My Little Underground

It’s weird how different cities take such different approaches to transit. I recently came across the fact that my family’s hometown of Birmingham, England, is the largest city in Europe without a subway. On the other hand, my current home of Kitchener-Waterloo’s light rail system makes it the smallest city in North America with any sort of rail transit system. And some Scandinavian cities have more of a commitment to transit: Oslo has more subway stations than Toronto, despite being only about a quarter the size.

So I was curious about what city has the most subway stations per capita in the world. I Googled it, and discovered there are all kinds of complications to the question: How do you define where a city ends? What part is served by the transit system? What if the subway also runs into neighbouring communities? But then I found that none of that matters, because there’s a clear winner: Serfaus, Austria. It has a subway system with four stations, serving a town of 1000 people. 

Okay, you've probably already guessed there has to be more to it than that, and indeed there is: Serfaus is a ski resort, so it often has far more than the local population to move around. And it's not a full sized subway: more like a “people mover” you might see at an airport. Interestingly, it doesn't even have wheels; it floats on compressed air. And it pulls itself along by a cord, like a cable car. Which is fitting for a ski resort.

The idea is to get people from the parking lot at one end of town to the base of the ski hills at the other end. That allows them to maintain a car-free community, which is nice for that little mountain retreat ambiance. Though as one tourist page points out, it does mean that a lot of visitors miss out on most of the village entirely.

So, Serfaus being a ski resort means that their money and transit needs are far beyond that of a normal thousand-person town. But on the other hand, it’s not like they get a million people at a time show up to ski: it’s still a pretty bold choice given the number of people they’re moving around. This has me wondering what other formats a town can take on. For instance, could there be some universe where my hometown of Woodstock (population, 46,000) has such a system? Maybe: I also came across Aubagne, France which is approximately the same size, and has a light rail system. Though it should be noted, it’s on the outskirts of Marsaille, so it’s not totally analogous. But having said that, it’s hard to imagine a satellite community here being so concerned with public transit.

And that brings up the problem that sinks many urban planning solutions imported from Europe to North America: we have cities built around the car. You probably could have a city of that size built around public transit, but it would have to be a really densely-populated place to have everyone in range of a small transit system. It would be very expensive in the suburban wonderlands that most small towns in Canada are. Trying to imagine a densely-populated small-to-midsize city is about as hard as visualizing a village with a subway.

There's A Swingin' Town I Know Called... Capital City

Looking back at some of my old posts, I came across one from 2015 about how Egypt was planning to build a new capital to replace Cairo. Well, to replace it as capital: I mean, Cairo would still be there, it just wouldn't be capital anymore. I was curious what became of that idea; the whole thing had seemed like a pipe dream, so I was kind of assuming that I'd find the project had been canceled years ago, or pushed to the back burner.

Nope, it's still happening. In fact, it's under construction as we speak. You can even see it on Google Earth.  It still doesn't have a name yet, so it's just the New Administrative Capital. It's also not really far from Cairo. When combined with some other new developments going on, they're going to end up with a really big continuous urban area. Egypt already looks pretty unusual from the aerial perspective, with the contrast between the desert and the irrigated area around the Nile, and now it’s also going to have a huge urban smear across it.

The other surprising thing I learned is that it's not even the only replacement capital under construction. Both Indonesia and South Korea have new capitals on the go.

South Korea has been moving government institutions from Seoul to the planned city of Sejong for years. It was only founded in 2007, but already has 350,000 people. It seems the idea of officially moving the capital is still controversial and may never completely happen, but even as it is, they've put a lot of work into it. 

Indonesia is building Nusantara to replace Jakarta. It's still early in the process, having only started last year. But they're being bolder, building it on a totally different island from current capital and largest city, Jakarta. 

So what's the reason behind these new capitals? In my previous post, I assumed that if a country is going to build an entirely new city to be the capital, it must be a case of vanity, or some kind of national mid-life-crisis. There may be some of that, but in each of these cases, there is a practical purpose too: a very large and over-crowded capital. Moving the government out will drag some of the people out and into another part of the country. I - the resident of a country where the capital is not the largest city - didn't think of that. Oh, and Jakarta is slowly sinking. And Seoul is uncomfortably close to North Korea. 

