Justin Auciello: The New Wave Planner

Innovation is now king, and it’s perfectly parallel with Obama’s urban policy goals

Everything is looking up for innovation in America.

President Barack Obama, who holds the subject of urban issues “near and dear to [his] heart,” said during a White House urban affairs summit on Monday that he wants to “reinvent” our cities and formulate a “new, imaginative, bold vision” for federal urban policy.

The first in 30 years, the urban agenda will target every federal agency and identify how policies affect the urban environment, including those relates to housing, green development, infrastructure, etc.

As a component of the White House operation (and thus separate from Department of Housing and Urban Development control), the creation of the Office of Urban Affairs is clearly a watershed moment for intelligent urban planning and needed now, especially since “by the year 2050, 70 perfect of the world’s population will live in cities,” according to Adolfo Carrion, the director of the Office of Urban Affairs.

According to a July 14, 2009 article in The Washington Post, Obama is seeking to create a best practices manual of sorts, which will be accomplished by his staff pounding the pavement across America to find the most innovative practices that discourage urban sprawl:

Obama noted Denver, for its plans to build a public transit system to handle the city’s anticipated growth; Philadelphia, for its urban agriculture; and Kansas City, which has weatherized homes and built a ecologically minded transit system in one low-income neighborhood.

Importantly, Obama recognizes that the “urban condition” is no longer contained within our cities:

Even as we’ve seen many of our central cities continuing to grow in recent years, we’ve seen their suburbs and exurbs grow roughly twice as fast. It’s not just our cities that are hotbeds of innovation anymore, it’s our growing metropolitan areas.

For too long, federal policy has actually encouraged sprawl and congestion and pollution, rather than quality public transportation and smart, sustainable development.

It is refreshing to have an administration that is concerned about urban policy and its concomitant components. In fact, since Obama has made it clear that urban policy extends beyond city limits, this signals a new age of regional planning, a practice that is usually given short shrift in favor on implementing local planning initiatives.

But with a current economic crisis Public Enemy #1 in not just the White House, but also in our municipalities and households, is it the most appropriate time to strive for innovative urban practices?

Clayton M. Christensen, a Harvard Business School professor, says “yes.”

In a December 15, 2008 report in The Wall Street Journal, Professor Christensen feels that the economic downturn “will have an unmitigated positive effect on innovation.”

Why?

It boils down to scarce resources, according to Professor Christensen, who feels that “the breakthrough innovations come when the tension is greatest and the resources are most limited.”

He continues:

[The current economic crisis] will force innovators to not waste nearly so much money.

One of the banes of successful innovation is that companies may be so committed to innovation that they will give the innovators a lot of money to spend. And, statistically, 93% of all innovations that ultimately become successful started off in the wrong direction; the probability that you’ll get it right the first time out of the gate is very low.

So, if you give people a lot of money, it gives them the privilege of pursuing the wrong strategy for a very long time. In an environment where you’ve got to push innovations out the door fast and keep the cost of innovation low, the probability that you’ll be successful is actually much higher.

How does this dovetail with federal urban policy?

Human capital and job creation

With limited resources (related to both project funding and personal finances) across the board, the playing field has been somewhat lowered, while simultaneously spiking competition. People are thinking, and the best ideas are carefully vetted, produced, and relate to what is most salient.

New industries, jobs, and an altered American culture will flow from the current “back to the wall” innovation mentality. Is it just a coincidence that cities are doing things a little bit differently now in their approach to constituent needs?  No. Just read about the explosion of backyard chicken coops.

With less consumption, there’s less waste, and this is a hopeful barrier from continued sprawl

The funding that does exist will now only flow to the most creative innovations that can have a longstanding impact on our society, forcing most innovators to work within the “do more with less” framework.

In doing so, the ultimate output is more lean, focused, and in tune with not just society’s needs (we obviously do not need more sprawl), but also White House policy, which will impact federal appropriation decisions in the coming years. While it’s different to contain congressional pork barrel spending, I’m quite sure that the days of appropriating for sprawl oriented projects are over.

We’re already seeing innovative practices on the most local—and simplest—levels

Case in point, a New York City based group, Macro-Sea Pools, has created a “cool” summertime neighborhood amenity within an empty Brooklyn lot by converting three commercial sized trash dumpsters into a swimming pool. Although it’s not open to the public (perhaps due to liability concerns), it’s just a small example of what innovative people are devising in this rough economy, and most importantly, it is consistent with Obama’s mission to “reinvent” our cities.

