In a previous article I wrote about how the
Vancouver city region is struggling to define itself economically – is
it a port city? Is it a resort city? Or can the future be built on savvy
tech entrepreneurs? Last week I got a glimpse of one part of the economy
which generates less headlines but could be as important to the city over the coming years. I undertook the Eastside Cultural Crawl which does
exactly what is says on the tin. Beginning in 1997 the crawl is an
opportunity for artists, craftspeople and designers to increase their
visibility through a series of coordinated events and programmes.
Mostly it just involves studios being opened up to allow the general
public a better idea of what is being produced in the Strachcona
neighborhood. I was hugely impressed with both the turnout (not
everybody enjoys walking around an industrial estate on a freezing
weekend) and, more importantly, the quality of the products on sale.
With my eye on a new coffee table I was particularly impressed with the
carpenters and would recommend the work of Enrico Konig as a start (see here).
Two stories related to parks in London grabbed my attention
this past week. First was Rowan Moore’s
excellent review of the proposed London River Park which is quickly turning
into the capital’s new planning saga (see here). The proposal is for a new walkway on the
northern side of the River Thames, stretching from Millennium Bridge in the
west to the Tower of London in the east.
The initial plans include landscaping, seating, a swimming pool and a
series of pavilions which can be used for exhibitions and cultural uses.
But it is the creation of a pseudo-public
space that angers Moore the most.
Drawing on Anna Minton’s highly recommended book Ground Control, Moore
describes how the river park will in fact turn a public river view into a
highly controlled private space. In addition,
the effort from the architects appears to have been spent on the revenue
generating pavilions and not on the walkable areas in-between. So if London is trying to ape New York’s High
Line it will have to put considerably more effort into the ‘park’ element of
the scheme. Latest news is that the planning
application will not be considered by the City of London at the November
Planning Committee and the project will now miss being open for the Queen’s
Diamond Jubilee. Open for the
Olympics? We will see.
With Vancouver municipal elections on November 19th, I thought now was a good opportunity to reflect on what are the key issues that should be being debated in the weeks ahead. I stress 'should be' because unfortunatley the past weeks have been dominated by the continued occupation of the Vancouver Art Gallery. For a group that claims to want to discuss the 'big issues', it is ironic that their occupation of VAG has deflected all attention away from the real substantive issues facing the city. So to put this right, here are my top three issues that prospective politicians should be focusing on in Vancouver.
Reading a lecture script on planning theories and governance structures is not easy. But the hard work can be worth it, as it is for Patsy Healey's recent RTPI Nathanial Lichfield Annual Lecture (full script available here). Healey is Emeritus Professor at Newcastle University and through her work on strategic spatial planning has received the RTPI Gold Medal and become a fellow of the British Academy. I have always found her work engaging with its ability to mix both abstract planning and public policy theories with the everyday reality of city life and the role of the planning profession.
Her RTPI Lecture captures the current enthusiasm for localism but instead of critiquing the Conservative Government's Localim Bill she digs deeper to deconstruct what form local political action should take. This is wise because the fundamental issues of governance and civic capacity must be understood before exploring the types of planning controls needed. Healey's main concern is the way in which debates over governance often break down into shouting matches between polarised sides calling for either less or more Government. She categorizes these sides as either market idealists or idealised communitarianism. Instead, Healey proposes a form of 'network governance' that blurs the boundaries of state, economy and cicil society. This allows for a more flexible state of governance that retains some Government safeguards but permits experimentation and capacity building at the local level. It is only within this networked governance does Healey believe true local planning can emerge.