So maybe we'll see more of them in the future. There are plenty of over-stuffed capital cities in the world; starting over on cheap land somewhere else must be pretty tempting. Even if it does make geography quizzes harder worldwide.

A Place To Rebuild

One story during my blog interregnum was the new plans for Ontario Place. I’m reminded of that now because some of the nostalgia accounts I follow on social media have run pictures from its beginnings in the early seventies.

Ontario Place redevelopment wasn’t a big deal to me; I don’t really have a personal connection with it. My experience is the same as many in southern Ontario; I’ve been there a few times as an adjunct to a trip to the CNE, and that’s about it. But the announcements of the new plans for the site stuck in my mind for a very notable reason: It made me feel sorry for Doug Ford.

Yes, I detest our premier, but I couldn’t help but have sympathy for him for the same reason I feel sorry for all politicians in office: they have to work in reality, while the rest of us compare that to faulty memories of the past or unrealistic imaginings of the future.

This was a great example of that pattern. His government announced an uninspiring but reasonable plan to revitalize the park, and that was greeted by howls of complaints about how he had ruined one of the great amusement parks of the world. People, we’re talking about a park that’s been closed for a decade. It was closed because it was losing money so fast that a Liberal government thought it wasn't worth keeping open. So when people wax nostalgic about the park, I have to wonder where they've been recently. Or more specifically, if people were so happy with how the park was, how come it wasn't more popular.

I have at least learned a bit about the history of Ontario Place. It always seemed like an oddity in the entertainment world I grew up in, with low-fear rides and semi-intellectual attractions in a world where most amusement parks were competing to have the scariest roller coasters and as many licensed-characters as possible. 

Fun fact: Ontario Place opened less than four months before Disney World.

I just assumed that Ontario Place was what happened when the theme park concept was filtered through government. But no, it turns out Ontario Place was an attempt to recreate Montreal’s Expo 67. I guess it should have been obvious: artificial islands with a geodesic dome as the crown jewel; sounds familiar.  Rides have been added over the years to bring in more visitors, but it never truly became a ride-oriented park like Canada's Wonderland. 

Fun fact: Canada's Wonderland has 17 roller coasters, which is tied for second most in the world. 

Personally, I was cautiously optimistic about the new plans for the park. Like I say, the plan wasn’t that great. It was sort of like when Ford announced new license plates: “A Place to Grow” wasn’t the greatest plate motto ever, but it seemed like Shakespeare given that we were bracing for something like, “Open for Business.” With Ontario Place, the proposed assortment of attractions announced was a bit uninspiring, but because we were expecting casinos and condos, the plan came as a relief.

I have to be honest, if we look at this realistically, I doubt there’s any saving Ontario Place, and it’s all because of the location. Driving there means going through some very busy thoroughfares. It’s not well-served by public transit. Putting up condos on the land would be disappointing and boring, but at least it would be successful.

Like Mountains Beyond Mountains

I read about how builders are looking at North America's many dead or dying malls as a source of residential development. It makes sense; there's more of an appetite for denser cities, so developers and planners are pushing the idea of filling in underused land. And even relatively successful malls have leftover space from closed stores and the acres of parking they only need the week before Christmas. Here in Canada, a lot of malls will be looking to fill big gaps left by Target and Sears.

As a long time fan of malls, I love this idea. The only complaint I have is that they're talking about either knocking down the malls, or adding buildings on those sprawling parking lots. If it's the latter, it could help to save a dying mall by giving it a captive audience. And since malls are usually in places that have good transit, they make good places for apartment dwellers that may not want cars. That further adds to the idea that the stores will benefit.

But I think it would be great to actually keep it nice and mall-like. Each store becomes an apartment or condo. Larger stores like H&M could be the equivalent of the penthouse. And the counters in the food court could be bachelors once you take out all the kitchen equipment. You could even put a sign over the entrance to each living space with the occupant's name. Okay, that may be pushing it too far.

Alright, I wrote that thinking if would never happen, but it turns out it happened at the oldest mall in America. It looks pretty nice, though - this being a historic mall - it isn't nearly as campy as I'd hoped. Apparently, these developments are shying away from using the word "mall" in describing them, because they don't want to scare off young people who see them as part of a bygone age. But I figure that you could play up the mall angle to go after folks in my age group who will have fond memories of them. And I'm sure you'd get some young people attracted to the irony of it all.

