The collected articles in the most recent newsletter of the Project for Public Spaces do a beautiful job of showing how the physical, social, and cultural import of placemaking could help point the way out of the proverbial economic wilderness. From "How Your Community Can Thrive--Even In Tough Times," by Philip Myrick:
Placemaking is central to many of the powerful trends shaping the world today. The stumbling global economy, a vulnerable energy supply, and loss of confidence in far-flung markets are balanced by an upsurge of interest in things local: producing local food; promoting local businesses; preserving local character; protecting local open space and public places; finding meaningful ways to belong to a local community.
....A [Michigan State University] Land Policy Institute study shows that half of total economic
losses stemming from drops in population are caused by a loss of
service jobs and income. That means when people move they take a piece
of the economy with them. This represents a vast change that cities, towns and regions need to
recognize. In the past, a vital local economy was based on attracting
large companies by offering inexpensive locations and a cheap labor
force. The qualities of a particular place mattered little, and people
migrated to where the jobs were. Moreover, much of that economic growth
was based on cheap oil, which encouraged people’s work, homes and
shopping destinations to be spread far apart. That’s all changed, and
now communities with lively destinations that are easily reached by
walking and transit gain distinct advantages.
....[Land Policy Institute Director Soji] Adelaja notes that regions that will prosper are those with strategies that make the most of their assets. His definition of Placemaking is “the use of strategic assets, talent attractors and sustainable growth levers to create attractive and sustainable high energy, high amenity, high impact, high income communities that can succeed in the New Economy.” Cities and regions that thrive in the 21st Century will be differentiated by their lively neighborhoods and business districts, cultural and recreational attractions, great sense of place, protected natural areas, and deep pride in local character, products and foods. They will achieve this through and open collaborative process with their citizens. In a down economy, it is tempting to cut back on these planning ideas, thinking that they are frivolous. But disregarding these principles in the name of saving money can create a downward spiral that causes a local economy to lose its competitive edge.
(Above, the Farmer's Market in Ann Arbor, MI, via)
Jay Walljasper, a senior fellow of the Project for Public Spaces, waxes poetic (with specific examples), providing further insight about localism and the perils of scale, in a Planetizen essay.
The biggest reason this place is central to solving 21st century challenges is that it remains a lively, intact neighborhood -- which is the level of social organization most effective for fixing problems and pursuing opportunities. For a hundred years, however, we've been told that large problems need to be addressed with large-scale plans. And over and over, from Soviet bureaucracy to L.A. freeways to the Cabrini Green housing project, that notion has turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
The mounting crises today call for a shift in thinking. To engage people, long-term, in addressing the pressing issues of the day, they must see results where they live. Humans are by nature villagers -- that's how we lived for many centuries, and it's the way most people still feel comfortable operating today. The neighborhood is simply the modern version of the village.
When people sit around a kitchen table with friends and neighbors to make improvements in their community, a kind of alchemy arises -- their enthusiasm turns into something valuable. Drawing on local wisdom and shared personal bonds, they devise innovations no outside expert would ever conceive. And when they roll up their sleeves to put these ideas into action, results happen more quickly and smoothly than plans promoted by business, government or outside activists.
Meanwhil, embedded in the vision of "lively" neighborhoods with strong "sense of place," vibrant "cultural and recreational attractions," and "deep pride" in all things local is an elusive idea: that of fun. Underpinning all of it is a desire for a solid economic foundation, particularly now. A report by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia analyzes the impact of "fun" on urban growth and vitality:
In a paper published this month by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, economists Gerald A. Carlino and Albert Saiz looked at 150 metropolitan areas around the United States and found hat those rich in what they called "consumption amenities" - the things that make a city delightful, such as parks, historic sites, museums, and beaches - "disproportionally attracted highly educated individuals and experienced faster housing price appreciation."
In other words,
urban growth and prosperity have less to do with transportation links
and industrial infrastructure than the patterns that govern behavior at
a social mixer: Beautiful and charming cities draw a crowd, while the
featureless and unattractive wilt like wallflowers.
(above, Waterfire on a summer evening in Providence, RI, via)
Spurred by an interest in the boom experienced by the archetypal hip cities of the 1990's--Seattle and Austin--the authors of the report, economists Gerald A. Carlino and Albert Saiz, wondered why the vital signs of a host of other cities stayed flat, even while most could boast of cosmetic gains:
What puzzled the experts was why, if the "American central city generally did not 'come back' in the 1990s," as Carlino and Saiz wrote in their paper, "the 'beautiful city' within flourished."...
The economists searched for the variables that would play into the equation for vibrancy, paying particular close attention to physical beauty and the size of the local tourist industry:
More than others before them, Carlino and Saiz offered statistical support for the idea that environmental characteristics could be as important a draw to an area as the built environment....In their paper, Carlino and Saiz found a statistical correlation between the number of leisure visits to a metropolitan area and the growth of factors like population and housing values. They controlled to determine that the tourism itself wasn't causing the growth, and argue in their paper that people move to the cities for the same reason they visit as tourists. They also demonstrate that investment by local governments in such "recreational capital" - spending on parks, cultural institutions, sports facilities, and other public-private spaces - has succeeded in making cities like Charlotte and San Antonio more attractive to tourists. They compute that a 10 percent boost in such spending yields a 2.3 percent increase in leisure visits, and, if the correlation holds, will also increase growth.
It's interesting to set up this second study alongside the Project for Public Spaces' work: per PPS, a strong sense of local identity is an amenity, just as much as a new museum or a shopping venue. The question is what sustains growth in a city and its region over the long run--the flash of tourist-style comforts and spectacle, or a retrenchment into issues of locality and community. Perhaps dovetailing the two--harvesting the local, projecting it globally--is the way.
Agreement on what "amenity" means is needed, though. "Infrastructure," too, especially as regards federal funding in the near future for ailing local municipalities:
"Amenity is in the eye of the beholder," says Joel Kotkin, the author of "The City: A Global History." He has ridiculed amenity-driven development as an attempt to draw the "hipster set" with the "lure of 'coolness' " while ignoring basic city services. "To some a place with nice parks, low crime, good schools, and good jobs is paradise but boring for visitors."
While Carlino and Saiz both acknowledge it is intriguing to imagine federal dollars shifted from overpasses to skateparks, both caution that they have yet to measure the effects such a policy change could have.
"Even if we know that building a nice park or historical district could cause growth to go up a certain percentage, it still costs money," said Carlino. "Is it worth it?"
It would cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to charge and drive an electric car.The electricity to charge the car could come from solar or wind generated electricity.If all gasoline cars,trucks,and suv’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of N.D.This past year the high cost of fuel so seriously damaged our economy and society that the ripple effects will be felt for years to come.Why not invest in setting up some alternative energy projects on a national basis, create clean cheap electricity,create millions of badly needed new green collar jobs, and get out from under our dependence on foreign oil.What a win-win situation that would be. There is a great new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in alternative energy. www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Posted by: sherry | 01/11/2009 at 20:30