What will be? - The Prequel
I would like to step back a bit from last week’s post and present some of my theories that may lead to a huge shift in how Windsor looks and how we may live and do business in the city.
I have followed the oil climate change discussions for about two years now. What I find most interesting about developments in both of these crises is how fast they are advancing. Many of the experts are surprised at how fast the price of oil has increased, we weren’t supposed to see $150 oil until next year but now it’s nearly on us. Or, how about the forecast that there will be no ice at the North Pole this year? Nearly unthinkable even two years ago. In both cases the skeptics have stopped shouting “Cassandras” and some have even retracted or modified their arguments to acknowledge these rapid changes. In my future, energy will be much more expensive because it will be less available and because governments will tax energy heavily to restrict its use and mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
Higher fuel costs and the new economic reality facing the world’s largest consumer economy are already decimating the North American auto makers in North America. At some point in the not too distant future Windsor, the birthplace of the Canadian car industry may conceivably be without any auto plants at all. What can we do in Windsor without the auto makers? There are many things but none of them will generate the kind of incomes and buying power that auto workers have, which brings me to my next future condition. Higher energy costs and less money to spend mean that anyone left in the city will have to carefully consider how they use their resources. Where they live, how they live and what they can do to improve their situations under such restricted conditions.
I see a lot of dead areas in future Windsor. Windsor’s population will decline precipitously without the automakers and the high paying jobs they offer. In a city that already has a surplus of commercial, industrial and residential buildings there will be even more unoccupied structures in the future. One new industry could be “de-construction” where buildings are taken apart carefully; yielding reclaimed building products that could be used for infill buildings or renovations. Possibly we could see a return to urban farming. With large open areas (after the empty buildings are removed) eventually there could be a renewal of the earth, enough to grow grass for grazing animals or some hearty grains.
Social and cultural groups and connections will gain popularity I’m sure. (Watch out for the rise of groups that are less inclusive, always a threat when times get tough and folks want someone else to blame. I know it’s not PC to say that but historically there are precedents.) I would hope for the best here since Windsor has such a diversity of cultures within our community and we seem to have no problem celebrating the ideals of multiculturalism with our Carousel Festival.
Those that choose to stay in an urban centre will benefit by living and working close to their homes. The net result of this could be a number of smaller communities close to the remaining employment areas. Neighbourhoods around the hospitals, the college, the university, government offices and whatever manufacturers remain could develop their own identities and small commercial areas to serve them.
Now, I don’t expect all this to take place by next Tuesday. No, I expect this to be a long decent. There will probably be some really bad times, like unannounced plant closings for example. However, I think that it is very important for the possibilities of what could happen in our city in the future should frame some of the discussion here. The ideal we are striving for is the human scale community. Even as bleak as my predictions are our goal can be met and even though we may be a less affluent city than we are today we can still be a productive and happy city that celebrates itself and its people.
To reach our goal we need to consider all the possibilities and the ramifications of all our decisions. We and especially our leaders can not make decisions and allocate resources for short term gain or political favour. From here on in we need to weigh and measure everything. Every decision must be scrutinized by our council and the voters. Short sighted deals that profit us today but cost us ten years down the road will be even harder to deal with if the city sees its tax base slashed by the loss of industry and population.
Scaledown’s mission is to “promote the cultural identity, social fabric and economic prosperity of Windsor, Ontario, through open discussion and grass-roots advocacy.
That’s our mission statement here at scaledown.ca and I’m including it here to remind us why we come to this site. Whether the future is bleak or bright it will be for the best that we adopt changes that make our city more about the people that live here and less about personal egos.
Tags: budget repercussions, community building, culture, festivals, scaledown, University, urban agriculture, urban sprawl, walkable, World Changing
Post Feedback
James Said:
“To reach our goal we need to consider all the possibilities and the ramifications of all our decisions. We and especially our leaders can not make decisions and allocate resources for short term gain or political favour. From here on in we need to weigh and measure everything. Every decision must be scrutinized by our council and the voters. Short sighted deals that profit us today but cost us ten years down the road will be even harder to deal with if the city sees its tax base slashed by the loss of industry and population”
————————————–
Not arguing with you, but I need a more concrete “to do” list. What steps can we take today to start. I think we need to have a few quick victories and accomplishments under our belt in order to show the public examples what we mean.
I don’t know if I’ve heard you weigh in on what would be on your “to do” list that can be achieved in the short term. Would it be resources towards bike lanes? Would it be a two tiered development charge on housing to promote density in the core? I think we need to pick one thing that we agree on, put all our efforts behind it and see if we can get it done.
What would be your “one thing” if you got to be dictator for a day
If I was “dictator” for a day?