In the past, I've discussed how today's housing doesn't really provide us with social engagement, but living in a mall could give people that semi-communal living that a lot of people would like. It's hard to get to know people around you when you just see them in the elevator occasionally. But you'd have far more chance for interaction when you're also shopping around them. And malls would also be more pleasant if the people weren't just rushing around in their own worlds, avoiding everyone but their immediate companions.

And imagine the apartments were built above the stores, overlooking the mall, like the offices in the Eaton Centre. That would give the mall a more impressive atmosphere, and the apartments would get a better view than just a panorama of suburbia. Just pray you don't get an apartment over a trendy clothing store with the music cranked to eleven.

But now I find that they did essentially this at the University of Alberta, where they put a residence over top of the student centre. That sounds like a great idea. Residences are often pushed off to the side of the campus, it would be more convenient to have an easy connection with everything. And it would give the students more opportunity to casually socialize.

We Built This City On Reasonable Land Prices And Tax Incentives

Amazon.com is looking at adding a second headquarters. That's pretty impressive; so many companies haven't felt the need to leave their own main office. But then, I guess Amazon isn't like most tech companies in that they have a whole lot of world-wide logistics to take care of, and at some point you can't do all that from one campus in one place. So now they want a second headquarters; it didn't work so well for the Roman Empire, but they're going to try anyway.

What's amazing to me is watching various cities jockey for the position, and the tech/urbanist pundits try to handicap the race. All we know is that it will be in the U.S. or Canada. Presumably it will be some distance from their current HQ in Seattle. Good transportation is a must. There's also an assumption that high costs will take New York, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley out of the mix too. And since CEO Jeff Bezos is pretty hands-on, it will also have to be a place where he has or is willing to buy a home

It's an interesting question, and reminds us of how geography still has meaning in tech. The media talks about tech as though it all happens in Silicon Valley. And while it is remarkable how concentrated the industry is, the fact is that there are a number of smaller tech centres around the U.S. Amazon's current home in Seattle is one (also home to Microsoft) but there's also Austin, Washington D.C. and Boston, among others.

I've always been a little mystified by how tech companies choose to locate. The usual explanation is that they cluster together in these areas because they have to go where the talent is. But the counter-argument to that is that you're also going where other employers are. Whether you're in an area with lots of potential employees and lots of companies, or few potential employees and few companies hiring them, you'll probably end up with the same quality of employees. And the less-competitive job market has the advantage that less competition won't drive wages up.

But the truth is that there are many other reasons that tech companies huddle together. For instance, venture capitalists work closely with their investments, so they're much more likely to back a company that's local to them.

But we're not talking about a startup here, we're talking about a company that already has a reputation and a ton of money. So I figure they have a lot more freedom to go anywhere they want. They could probably go somewhere that doesn't normally have a big supply of tech employees, and just assume that their presence will draw applicants to the new place. Even the cultural accoutrements of tech employees will probably follow. That could be a boon for cities that are stuck in a rut, perhaps held back by a staid old populace unwilling to try new things. But add a bunch of young cosmopolitan folks with money to spend and you'll soon have all the ethnic restaurants and art installations you want. Having grown up in a culturally conservative city, I'd always fantasized that a tech company relocated there and disrupted the culture. Well that could be about to happen.

But that brings up the big disadvantage of winning the Amazon sweepstakes. You don't just get the good parts of Silicon Valley, like jobs and sushi. You'll get the bad parts too, like gentrification. Dropping a bunch of well-paid employees into a city will take supply and demand in unpleasant directions. As the San Francisco Bay Area found, just because you have a really advanced economy: 1. the people who already lived there aren't going anywhere, and 2. You're going to need people who do less glamorous jobs, who don't make a lot of money. So whoever wins the new headquarters won't fix all their problems, they'll just get lots of exciting new problems to work on.

Moving Time

In the wake of the Grenfell tower fire in London, there's been a lot of anger, and questions being asked. If you aren't up on it, I'll point out that a lot of people are focusing on the cladding added to the outside walls a few years ago. The Times has revealed that they used cheaper flammable cladding for a total saving of £5000.

The Guardian published a controversial column by journalist Simon Jenkins claiming that residential towers themselves are just too dangerous, and we need to push society away from them.