String together enough creative neighborhood experiments, especially those that involve adaptively reusing pieces of our cities, and we have spurred an innovative—and sustainable—environment.

Again, create more with less, and the benefits will be enormous.

Our president has already taken notice and sees the value of innovation within our country. However, while the orders may come from the top, it is important that the action comes from the people at the local level, even if funding is slight or non-existent. Professor Christensen says it can be done.

As Obama says, we need to reinvent America.

We can do it.

—-

Related Post:

The New Wave of Interactions

Does banning outdoor advertising kill urban vibrancy?

Close your eyes, and imagine yourself in a city. Any city.

What do you see?

Buildings of all sizes, taxis and buses, and perhaps a subway station or a bus stop, all of which are usually adorned with advertising.

In Midtown Manhattan, for example, you will generally find advertising everywhere you look: on buildings and plastered on taxis, buses, and bus stops.

If, as a São Paulo, Brazil resident, you close your eyes, this is what you will probably see:

A city devoid of advertising.

In September 2006, the city’s mayor, Gilberto Kassab, proposed a law that would effectively ban all forms of outdoor advertising, including all of the city’s 8,000 billboards, messages affixed on buses and taxis, as well as ads on storefronts. After months of wrangling, on April 1, 2007, most of the outdoor advertisements were gone.

Mayor Kassab’s chief concern? Visual pollution.

From the urban planning perspective, the São Paulo advertising ban raises a variety of issues, most of which relate to the vibrancy of urban life.

There are generally two schools of thought: those who feel that outdoor advertising is ugly and detracts from “peaceful” urban living, while the reverse side holds that advertising is an integral component of city culture and urbanity, as it is an art form in itself.

Let’s examine both sides of the issue.

Without advertising, a city is returned to its base components: buildings are just buildings, vehicles are merely vehicles, and, of course, the ghostly remnants of the freestanding billboard structures are merely structures in the air.

But, where’s the culture?

To some, a clean, uncluttered environment with just base components is culture.

Bland, perhaps, but you see the environment for what it is, with all of the regular components of city life without the clutter.

Peaceful and serene, some may argue.

With advertising, a city is more lively, maybe even wild. Organic.

True, while some messages may not be aesthetically-pleasing, even the poorly designed or illegally erected ads make the city what it is: a fluid, complex, confusing, and sometimes downright ugly environment.

This is what I call vibrancy.

Can you imagine the following iconic places devoid of advertising?

Times Square

Leicester Square

Downtown Tokyo

I can’t.

Banning advertising in these famous locations would completely alter the urban environment, not to mention hurting the businesses that are drawn to these places for both clout and pedestrian foot traffic, the landlords who can charge premium rentals by virtue of the vibrancy the environment provides, and the city, whose coffers benefit from enhanced property values.

I’m not saying that the advertising is the only component drawing people, but it’s a significant component.

Quick, close your eyes again.

What’s the first thing you see when you imagine Times Square, Leicester Square, and Tokyo?

Vivid ads and a lively urban environment.

Remove that element, and you’ll effectively kill urban culture.

To me, bland culture is bad culture, and I wouldn’t want to live in a boring urban environment.

I’m all for the “visual pollution.”

Take that, Mayor Kassab.

Feel free to comment. I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.

Save “Jersey Fresh” as we know it

The “Jersey Fresh” program is under attack.

Implemented in 1984 by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Jersey Fresh is a marketing program that promotes farm produced products from all reaches of the state, as well as farming related activities, such as agri-tourism events and attractions, and purchasing opportunities, including roadside markets, pick your own farms, and community farmers’ markets.

After all, New Jersey’s official nickname is The Garden State.

It is a successful program, as for 25 years, consumers and restaurant owners have known that high-quality produce is being grown within mere miles of their homes or establishments—as indicated by the ubiquitous “Jersey Fresh” labels—and available at their local supermarkets, farm stands, or community farmers’ markets.

The reach of this promotional mechanism may be drastically reduced if the $250,000 line item cut for the Jersey Fresh program survives in Governor Jon Corzine’s proposed budget—on top of recent reductions to the program. As reported in the Newark Star Ledger, according to Lynne Richmond, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Agriculture, marketing will continue, but enough appropriations may not remain for radio commercial airtime.

