the latest attempt is looking like a failure. Had a dream last night I was clinging to a fake leather couch covered in oil, trying to avoid falling into the oily water. Wonder what those pelicans must feel like...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)