That really seems to be coming out of nowhere. One thing this incident had made me appreciate is how safe buildings normally are. In looking for precedents for this fire, journalists have gone to a fire in Melbourne in 2014. Not to diminish the tragedy of either event, but given the huge number of of residential towers, the fact that they had to go back two years and the other side of the world shows how seldom big fires do happen. Fires in apartment buildings happen all the time, but the fact that they so rarely consume a whole building is a tribute to how well our building codes work, and why this fire needs to be put under the microscope.

Also, his attempt to lay all of society's ills at the foot of tall buildings seems strange. He contends that they destroy communities and cannot be part of a livable city - which is of course news to people around the world. But the argument is especially odd given the out-of-control housing prices around the world, and at epic levels in the UK. Moving away from apartment blocks would make that problem much worse. Solving phantom societal problems with no concern for the less fortunate is what we would expect from Britain's tabloids, not the Guardian.

Of course, this is all rooted in the British experience with high density housing. Scores of ugly, poorly thought-out blocks were thrown up quickly in the mid-twentieth-century. So Britons associate them with slums, instead of luxury condos or that first apartment you had out of college. Essentially this article is the old American problem: a judgement based on that nation's own experience, oblivious to the fact that it would be disproven with even the slightest knowledge of the outside world.

But the big difficulty going forward will be to change the culture. For years the western world has believed in the idea that regulation is inherently bad and getting rid of it is always the right thing to do. For instance, here's former British PM David Cameron five years ago, saying that he wants to kill the health and safety culture.

I'm seeing the same pattern that we had in Canada after the Lac-Mégantic train accident: the public asks how this could happen in such an advanced country, oblivious to the decades of deregulation that preceded it. At that point, many excitable journalists saw this anger and frustration coalescing into a political issue that would demand greater accountability for public safety. I, on the other hand, felt that you just needed to give the public time to forget, and then they'll go back to their attitude of slow-motion Galtization.

In the British case, I could more easily picture it becoming a shift in political thinking. For one thing, they have an aggressively left-leaning party with all the momentum, and a right-wing party that's in disarray on several fronts. But more than anything, the issue has become a class matter, with poor people feeling like this is a personal struggle. That's in sharp contrast to this side of the Atlantic, where the fury that's getting all the play is coming from the middle class.

A good symbol of the start of the shift is the call by Labour's Jeremy Corbyn to house the fire's homeless in the many empty houses in the area that are owned by absentee landlords. This has lead to one of those political situations where the two sides are so completely opposed that they are each trying to demonize the other simply by quoting their opponents, without even needing to exaggerate or twist their words. That's the point at which there is no doubt that there are different visions, rather than different spins on a general consensus, so it may well be that a lot of Britons have truly shifted their political sensibilities.

The Musical South Pacific

The BBC has an interesting page allowing you to find your city's "musical twin. " Here's the premise: someone's analyzed the information from Shazam, the music recognition app. Specifically, they've found which songs are most commonly accessed in each city. Then they've gone through all the cities, trying to find cities that look up the same songs. So now you can look up your city, and find another city somewhere else in the world that seems to have the same taste in music as your home.

So I looked up Kitchener, and I was surprised to find that out musical twin is Muar, Malaysia. It's a similarly sized city, about halfway between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. So there's an interesting but useless bit of trivia. Just to compare, I looked up other cities around southern Ontario. Toronto got Beer Sheva, Israel. But then London, Ontario got Sandakan, Malaysia. It's at the other end of Malaysia, but still, that's weird. So I looked up other cities nearby that were in the database.  Windsor, Buffalo, Niagara Falls, NY, and Detroit were all paired with Johor Bahru, Malaysia, which is near Muar. Erie, PA was partnered with Malaysia's capital, Kuala Lumpur.

So what's going on? I was beginning to suspect that this study was a fraud, and they just put in a bunch of random cities from Malaysia because that would sound exotic and impressive. I tried cities from other parts of the U.S. and Canada, and there were still lots of Malaysian results, though not as completely as in this part of the world. And I tried some British cities, but they were mostly pairing with New Zealand.

So I have no idea what to make of this. Apparently we have a strange musical connection with people on the other side of the world. I'm sure you could come up with some impressive pseudoscience to explain it, involving the magnetic field of the earth's core to transmit our thoughts. And after you've explained that, try explaining why people all over the world need an app to recognize Adele's "Hello." Seriously, it was number one everywhere, probably even Malaysia.