The ad nauseum political saying, “tough times require tough choices,” is a reality in New Jersey: during these recessionary times, faced with the responsibility of dealing with a sharp reduction in revenues, Gov. Corzine has no other option than to cut entirely or reduce significantly state funding for even the best programs. There are truly no winners, as every department, every program, and every citizen will be impacted.

I would argue, however, that funding for the Jersey Fresh program should be retained at current levels.

Why?

As noted above, the program is wide-reaching, and is welcomed by farmers, especially during tough economic times like now, as a tool to remind people to support local farming outfits and eating locally, a concept that has been receiving a lot of attention recently, most notably as a result of the Obama family’s garden at the White House.

The “locavore” movement, defined as eating food grown locally or within a tightly defined regional area, is a term that was coined by Jessica Prentice, the founder of Three Stone Hearth, a Community Supported Kitchen in Berkeley, California.

The reasoning for the movement is framed well within the “local food” entry on wikipedia.org:

Non-local food is often seen as a result of corporate management policies, heavy subsidies, poor animal welfare, lack of care for the environment, and poor working conditions. This limited interpretation is likely due to the fact that the organic movement is largely responsible for renewed public interest in local and regional markets. Those subscribing to this interpretation often insist on buying food directly from local family farms, through direct channels such as farmers’ markets, food cooperatives, and community-supported agriculture plans. For many, local food is interpreted as unprocessed foods to be transformed by the consumer or local shop rather than by the food industry. As such, local food (as opposed to global food) reduces or eliminates the costs of transport, processing, packaging, and advertising.

These are all noble reasons for eating locally, and it would be tough for almost anyone to sustain an argument against the promotion of local food. Another advantage relates to the planning process, land use, community and economic development, and real estate.

From a planning perspective, the locavore movement promotes community building, engagement, and interest. Eating locally helps our farmers earn a living, while also helping to ensure a balance of appropriate land uses in a state as disparate as New Jersey, with areas ranging from the most remote rural areas to extremely dense urban areas. Farmers’ markets bring communities together and provide a forum for interaction, thus in turn stimulating more involved and healthy citizens. Moreover, the markets create active public spaces in downtown areas throughout the week, which helps stimulate local interest in not only the products for sale, but also the local businesses that may be hurting for business and rely on pedestrian traffic, something that a weekly farmers’ market helps to generate.

A community poll taken in Madison Borough, New Jersey indicated that over 73% of respondents shop in downtown stores when they visit the weekly market. In addition, according to a presentation by Diane Eggert, Executive Director of the Farmers Market Federation of New York, the weekly Thursday night market in downtown Oswego, which has up to 40 vendors, prepared foods, and entertainment, has spurred 10 new shops and the transfer of other businesses to the downtown area to capitalize on an influx of foot traffic. Lastly, according to Ms. Eggert, the Ithaca market is directly responsible for keeping 35% of the vendors in business, as well as keeping 25% of vendors from reducing their operations.

It’s a tool for community, economic, and nutritional development.

Dozens of New Jersey’s suburban downtowns have seen a resurgence over the past few decades, and even through there are a bounty of reasons for this occurrence, the emergence of the farmers’ market parallels that of the suburban downtown. Clearly, both feed off each other, and farmers’ markets have helped to create a “buzz” in places like Highland Park, Kearny, Red Bank, Keyport, Highlands, Morristown, Metuchen, and Toms River, to name a few.

It’s simple: provide an outlet for fresh, locally grown food in a downtown area, and people will come and not only purchase some produce, but also perhaps meat at the local butcher or a shirt at the local boutique.

Eating locally translates directly into spending locally.

Perhaps the shock of a potential appropriations cut will force the Department of Agriculture to consider some innovative (read: free) marketing measures—beyond tapping the traditional media outlets that are costly—such as creating a Twitter account to selectively target New Jersey residents, or a Facebook “fan page” to reach a predominantly young demographic. There are dozens of social media methods through which the Jersey Fresh program can be marketed, and all should be explored.

In 2009, with a number of these same downtown areas under assault by this recession, with store closings and less revenue flowing into bars, restaurants, and shops, the relatively tiny amount of appropriations allotted for Jersey Fresh, a program that continually helps to remind us to support our local farmers and eat locally, should not be cut. We need people to flow into our communities to spend money, interact with each other, and indirectly, help to ensure a range of land uses statewide.