3000 Reasons why people won’t move to the “new downtown”.
It’s been a while since I’ve posted (Congratulations Chris on successfully goading me out of hiding) so, this might get a little rambly.
I listened to Jeff Rubin on CBC’s the Current today. He said we should prepare for the end of our current "Barrista Economy". Barrista Economy, I nearly peed myself. He said that all those folks currently slinging java and performing other "service" jobs will be needed to do work where they actually make something because according to him the world is about to get a whole lot smaller. I’ve followed his work at CIBC World Markets and he’s been pretty good at guessing what the oil markets have done. Now he’s quit the bank and published a book . As soon as I’m done my current read I’ll pick it up. I’ve paid attention to what he’s had to say because he’s someone that worked at a very high level in a major bank and he did not tell people the things they wanted to hear. He told them what they should have listened to.
For all those folks that think the end of the "economic downturn" is near - here’s another shoe that dropped. The New York Times ran this story in yesterday’s morning and afternoon editions. It seems the huge number of job losses in the U.S. is starting another round of mortgage foreclosures. This time it’s not sub-prime, it’s the folks with good credit that have lost their jobs and can’t find new ones. I don’t think we’re gonna dodge that bullet in Canada, not with the job numbers we’ve seen and are still going to come.
Speaking of job numbers I was blown away by all the excitment over the last Canadian job numbers. I’m supposed to be excited by 36,000 new "self-employed"? What will be informative is how many of these self-employed folks are still going a year from now. Will anyone track that? Probably not. And guess what? All those self-employed folks will not qualify for EI if their business fails and so statistically these people are all gone from the jobless rolls in more than one way.
I’m not going to take sides on the CUPE strike but, I was downtown the other day and I had to laugh. Would you have ever imagined the day when Docherty’s hole is the tidiest bit of land along the river.
Docherty’s hole -
.
.
.
.
.
.
Roof of the Bistro -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kunstler’s podcast last week was a Google tour of Detroit. Of interest he mentions Windsor and that he stayed here once.
Two of my favorite blogs of late. Mike Morgan Behind Enemy Lines and Greater Fool . Mike Morgan went silent at the beginning of May. He didn’t have nice things to say about Goldman Sachs. Maybe they silenced him? (To the Illuminati - I’m just kidding. Seriously! I’m kidding - I’m sure Mike is just fine.) Garth Turner’s Greater Fool is interesting if you want another perspective on Canadian Real Estate and general economy bits. Of note, Garth was kicked out of the Conservative Caucus ’cause he actually asked his constituents how he should vote using his web site and then voted the way they told him to. Funny huh?
Currently reading Dark Age Ahead - Jane Jacobs’ last book. Chapter four, Science Abandoned was probably my favourite chapter. Overall the book just reinforces what I’ve always thought. Jane Jacobs was a wise, wise person and she should be required reading in every high-school curriculum.
The proposed development downtown, I’ve saved it for last. I won’t call it a canal because its not. It is an architectural water-feature. It has nothing to do with navigation or irrigation. Shit, they want to fill it with drinking water. Trying to sell those condos and store fronts (there or anywhere in and around Windsor in the coming decade) will be like running into a headwind, uphill, through hip-deep snow. Wanna know why. 1. Windsor is still emptying out. 2. Given that real estate prices are destined to fall even further (even here) builders are going to have a hard time making any kind of profit. 3. An expert told the planning committee last year that Windsor was "over retailed". Look around downtown now. Even our flagship property the Canderel Building is half-empty and no one has even sniffed at the prime commercial property on the ground floor. 4. Go to MLS.ca there are over 3000 residential properties listed for sale in Windsor and Essex County. More than 2500 from Lasalle around to St. Clair Beach. That doesn’t include private sales or rental properties or foreclosed houses the banks are sitting on. Point being that given all that choice, the lumpen masses will choose the suburban, back-split with an attached garage long before they’ll consider adopting an urban lifestyle and living downtown in a loft or brownstone. We can’t convince people to loan our art gallery extra operating cash. This is not the kind of city that’s going to go all in on an urban lifestyle. It’s going to take a whole lot more than pretty pictures or sharp little models to convince the non-scaledowners that living downtown is cool. And the first one’s to come back in from the county may be those that can’t afford the suburban lifestyle and depending on cases they may be coming back for better access to social services and assistance and affordable housing - not boutiques and lattes.