I would reform the tax polilcies. Property taxes would be based on location and lot size. Smaller lots, closest to public transit and designated development zones would pay the lowest taxes. Those, further away would pay progressively higher taxes. If people want to live the suburban life and rely on roads and larger infrastructure systems then they can pay a premium for it. Also, I would offer incentives for home-based businesses, bike and transit users and walkers (perhaps based on a car’s odometer?).
Great post James! For one thing, I believe our resources should not be used to further develop the aerotropolis plans. The annex lands is not where the future is. Planes and their fuel needed will not have a future. Yet, we see a new committee being put together by the city with a purpose to go full steam ahead on yet more development on the fringe. Do these people read the papers? And, another committee recommending that 2 of the 3 rail lines coming into the region be deleted.
This is a good qyuestion. What one thing? - I would make it be transit/transportation. Stop with the road building already. Invest in transportation for the masses. We’re gonna need it. And soon.
Pick up garbage in the neighbourhoods near downtown. Get some free bins to make it easier for people to toss their big stuff.
It would be nice to have more garbage bins in and around downtown including some of the neighbourhoods.
I can’t understand our city’s logic (and that of the feds and province) in wanting to remove more rail lines. Other nations are expanding their’s while we continue to do what we have done with all of our manufacturing bases (from T.V’s to computers to moulds, dies and now cars) since the late ’60s…stay completely oblivious to the changes around us until we are lagging far behind.
I remember in a past post talking about the largest cities getting larger, like Toronto, ever expanding outward so that now from Kitchener on you are pretty much in one big metropolitan area.
What it all seems to be boiling down to is this: What is the economic significance of your city/region? It seems as though the minds at the top view cities like Windsor as strategic assets. Our manufacturing base has been eroded and the centre of industry has shifted east toward Toronto. Without the auto industry our economic value is seriously undermined.
The senior governments’ intrests in Windsor are largely as a border crossing point. Beurocracies are big slow moving entities that operate on old ideas and theories. Rapid changes like the sudden rise in transportation and energy costs do not immediately register. The idea of removing rail lines coming into the city and leaving the one connected to the tunnel to the U.S. along with a new bridge and highway that skirts the city demonstrates that the long view of Windsor is that it is merely a city to pass through, not invest in or try to rescue its industries.
The world is getting to be a bigger place, again. And, like James says, cities are becoming ‘city states’. It blows my mind that Windsor council shot down the idea to have a regional government. It seems to me that a regional approach is exactly what is needed. Planning needs to have a 50-100 yr outlook - not the crappy 15 yr masterplans that get shelved. The whole region needs a transportation plan and body to manage it. Until then
Ther reason we continue to lag is that there is no political will. Things are too hard and nuts are too hard to crack. I just read a few responses on Alan Halberstadt’s web blog http://www.alanhalberstadt.com/ under balls in the closet and some of them make great sense.
Taking the easy way out doesn’t help anyone except that elected person. We must change our taxation laws (don’t worry Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals are sending out their tax increases, I mean assessments, now) to make sure people are not burdened by these property taxes but at the same time the money should be going to where it is needed most.
A friend of mine was going to buy a house downtown but when he saw the taxes he walked. He found lower taxes in Windsor with more property and found even lower taxes in the county suburbs. How does that help the region?
James, I couldn’t agree more with your tax idea.
This is going to be a little (or a lot) off topic, but after reading what has been posted on here I felt I had to say something.
First off, I’m fully aware of what this site is all about and wanted to give all of you some ideas to ponder. Although I have been reading your blog for some time, I am unaware of any mention of a ‘neighbourhood planning program’ in any of the blogs. With leading edge research, design and planning strategies (for North America anyway) becoming more prominent in the design professions (architecture, urban design, planning, landscape architecture, etc.), there are some very interesting ideas coming out these days.
Coming out of a neighbouring city (Chicago) is a movement entitled sustainable urbanism. I’ve previously posted a link to the main book (and its author Doug Farr: Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature) behind the movement. To me there are some VERY beneficial aspects to this type of approach to make Windsor a more sustainable place and better position to deal with the energy and climate crises that seem to be accelerating. It is based on the still new LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-ND) program from the US Green Building Council (USGBC). The book’s author, Doug Farr, actually served as chair of the USGBC’s LEED-ND Core Committee. The core of the sustainable urbanism approach is creating sustainable, locally-focused neighbourhoods.
The book is a good resource on how to implement sustainable urbanism (including the process and tools), and as importantly what the emerging thresholds are for achieving sustainable urbanism. These include great quantifiable thresholds that address aspects of neighbourhood planning such as transit supportive densities, the sustainable corridor, biodiversity corridors, defining neighborhoods, neighborhood completeness, neighborhood housing, car-free housing, neighborhood retail, economic benefits of locally owned stores, healthy neighborhoods, walkable streets and networks, complete streets, universal basic home access, managing travel demand, car sharing, open space, public darkness, stormwater systems, food production, outdoor wastewater treatment, indoor wastewater treatment, the impact of planning on building energy usage, high-performance infrastructure and large district energy systems.