London Mauling

A few days ago the people of London, Ontario got rather upset over an article published on line.  Wait, "upset" doesn't seem like the right word.  What do you call that feeling when, after years of anonymity, someone says something mildly bad about you, and you're not sure if you are glad about the recognition, or angry at the insult?  There probably isn't a word for it, since it's only experienced by introverts and Canadians.

Anyway, the mildly bad thing was an article titled, "10 Problems Only People From London Ontario Will Understand" at the website WhatCulture (a Buzzfeed wannabe.) Of course, as a resident of nearby, similarly-sized Kitchener-Waterloo, I wanted headed straight for the list as soon as I heard about it.

The main thing that strikes me upon reading it is that it’s not exactly a hard-hitting list. You’d think a genuinely critical shot at London would include its notorious east-west class divide. (We in Kitchener-Waterloo at least have the decency to maintain our archaic two-city setup to make our class divides less obvious.) Most of the items in this list apply to all of Southern Ontario, if not all of Canada.  Really, cross-border shopping is inconvenient?  How about "your newspaper makes Fox News sound neutral"?

The only one that applies specifically to London is the shot at its unoriginal name. I totally agree, but I realize that naming your city after a more famous place is one of those things that makes sense to Canadians, but that I’ll never understand. It’s right up there with the monarchy, Don Cherry, and Hedley. You might think that the London name is just a matter of tradition, but here in Kitchener - where we dodged the same bullet by dumping the name “Berlin” during WWI - there’s still a significant part of the population that wants to go back to the Berlin name, despite London’s teachable example.

I was going to write a list of legitimate bad things about London, but I don't have enough venom. One of the entries was going to be that you couldn’t make a list of top ten tourist attractions without padding it out by including White Oaks Mall. But then I realized that to pad my list out to ten entries, I would have to add something about how hard it is to find your way around White Oaks Mall.

But I do have to take issue with the part about the embarrassment of former mayor Joe Fontana.  For one thing, it was hard for anyone in Canada outside of Toronto to be embarrassed of their mayor over that time period.  But my problem is that the article makes it sound like he was a good mayor who made one perplexing mistake. It even says "he was able to get some things done". Actually, if his term is known for anything other than scandal, it will be for U.S. Congress-style division and paralysis in city council.

Fire In The As-Yet-Unnamed New Capital Of Egypt

A few weeks ago, the Egyptian government announced plans to build a new city to serve as it's capital. That's ambitious, but not unusual, since a number of countries have planned, purpose-built capitals. Brasilia, Brazil is perhaps the most famous, since it was only built in the 50's. But history buffs may know that both Washington, D.C. and Canberra, Australia were originally planned to be capitals. There's also New Delhi, India and Islamabad, Pakistan, though they were both extensions of existing cities. And the new country of South Sudan proposed using its new oil wealth to rebuild its capital, Juba, in the shape of a giraffe.

It's easy to see why a country (particularly a new or growing one) might want a new capital: you can avoid the rivalry between existing cities and regions when choosing who gets to be capital. And since the capital is a sort of global face of the country, it's impressive if you have a nice shiny new one. Though it does reflect poorly on your country if you look at your existing cities, then decide you'd rather just start from scratch.

And that's the big downside of a planned capital: it costs a fortune. They're talking about $45 billion for the new Egyptian capital. And their economy isn't doing too well. No one wants to invest in a country that pauses every couple of years to change dictators. And the usually-lucrative tourism industry has been hurt because no one feels comfortable visiting the country where the religious party seems like the voice of reason. So people are taking a believe-it-when-we-see-it attitude.

But this issue does raise an interesting question: it’s hard enough to design a city from scratch, but if it’s going to be a national capital, how would that affect the design? You’d want it to be impressive and awe-inspiring, and you’d have to leave plenty of room for government offices and international embassies. You’d also want lots of nice, friendly places for photo-ops. But I don’t think the planners could put in all that work without yielding to the temptation to make sarcastic little touches, like having all the bureaucrats’ buildings be featureless grey cubes. It would also be nice if you could arrange it so that the poorest neighbourhood is between the nicest neighbourhood and the government offices, forcing the politicians to have an educational commute everyday.