Post Feedback
Globe and Mail book review of Jeff Rubin’s new book:
Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization, by Jeff Rubin, Random House Canada, 265 pages, $$29.95
http://tiny.cc/5OhaR
“….For example, while North American consumers have enjoyed lower prices on goods from China over the past few decades, are we really better off? Children’s toys are a good example. Anyone with children, nieces or nephews can attest to the fact that we’ve absolutely buried our kids in an avalanche of cheap toys. Most of us baby boomers or Gen Xers are still shackled with the mentality that more is better. But heaping more cheap (sometimes poisonous) toys on kids than they could possibly play with in one childhood is definitely not better.
Rubin is spot-on with his conclusion that we had better brace ourselves for some changes in the way we eat, the way we travel and the way we take for granted the ever-increasing abundance of inexpensive consumer goods. Using less energy will simply not be an option. And one gets the impression he actually believes that our society will be better off for it. But it would have been nice to hear that case made more forcefully and optimistically from this not-so-dismal economist.”
Three copies are available at the Windsor Public Library of Jane Jacob’s book Dark Age Ahead.
Given the number of books that I have on my reading list based on the recommendation of ScaleDown authors, what about a “Recommended Reading List” for all those who are new to the scaled down way of living?
Also, as a point of contention — living downtown is not the be-all-end-all of scaled down living. You can still live on a massive carbon footprint and live downtown. That 2500 sqft brownstone for that hip urban couple who drink their organic, fair trade coffee shipped in from Burma, their organic beef shipped from Argentina and drive their Honda Prius shipped from Asia have a much larger footprint that your average homesteader — even with the daily work commute.
Let’s not confuse urban living with all things good. Scaling down is just that — scaling down; consuming more consciously; living more intentionally. I’m not opposed to urban living, but your locale does not automatically qualify you for a gold star.
The development plan being touted right now for the ex-arena lands has nothing to do with scaling down. It’s about boutiques and cafes not grocery stores and farmers markets. It’s about creating a hip and cool setting for those same people you’re talking about, not localization and consuming less (filling it with drinking water?).
You’re right living scaled down is not about urban/suburban. It is simply about doing more with less.
“Of note, Garth was kicked out of the Conservative Caucus ’cause he actually asked his constituents how he should vote using his web site and then voted the way they told him to. Funny huh?”
Despite Garth’s best spin, the reality was that he was kicked out of Caucus for violating caucus confidentiality on a regular basis, not for using his blog to speak to constituents.
I pretty much lobbed that out there for ya, didn’t I?
Most political types tend to spin and bend facts and events to suit their particular needs. Though I do enjoy his blog and the discussion that goes on there.
I think you are right, James. I have tried to have the SD conversation with many people, and the ones that seemed to be on the same wavelength ended up building new homes in sprawl-divisions because they “couldn’t find what they were looking for” for the price they wanted. (I’m sure they didn’t factor the costs of landscaping, decorating a new house, and fuel to commute when they decided to build, but ill save that for another time) What will it take to make urban living more desirable? Some issues in my discussions with young professionals and young families cite these issues: (note: not necessarily my views)
(1) Traffic. People seemed convinced that city streets are dangerous, and subdivisions are safer. I think that is a load of crap. Sure, city streets could be made safer, but I do not feel there is any real difference. (aside from the clutter of cars parked on the street)
(2) Noise. Well sure, city living is packs more decibels than the burbs, but its not that bad! In the Windsor burbs, you still have trains, highway noise, and planes… and one more thing in the burbs: people blasting their crappy music loudly as they cruise down the street, and every kid bouncing their wall-vibrating basketball in their driveway. I think this is a tie.
(3) Community. Some people think that the burbs offers housing with people in the same situation as them… similar job types, similar ages, similar aged children etc. Although that may be somewhat true when a sprawl-division is built, I don’t think it is true all around. Besides, I would much prefer to be in a mixed community, young & old all together.