To get to the point, here is the #2 objective (only behind the Official Plan Review) the 2008 Planning budget for the Policy Services section:
“2. Deliver comprehensive Neighbourhood Planning model that incorporates community indicators as indices of economic, environmental and social health. This neighbourhood planning model will link neighbourhood growth and development needs within the existing political wards providing a budgetary mechanism to address areas of known fiscal, social or environmental inequality.”
It seems that the Sustainable Urbanism approach would be quite well suited for Windsor. In my humble opinion, refocusing efforts on what is needed within Windsor for its people and those who may come is priority #1. It seems we need to focus internally instead of focusing externally and trying to put the economy first by targeting the ‘big fish’. Work with what we have and help our small businesses flourish by using their existing capacity and skills.
Another quote that would see, to back up this idea comes from the new City Planner himself from an article in the Windsor Star:
“We want to bring planning more to neighbourhoods. Focus on them and how their neighbourhoods can change,” he said.
What makes individual quality of life better by doing the small things. Options or choices on how they go to their job, school or recreation. Are various amenities provided in your neighbourhood, what types of needs do residents have and how can you provide improvement.
It’s planning on a more social level. Planning is about the people.”
Please let me know what you think.
RY
Scaledown.ca Vision Statement
To connect every Windsorite to their own walkable neighbourhood that has its own public spaces, local independent businesses and artists.
There are a lot of good ideas out there and there are many good planners trying to make them work. Windsor has several compact neighbourhoods that meet the criteria of a walkable urban community. It is not that we need to go and seek out all these “new” ideas rather, we need to take the resources that we have and use them to the maximum effect.
I get twitchy when anyone attaches the words “sustainable” or “green” to anything. In many cases these words serve mostly as “jargon” or “marketese”. Man made systems are inherently not sustainable. They require inputs of various kinds from outside the system itself.
Scaledown is all about celebrating our city and our culture and we encourage everyone to go out and participate in their community.
The point of my post this week was to highlight the weakness of our city’s economy - auto maker dependence. All the studies and plans in the world will not be worth a damn if we live in a city that resembles Detroit only smaller. By anticipating the worst scenarios we can make decisions in the near term that could mitigate the most negative aspects of them. Like, instead of everyone rushing to get out of the city centre, we encourage as many as possible to move as close as they can to transit, and shopping and work, ultimatly creating lively urban communities.
Thom Hunt is right, we have to make our neighbourhoods into centres of economic and social activity, not just an arrangement of houses where we sleep and keep our stuff.
James, I apologize for hijacking the post with my previous post. It didn’t really fit in this blog, but I didn’t really see one that it would have fit in.
It is not that I am suggesting we use this ‘new’ idea just because it is new, because it is actually based on some very tried and true ideas. The Sustainable Urbanism approach is only one of the ways to coherently build the arguments, rationale and support (political and public) for focusing on local issues. Like you suggest ‘we need to focus on using the resources that we have and use them to maximum effect’. Perhaps something like spatially identifying all of the ‘essential’ services in Windsor such as banks, child care facilities, community/civic centres, schools, parks, and supermarkets just to name a few, and then documenting the typical ¼ mile ‘walkable’ distances from them would give a very good indication where there are essential service gaps across the city and subsequently make land use and community development decisions based around this type of analysis.
Here is a book review that may interest you:
http://www.vector1media.com/article/review/book-review:-sustainable-urbanism/
I agree with you wholeheartedly that man made systems are inherently not sustainable. In my humble opinion, everything starts with nature. Decisions should be based around how it effects the natural environment first and foremost, while also taking into consideration the social and economic issues and impacts. To be honest the ‘sustainable’ approach of looking at the social, economic and environmental issues with equal weight is false and weighted heavily in favour of humanity. If you think about the social and economic components, both are human constructs and would not exist without nature. Therefore, since humans are part of nature, shouldn’t the environmental or ‘natural’ considerations be of the highest priority????
Since this is way off topic, I’ll stop now. Apologies once again.
RY
That’s the beauty of this forum, we wander off topic sometimes, no need to apologize.
I’m going to research the neighborhood planning concept more it sounds like Scaledown could play a role educating people about that
James, If Chris agrees lets make multiple tier Development charges and/or property tax rates our primary goal!!!!
Some is in Windsor’s control based on Community Improvement plan filings to reduce development charges
I assume that the tax rates, themselves, are governed provincially. Lets contact the province to see what can be done within current legislation and regulations. Maybe it can be done through a massive one time assessment reduction in our core
I would think that more incentives for property improvement and lower development fees in targeted areas would be the best we could manage at the municipal level.
