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.
2 comments:
Woodstock isn’t a city simply because Woodstock doesn’t want to be a city. The town lacks the catalyst and desire to grow or to think outside the status quo. In the Maritimes there are a few small cities: Bathurst, Edmundston, Campbellton, Miramichi, Summerside and Sydney. Many of these “small” cities have suffered in recent years due to the changing economy Edmundston, Miramichi and Bathurst particularly once the mills and mines closed. Summerside was toast once the military base left in the early 1990’s until that was replaced with a tax centre. Sydney well… let’s not even go there it’s always had struggles since the 70’s. So that leaves the “big” maritime cities of Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, HRM and Charlottetown. Fredericton, HRM and Charlottetown all are provincial capitals and rely on government presence and universities to be economic engines. Saint John has the port and the Irving family and Moncton relies heavily on its “Hub” status as well as commercial shopping outlets. Oddly Greater Moncton is growing the fastest of any city east of Montreal. Woodstock’s done well maintaining a low unemployment record and boasts many successful small businesses but lacks the economic driver to turn the town to a city.
In today’s economy large employers who would employ say half a town’s population like Saint Anne Nackawic are a rarity especially if their based on natural resources and this won’t change anytime soon. Small businesses, particularly technology based are where other cities are growing industrial parks, as we know them are dying – look at the vacancies in Woodstock’s. Small knowledge parks and business incubators are springing up everywhere so small businesses can establish themselves and grow. Realistically you’re better off having 25 companies employing 4 employees each rather than one “whale” of a company employing 100 the small companies though dependent on the economy and each other are less likely to ask for government grants and assistance and if rendered the assistance is rather small.
One way to stimulate the economy is an example from Quebec where the province offered their employees provincial portion of the income tax back to the companies if the company was engaged in the new aged economy so IT companies, biotech etc were able to grow from the government grants and intelligent Quebecors were hired to work at these companies. Woodstock as a town simply can’t do this but they do have complete control over the town water & sewer prices and property tax. Sears and other companies have recently located across the TCH from Woodstock to avoid the toxic taxes in town, private homeowners have done the same in Grafton, Upper Woodstock, Beardsley rd etc. Changing the tax rates to make it more friendly for businesses or simply voiding out of towners access to the town’s services would possibly change this tune but denying fire coverage or not allowing Graftoners into the civic centre because of their place of residence isn’t looked upon as hospitable.
So there you have it either land a recession proof “whale” business that will employ 500-1000 people such as education or government, make it more small business friendly or gobble up the neighboring communities and you’ll reach city status. While you mentioned Woodstock town proper hasn’t grown much since inception the outlying areas particularly those within a 5 km radius of town have grown substantially and unfortunately the town limits haven’t changed since I was born.
Alex, I think you have some really valid points here, especially about the 'recession-proof' roles of government and university. When the economy of a place is heavily reliant on the private sector they feel the boom and bust fluctuations of the business cycle are much more pronounced.
But what I'm really wondering is: why have opportunites for growth been continually turned down by decision-makers in Woodstock?
And what is it about people here that makes them 'not want to be a city?' There are some underlying feelings or values that drive people's decision-making and I'm interested in understanding how that works.
Post a Comment