(4) School. Everyone wants the be in the new shiny school. Nobody wants their kids “exposed” to the truth of society, and they do not want to blend in with lower income families. Downtown schools have not-so-great reputations in most cities, and this is a deterrent to living there for young families. Everyone wants the best education possible for their kids.
(5) Convenience. Hey, its got to be easy. For the past 40 years, its been really easy to take your vehicle to the nearest big-box or drive thru.. the times and gas prices will change this, but there needs to be more to offer in urban environments than what downtown Windsor currently offers.
(6) Yards. Most people i talked to like the idea of having their own little plot of land. I’m sure pushing the community gardens, and even rooftop parks in new condos would help!
(7) Coolness. Hey, people like to be trendy. And right now the trend of urban living hasn’t caught on, but its building momentum.
(8) Neighbours. Lets face it, being in the urban landscape means dealing with neighbours in a closer way than before. People have been getting really used to isolating themselves from society, so its a hard transition. Living urban might mean shared walls, ceilings, or floors with people… and people have to learn to be a little more accommodating to their neighbors.
(9) Entitlement. I think a deterrent to urban living is that people think that it is their destiny to raise a family in a burb lifestyle, because that is the only way that they knew. Their parent’s generation was able to move to the burbs to have a better lifestyle, so they are just following trends. They just do not know any other way.
(10) - the list goes on… (this post is long enough)
What can we do to change things?
One thing is Perception. I think this is the biggest factor. People need to SEE that it is not difficult to live downtown and maybe only own 1 car per household (or less!). Living urban has to be perceived as “cool” and “easy” and desirable. In addition, it has to cost the same or less then their current living arrangement in order to get people to make the switch. I think what gets people to move to areas like this is the buzz that surrounds it. Right now, if I tell out-of-towners that i live in downtown Windsor, they think this as a bad thing…. Perception must change. I think that this can be helped with Real-Estate Agents. One thing I must say is that when i was shopping for housing, our real estate agent has a great deal of influence, and this person favored outlying sprawl-divisions over anything downtown, or close to downtown. Perhaps we need a Urban SD-inspired Real Estate Company, that will help people find good, car-optional housing choices!
Agree with all your points JP except for (1). I can’t say how safe suburban neighbourhoods are with respect to car traffic compared with Windsor’s urban neighbourhoods–I’ve never lived in one of the suburbs–but I can say the urban street I currently live on in Windsor is more dangerous than any urban street I’ve lived on in four other Canadian cities. People think nothing of ripping down my Windsor street at 60-70 km/h, even when there are children playing on the sidewalks. This is a very serious problem.
The good news is that this isn’t really that hard to address. When my schedule lightens up a bit, I’m planning to canvass the street about pursuing some traffic calming measures.
In a macro policy sense though, in order to make our neighbourhoods more appealing, I think that 40km/h would be a more sane maximum speed limit for residential streets. Heck, why not even compete with sprawlsville for the lowest limit and try 30?
Tristan - check out the City of Windsor’s Traffic Calming guidelines that ScaleDown’s own Josh Biggley helped draft (when he called himself a Windsorite! ;))
Now I am a Reformed Windsorite :)- Hey, I still lurk, and occassionally write — and I still try and stir it up. Trying to get Urban Chickens in Charlottetown. Anyone in Windsor do the Urban Chickens thing? (and want to admit to it!)
Thanks Chris.
“The proposed development downtown, I’ve saved it for last. I won’t call it a canal because its not. It is an architectural water-feature. ”
Although you are quite accurate that the canal portion is an architectural feature, it is also a marina. The proponents are hoping its an architectural water-feature that may draw residents. It is also a Marina that may draw residents
It is also a Marina, everything our mutually agreeable authors write would support a ferry connection between Downtown Windsor and Downtown Detroit. Detroit is already building a downtown dock that would be able to be accessible by such a ferry
“It has nothing to do with navigation or irrigation.”
Marina would have something to do with navigation
James the rest of your argument sends a message to me that we should simply give up, it ain’t gonna work.
London, On. started residential programs 15 years ago and they’ve yeilded results.