We heard from Joe Rauti that there would be more infill housing if some of the less ornerous rules and restrictions were lifted or a comprimise could be found. I’m pretty sure he mentioned development fees that were so high it made profit margins too tight for builders. My thing is that it is pretty evident that we have more than enough buildings in the city. What needs to happen is that building owners must be pushed to keep them up to code and occupied. Unoccupied buildings with deficencies should be targeted for improvement at the owners expense. Out of town speculators have done tremendous damage to our city.
My understanding of Joe Rauti’s concerns was that disruption of infil development to neighbors creates complaints that bring on more inspectors, fines and other hassles to developers than new or suburban development.
The way I see it is a formal directive to the bylaw enforcement, building and other inspectors to lighten up on builders in the core. Maybe an ombudsman type position that works to liason between neighbors and the core. Inspections are often complaint driven and we need to ensure that they are not simply appeasing the complaintants at the cost of infill development
Saving that, it would be an additional even greater reduction in development charges to support the contractor being able to put more manpower on keeping neighbors happy.
I think its great that this issue was brought to light as its something no one ever talks about. Lets acknowledge it, deal with it and get on with it. Thats how you change the conversation.
I would have to say that if more inspections yield more fines then we need more building inspectors to check more buildings. If a builder can’t build to code than they should not be in the business.
That said. When Boston built its underground freeway the contractors had teams of engineers whose job was to monitor noise, dust/mud, traffic disruptions and deal directly with complaints. I watched two homes get built in the past year out on Roseland Drive. Yes, there was mud and trucks and that is the nature of construction. What the builder needs to help the neighbours understand is that new homes will draw new people to the area and there will be fewer vacant lots and dilapitated homes if contractors are able to renovate or rebuild. When the building is done you are left with a better community because new people have come and invested there.
Oh, so blame the big bad contractor? I don’t subscribe to that. I’m not talking about building to code
The second is more like it. The fact is that infill development is on smaller lots where people are closer together. Its much easier to fine someone or issue them a work order for mud and noise than it is to explain to neighbors that new homes will raise their property value.
I love Arnold Schwarzeneggar. I know a lot of it is marketing but to get people to come downtown they offered businesses cut rates on rent and taxes. And for a few businesses he even offered to help them move in! We need to offer incentives for people to move to these areas.
There was another story and I can’t remember all the details but I think it was at one of the Edmonton malls. They had a contest for the best new business idea and they chose a winner from the applicants. The winner got 1 year free rent in the mall…it helped fill and empty store and if the business took off, the mall would have a good tennant.
All of these ideas took the local municipality working closely with the businesses and that’s the issue that so many of you want to see solved. We need to bridge that gap somehow and definitely get our city reps to start thinking very long term.
Not good news for urban dwellers! I just finished reading all the posts to this Prequel and I think that James defines the mission statement of Scaledown precisely!
What will affect any infill or intensification attempts in Windsor and derail sub-urban and rural sprawl might be out of hands according to this story below from the Ottawa Citizen, coming to a property tax assessment office near you in September.
The bad news is that MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation : http://www.mpac.on.ca/) is raising urban property taxes rather on the suburbs and rural residents from the Ottawa Citizen:
City staff brace for tax backlash
Set to spin blame onto province for jump in property assessments
Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, July 11, 2008
Fearing public backlash later this year when new property-tax assessments are mailed to homeowners and businesses, city officials are getting ready to shift the blame to the provincial government and call for a public inquiry to explore alternative ways to fund municipal services.
They are expecting the worse because, after a scathing report by the province’s ombudsman on its property-tax assessment system, Premier Dalton McGuinty’s government froze assessments at January 2005 levels. The province changed the system to spread any variance in tax rates due to assessments out over four years, and in the fall, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. will release its first assessments in three years. Ottawa residents can expect them to hit mailboxes in mid-September.
Some of the new assessments will mean sharp increases in city taxes. Other residents will see their taxes drop. The city’s total tax take doesn’t change, but individual taxpayers’ bills do.
Under the current system, the only factor determining who pays what share of the total municipal tax bill is the assessed value of property. The system has resulted in urban residents’ generally paying a disproportionately high amount of the tax bill compared to suburban and rural residents because their property values have increased faster.
Tax experts expected to see this trend deepen and widen in 2009, when the new assessments come into effect…”
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=05fd3559-dcdc-47c4-9e08-13db44ad5ef8
It seems that every city the size of Windsor in Ontario is at least seeing some growth in its core areas, which if true would drive property rates up in urban environments in the thinking of MPAC. But we know that it isn’t true in Windsor, so again a diminishing core or old city of Windsor will if I assume what I read in that article, will be paying higher property assessment taxes that don’t reflect the real story of Windsor.
Waiting for the storm!