We have no limits to what is possible, if we work together with a common goal and strengthened sense of purpose. We have the foundation in place to reach our potential, and more importantly, we have a passion and spirit that can lift this city to greater heights.
That’s from Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best’s State of the City address. [Update: Here's the text of the speech... I originally linked to the London Free Press but they moved/killed it. Makes me think twice... Here's the Free Press article at least -- for now.]
I started with that quote because I can’t figure out what the “common goal” is that we’re supposed to be strengthening our “sense of purpose” around — let alone what the “foundation” is.
We shouldn’t confuse a vague sense of inspiration with purpose. We refer to goals as “objectives” for a reason: they have to be objectively unambiguous, articulate, and effective — something everyone can point to and remember as a reference, and even if we don’t all agree on its merits, at least we all know exactly what it is.
Concerning the parts dealing with London’s history, instead of a foundation we got an inventory – a bunch of gravel and stones – with no cementing element to make the vision coherent and concrete.
Concerning the parts dealing with London’s future, ironically, some of the more forward-looking features betray our slowness by the fact that they need to be mentioned at all — or the way they’re mentioned:
We also look to our local business leaders to play a significant role in addressing climate change and sustainable energy challenges and opportunities. Companies like Royal Bank of Canada, Jones Packaging, Conference Cup, Old Oak, Auburn Homes and Suncor are just a few introducing corporate social responsibility principles into their business plans.
Still just “introducing” corporate social responsibility in 2008?… Where were the leaders in corporate social responsibility before it became a buzzword, like, years ago? And consider this, referring to an opportunity that’s being explored by the city in partnership with Sifton Properties:
Imagine living in a community that includes urban parks, clinics, cafes and retail uses in its heart. The narrow streets are lined with houses emphasizing front porches and a double row of trees along sidewalks encouraging walking – clearly pedestrians come first.
Imagine walking and cycling trails are interwoven throughout the neighbourhood taking you to routes along the Thames River and to the community hub, where you can socialize, shop and conveniently access transit.
Now imagine all that just goes without saying. I know it isn’t everybody’s idea of a great neighbourhood (in fact, most people I know care more about walkable parking lots where they work and play than having a walkable neighbourhood out their own front door), but the fact that a New Urbanist community is still remarkable in London illustrates how much London still has to learn.
(As a partial aside, check out Witold Rybczynski’s balanced thinking about the subject: I loved Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville. For locally relevant discussion follow Greg Fowler and Gord Harrison.)
Admittedly, the next paragraph went a little further:
Imagine, landscaping has been carefully selected to reduce the need for watering, and storm water is collected to irrigate lawns and gardens, and for other creative purposes to conserve water use. And,imagine there is a community energy generator utilizing groundwater aquifer to heat buildings in the winter and cool them in the summer, while commercial parking lots collect solar energy. Such ideas are currently a focus of national innovation.
But you see that last bit? Even when we’re being innovative we’re merely keeping up with ideas that “are currently a focus of national innovation.” That, I think, is a pretty good demonstration of what London’s culture is all about: safety. We like to let others try things first — or rather, we don’t even want to hear about new ideas until someone can explain their costs and benefits to us in real terms.
The fact that London isn’t very innovative or creative isn’t necessarily bad. There shouldn’t be any shame in it. Besides, innovation is risky business that leads to failure far more often than it leads to success. (Conversely, the fact that innovation requires a lot of failure isn’t inherently bad either, it just is what it is and people are either suited for it or aren’t.) But the fact that we continue to highlight the importance of innovation and creativity, despite the fact those are unlikely to ever be London’s strengths, is bad.
I see that kind of tension time and again when Londoners go into Vision Mode. DeCicco-Best’s speech was full of it — playing up multiple, conflicting aims and ideals. Some of the conflicts were explicit — “we should never have to choose between the economic wellbeing of our families and the environmental health of our community” (sure, not in the abstract, but finding the right balance requires countless tradeoffs, choosing between the two kinds of green in our day-to-day decisions) — whereas most of the tension was below the surface. Think of all the tension between new development vs. heritage (and the environment), transit vs. parking, etc.
Resolving these tensions are challenges in every city. I suppose every municipal government addresses them the same way too, as if to say: “Everything is great, we have the best of everything, and we’re going to continue to make everything even better.”
But just because that’s the way it’s done everywhere doesn’t mean we should just go on doing it dumbly…
Now this is exactly the kind of opportunity for creativity we need to explore… Maybe make London the innovator of non-bullshit politics?…
[I'm going to pull-up here. I have a lot more positive remarks and suggestions but I'll start fresh with them tomorrow, after I get some sleep.]
Pingback: Liking London: Average is Underrated | Brnfrnk
Pingback: “London Ontario Innovation” | Ldn Beta
Pingback: This Blog in 2009 | Brian Frank