James, your are also ignoring the large population of retiring empty nesting seniors that will choose to leave the suburbs.
SHouldn’t we offer them a downtown choice? If we could even capture 5% of that demographic, we win. We’re talking 500 units for a group of our population that numbers in the 10’s of thousands.
Our city also seems to be undertaking a 100 mile peninsula strategy to lure retiring seniors from other populations. I’d like to offer them an option in the core.
Also, James, you have not offered an alternative in your post
A marina is an entirely different animal from the “water feature”. As such I left it out because a transient marina along our waterfront is in and of itself not a bad idea. Remember last summer I telephone interviewed a number of marina owners and the consensus was that a transient marina would be a good thing. The critical thing about a marina is that it be placed in the most central location so that the whole of downtown is accessible to the boaters. (There is also the logistics of security and it being a port-of-entry requiring Border Service Officers and the like.- That alone could kill the idea entirely.)
My argument is not that we should give up but, we should temper our enthusiasm to build “something, anything” and really think it out. What worked before the world economy cramped up may not and very likely will not work after things finally settle down. There will be a lot fewer jobs and that means a lot of older people who aren’t in a viable retirement position may not ever go back to work. It also means that a lot of young people will have to look much harder to find work and may spend years “under-employed”. Add to that a large number of “boomers” whose “wealth” is tied up in mcmansions that they can’t sell and the looming reality is that spending tens of millions of dollars to create a trendy, boutique neighbourhood may not be the best use of those dollars. Perhaps the best plan would be the simplest. Rebuild the residential neighbourhood that was there. Make it car-free, environmentally and culturally friendly and most important it will have to be affordable.
P.S. your next shoe comment just adds more fuel to my fire to slow this development down.
(1) Traffic. People seemed convinced that city streets are dangerous, and subdivisions are safer. I think that is a load of crap. Sure, city streets could be made safer, but I do not feel there is any real difference. (aside from the clutter of cars parked on the street)
Whats interesting is that I’ve read articles that say that most thefts occur in daytime in suburbs due to the lack of front yard/street activity.
(2) Noise. Well sure, city living is packs more decibels than the burbs, but its not that bad! ….
Whats interesting is that there are ways to mitigate this but no one has started that discussion. One of the biggest complaints is how much louder emergency vehicles sirens are in a downtown. Many cities have given emergency vehicles two sound settings to help downtown. Sure thats one little thing, but add all the little things up and you make it better
(3) Community. Some people think that the burbs offers housing with people in the same situation as them…
Whats interesting is that this is one of the items that we have been programmed to accept. Its one of the whole precepts behind my role in scaledown. That scaling down actually makes you happier even though we are programmed through commercialism to think it doesn’t.
(4) School. ….
In every downtown revitalization this is the last demographic that comes in. First you get singles and newlyweds, then it is they who want a downtown option when kids come. You’ll never get schools until you actually have downtown residents demanding them.
(5) Convenience. …..
as soon as the car culture changes which it is, downtowns will be more convenient
(6) Yards. Most people i talked to like the idea of having their own little plot of land. I’m sure pushing the community gardens, and even rooftop parks in new condos would help!
Thats why we need more housing options that the canal could bring. We
(7) Coolness. Hey, people like to be trendy. And right now the trend of urban living hasn’t caught on, but its building momentum.
Accelerated awareness
(8) Neighbours. & (9) Entitlement. I …..
See my comments under community.
Scaling down makes you happier. Happiness through simplicity
James as far as next shoe to drop, you didn’t mention there are 3 shoes
1.)next round of mortgage forclosures you mentioned
2.)the coming credit card collapse (securitization of all that debt)
3.)North American wide foreclosure (which they’ve been stalling) on so many vacant big box plaza’s. Also the list of deadmalls has grown to 84 out of 1000 thats closing on 10%
The next crash will be the combination of all 3 happening at the same time
Commercial real estate in the U.S. and just not malls and bix boxers is about ready to collapse along with all the supposedly “good mortgages!” There are more skyscrapers starting to sit empty or deserted in all U.S. major cities as their economy is still in free fall.
James, great to have you back!
I have to disagree with your conclusions.