Shuffling Through The Snow

What did Buffalo ever do to deserve this? Not the animal, they didn't do anything.  I mean the city.  We just had a snowstorm, and while it was bad here in southern Ontario, it was easily survivable. But somehow Buffalo got three feet of snow, paralysing the city. This just keeps happening: storms that are merely inconvenient here - at the same latitude in Canada - save their worst for the Queen City. (That's Buffalo's nickname; people know that, right?)

I'm sure Americans hear about the snow in Buffalo and assume it's a result of its position in the North, but clearly it's more than that.  The only explanation I can come up with - and keep in mind I know little about weather - is that it comes from the city's position at the Eastern end of Lake Erie. Thus the prevailing winds blow along the entire length of the lake, picking up moisture, then dumping it on Buffalo at the end. (And Wikipedia seems to agree.)

That begs the question: who decided to put the city there? Or rather, how did a city in such an unfortunate position get so large? Looking around the Great Lakes, there are no other major cities on windward shores.  I always assumed that was because people avoided the places with the worst weather conditions.

You got to feel bad for them. Here in Southern Ontario, the two big American cities on our doorsteps are Buffalo and Detroit. Those are two of the most deteriorated cities in the country, and it tends to give us a little smugness. That's unfortunate, since it's not like either city was really to blame for the global trends were their downfall.

In Buffalo's case, we should feel a kinship with them due to our similarities. Not only is there the weather and most of the U.S. ignoring them, they also care about hockey, and yet can't seem to put together a winning team.

Transparent Campaigns

I've been trying to decide who to vote for in next week's municipal election.  It's a lot more difficult, since there seem to be a lot more candidates.  Elections here have often been the incumbent and a few other candidates who don't seem ready for prime time.  But now there are a lot of candidates who seem quite serious and professional.  So I've been going through newspaper write-ups and candidate web pages trying to make up my mind.

I'm pleasantly surprised that few of them are running on the angry-letter-to-the-editor platform.  That is, most candidate make a token reference to defending the taxpayers' money, but there were no angry tirades about throwing out the bums on the gravy train.  Actually, way more people were highlighting poverty and affordable housing as important issues.

But one trend that I have noticed is that Transparency and Consultation have become extremely overused.  Every candidate makes a big deal about talking to the people, being available, and having meetings open to the public.  Obviously those are all good things, but they're also bland, unquantifiable, safe promises that anyone can make.  They are to municipal politics what a promise of a suggestion box is to student council.

It's weird that at a time when we can barely find the time to vote or read a newspaper, we demand closer interaction with our politicians than ever before.  I make an effort to keep informed about politics, but I don't really feel the need to get any more involved.  I'd be happy to vote for a candidate who's slogan is, don't worry, I'll handle it.

Local Vote, The Cola Wars, I Can't Take It Anymore

We saw a proliferation of newsletters and pamphlets when desktop publishing software and laser printers caused a massive drop in the cost of printing professional documents.  But what technological change made it cost-effective to make dozens of lawn signs for small-town city councillor races?  Did plastic sheets and wooden stakes suddenly become cheaper?

I grew up with the idea that lawn signs for only feature of provincial and federal elections.  (Those of you from big cities might have different experiences.)  But now it seems that all but the least-funded candidates for civic office have them, and even some of the school board trustees.

I have to wonder if they actually work in smaller races. For one thing, there's a much lower voter turn-out. That means that the herd-mentality types that might be swayed by quantities of signs make up a lower portion of the electorate.  Whoever it is that votes in municipal elections manages to withstand letters from cranky taxpayers in the newspaper and re-elect most of the same people each time, so I don't think that a sign on a vacant lot is going to sway them.

Part of the problem is that in elections with parties, we already know all the stances of the candidates, they're just trying to remind you of their presence, the way Coca-Cola keeps advertising even though everyone knows who they are.  But if federal and provincial elections are like the Cola Wars, then municipal elections are like buying small artisan creations: you don't know the brands, you're not even sure what you're buying, and you want to get to know the people behind the product.  So just seeing their name over an over doesn't tell you much.  I wouldn't by a hand-carved sea turtle from someone because I've seen their name lots of places, and I won't put them on city council either.

Take Me To The Place I Love

BBC World has been doing ads where their reporters talk about the cities they're from. They end by saying, "<insert city> is my city."  I guess they're trying to seem really international, emphasizing their intimate knowledge with major cities around the world.