On energy and globalization, globalization is the economic engine that drives the global economy. Globalization has existed before oil. The last great wave of globalization, the only that might rival today’s, was at the turn of the century when the oil industry was at it’s infancy.
John Maynard Keynes said of that wave of globalization:
“The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea, the various products of the whole earth, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep. Militarism and imperialism of racial and cultural rivalries were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper. What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man was that age which came to an end in August 1914.”
Besides our global system is the most efficient user of energy. It is the local and regional systems that waste the most energy. That is where the greatest change will be.
For example, I’m doing some painting around the house today and needed some more paint. Well, I’m sure I wasted more energy, the fossil fuel finite type, driving to the edge of the city and back than the energy spent getting that can of paint to the store from whatever corner of the world it came from. My single occupant car trip to the edge of town and back is what will get squeezed. That’s the non productive waste. It is not the productive efficient system that brought me the can of paint as cheaply as possible.
We need to build efficient robust local and regional systems. We need to intensify around key transportation infrastructure. We need mass transit systems that can rival our intricate highway systems. We need to redesign our way of life to live closer to where we work and play. We need more retail in the core instead of at the edges. There are 3000 reasons why people will need to move downtown.
I would argue that globalization is not the most efficient use of energy. It is the product of chasing the cheapest labour and capital costs sourcing out to far off lands and it was all facilitated with cheap energy.
To use the example in Jeff Rubin’s book. Fishermen catch fish in the North Atlantic Ocean. That fish is brought back to port, frozen and loaded onto a ship that takes it from a North American or European port all the way around to China. There the fish is thawed, processed and frozen again and then put back on a ship and delivered back to another North American or European port and then off-loaded, trucked to a central distribution point, then delivered to a grocery store where it is ultimately purchased loaded in the trunk of a car and driven home. Very efficient.
James,
Shipping is the most fuel efficient, by far, transport mode.
Sea transport does not require infrastructure investment in the construction and installation of arterial roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overpasses, permanent way, signalling, real estate acquisition etc.
Sea transport does not require maintenance of these infrastructure investment items. There is a continuing debate over the extent to which road infrastructure and maintenance costs are recovered from the road transport sector.
The sea transport industry by contrast uses infrastraucture which is fully funded – over-funded in fact, by the shipping industry.
When we consider all the energy used in the system, I’m sure that on a BTU per ton the global system will continue to kick ass over any regional or local (i.e. road) system no matter the price of energy.
We need to make drastic changes to the regional and local systems not the global system. The global system is the most sustainable.
Or you could have bought your paint at the local Home Hardware store? If you bought the store brand, Beautitone, you would have bought a Made in Ontario paint.
Thanks Vincent great advice.
That’s the local and regional change that needs to happen; more local retail, better regional distribution networks, and more efficient local and regional transportation.
Neighborhood hardware stores!
Downtown farmers market!
Walkable neighborhoods like the canal district!
Bike improvements like RDVIP and fully implementing BUMP!
Radical transit improvements like regional high-speed rail, an east-west light rail line, greater bus frequency, and regional public transit to the edgies and Leamington area!
Wow, what a great discussion. I’m totally addicted to this site and you are guaranteed to see me here more often.
Anyway, I think the one thing that hasn’t been said, or asked, is why there is so much attention only on the downtown area as “urban living” as opposed to building stronger smaller neighbourhoods and communities that are connected to the all important downtown core.
There are a tone of little areas within even suburban neighbourhoods that if built correctly or improved, could provide the necessary elements that are required for folks to start walking and engaging in their “home” areas. These areas used to exist before the move towards massive big box stores that ultimately were approved by the city.
Not to be a naysayer, but since no one else has mentioned it, wouldn’t it be great to have a park with a trail that connects the south end with downtown? Instead of the canal, that land could be used to build a connecting trail through the city which would funnel recreational folks down a path towards the downtown area.
I just thought I would throw it out there as some supporters of the canal have said that there are no other ideas on the table, so why not support it. I think if challenged, residents could find a better use of that large amount of money and build something that encourages long term sustainable urban living instead of tourist visits. The market we are looking for is right in our own backyard!!
BTW, great ending to your post Edwin! Dead-on!
Ron D.
Normally, I talk about the core on Scaledown, which for me is basically sandwich to Riverside and river to tecumsuh.
1. However, I’m just a logical guy so when we talk about reinvesting in the core, fix one thing at a time and the first logical place to start is downtown. Limited resources are always more effective if targeted
2. almost all visitors will judge a city by their perception of downtown. If you want to change how people think about Windsor, it would be more effective to change downtown than change another neighborhood.
3. When you talk about neighborhoods the next most effective place to target resources would be to start at all the BIA’s. Walkerville, Ottawa, Riverside, Wyandotte Town Center, Sandwich, Erie Street. You’ll get the biggest bang for your buck when residents and business work together. Its also the most natural way to achieve a mixed use walkable neighborhood.
(Boy I wish the area by the University that I would call “Asian Village would form a BIA)
I didn’t see 3000 reasons but maybe my math isn’t as good as it used to be
I wouldn’t mind seeing a trial but other than the railway cut which does end up connecting to a real railway trainyard. It wouldn’t be feasible. A whole swath of houses would have to be destroyed.
I echo what Mark states above. But what do I know, I have made my points on the canal too many times here for them to be repeated.
Forgot to add. The residents don’t care about visitors we care about an expanded neighbourhood that encompasses a dense urban village. People seem to forget that the urban village is what the canal is to bring forward. Without it developers won’t touch it because there is nothing there to bring residents to live in the area that is known as downtown.
American home prices plummet to 2002 levels
“It’s hard to believe it could get much worse for homeowners in Detroit. Homes there are worth what they sold for in 1995. And while that’s good news for buyers, the implosion of the auto industry and economic fallout means fewer people have the money to qualify for a mortgage.
“I feel like houses here are free,” said Detroit real estate agent Rose Marie Jouan. The house she sold in 2004 for $200,000 (U.S.) is on the block, bank-owned, for $86,000.”
Full article here: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/640878
Is Detroit South going the way of Detroit North?
Canadian households $1.3-trillion in debt
http://tiny.cc/ODDEC
One of the 3,000 reasons that there won’t be any movement to anywhere in the Windsor/Essex county area soon!!!
Maybe across the river or looking farther south, our neighbours are in trouble. Since we in Windsor and Canada are so attached to our neighbours and the greater economic decline spreads like a cancer, our deficit growing in the dark, is this the future of our smaller towns and cities in Ontario?
Towns Rethink Self-Reliance as Finances Worsen
http://tiny.cc/0PuHx
“As the recession batters city budgets around the U.S., some municipalities are considering the once-unthinkable option of dissolving themselves through “disincorporation.”
Benefits of this move vary from state to state. In some cases, dissolution allows residents to escape local taxes. In others, it saves the cost of local salaries and pensions. And residents may get services more cheaply after consolidating with a county…”
Yeah because no one is buying houses anywhere. No is going to downsize or grow out of their parents places. The economy isn’t going to ever recovery. I just love the doom and gloom of the “creative class”. Kunstler would be proud.
Though I am standing in a pool of your dripping sarcasm, I do want to point out that you are right. The economy is not going to every repeat the insanity of the early this century. Not in our lifetimes. Does that mean that we are on the doorstep of global meltdown and destruction? I don’t know. What I do know is that trying to “get back to the way it was” is simply not an option. I like to think that I fall into the creative class — at least part of me.
It is all spin — everyone spins. Even the truth is spun for the benefit of those who perceive the truth as, well, true! Is doom and gloom being spun for the benefit for low-footprint, sustainable living? Hell yes! Does that make the goal of sustainable living suspect? No — of course not, it just means that people are listening to the doom and gloom message right now, so it has the greatest audience. Every “artist” wants to play to a full house, right?
As for nobody buying houses — the market is different, not dead. People will continue to buy and sell, but probably more modelled after they way my parents and grandparents bought homes — more affordable, low maintenance and with a hefty downpayment.
And — I like Kunstler — sometimes.
Thanks PFA, with that post I can agree with. You know what, I like Kunstler too…sometimes.