I'm not sure about the woman who ends it with, "Dubai is my city." Is there anyone who can really say that? Even if you're one of the hundred and fifty people who has lived in Dubai for more than twenty years, the current urbanism amusement park that is Dubai is hardly yours.

Me, I could never make a "this is my city" statement like that. My birthplace of Woodstock didn't reflect what I want in a city. While my current home of Kitchener-Waterloo is far more to my taste, I still don't feel that sense of ownership.

KW does have many things that I appreciate. A few years ago I got a pamphlet in the mail from the Perimeter Institute (of theoretical physics) telling everyone of their opening. It hit me: I just got junk mail from a physics institute - that doesn't happen in normal cities.  That geekiness that comes of two universities is nice, as are other quirks like the insane road system, German and Mennonite heritage, and the odd collection of neighbourhoods created by three cities slowly colliding.

But there's also negatives: a big constituency of commuters who don't care much about a community they only sleep in, and an old guard that still sees the region as the collection of small towns it once was.

Then there's London (Ontario) down the road. It's about the same size as the combined size of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. Both cities seem to be struggling culturally between a conservative small-town heritage, a bland suburban present, and a cosmopolitan urge coming from our age of communications and globalization. So I've always thought everyone in both cities would be happier if we just had a big trade of citizens. Send all the forward thinking, intellectual techie yuppie hipster types to one city, and they can have their light rail and sushi and bike sharing. The white-bread keep-it-like-i-remember-it-as-kid crowd can have all the power centres and mini-mansions and tax freezes they want. 

Moving Architecture

Recently I read about the city of Kiruna, Sweden.  It's famous for starting the first ice hotel.  But now it's in the news because they may have to move the downtown.  See, the area is also known for mining, and that mining has destabilized the ground under the centre of the town.

It's unfortunate, because there are a few old buildings that will be lost.  But at the same time, a lot of cities would benefit from a second chance to build part of the city. You could skip trying to make an urban mall work, cut back on the condos or office blocks, or take a Mulligan on zoning that Planet Hollywood.

Or you could just keep it the same, but put it in a more appropriate place.  Screw with those suburbanites by dropping the downtown right next to the latest subdivision.  Kitchener-Waterloo could call a truce and build one new downtown on a neutral location.  Or we could move Cambridge up between KW and Guelph to make one big city.

So good luck to Kiruna.  It sounds like a pretty cool place. Coming up with the ice hotel is the sort of winter adaptation Canada could use, as I complained about earlier.  And I see on Wikipedia that it's even the home of Borje Salming.  What else...it even has its own spaceport?  That's it, I've found my new home!

Baku: The Future

I wrote a few weeks ago about that ultra luxury condo in Miami with the car elevator. I'm disappointed with things like that because they're so unnecessary. I don't have a problem with rich people buying luxuries; I don't expect them to live in squalor and give everything to the poor. But you can only really spend a few million dollars on yourself. Beyond that, you're just spending money for the sake of spending money, buying things like this Bugatti belt buckle.

I'd like to think that if I were super duper rich, then I'd use my fortune to do positive things for humanity, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Or maybe investing in technologies that are too risky for others, like Elon Musk has.

But if I wasn't that charitable, a reasonable second best use of wealth might be going on in Azerbaijan. Business tycoon Ibrahim Ibrahimov is building a new city on the artificial Khazar islands in the Caspian Sea down the coast from the capital Baku.

If that sounds like something Dubai and the United Arab Emirates would do, there are some similarities. Like the U.A.E., Azerbaijan was a poor, not particularly advanced country off the beaten track, with no reason for the rest of the world to take notice. And then they found oil. And money. And an ego.

Building a city isn't the most altruistic thing you could do with your fortune. But at least it's something that could end up benefiting others. Even if it is just encouraging everyone to learn to spell Azerbaijan (remember, the "i" goes before the "j".)  I've always been intrigued by planned cities, but the fact is they often don't work that well.  Still, it's an interesting idea, and our timid world perhaps needs people to just try something adventurous.

So I think it would be nice if more of the super-rich did stuff like this. But given the number of super-rich in the world, vs. the number of crazy-audacious construction projects, it looks like there are way more Porsche elevators than island cities. So how do such boring people make so much money?