Roberta Brandes Gratz on Urban Development

In celebration of Edmonton's designation as the Cultural Capital of Canada for 2007, the city has been holding a number of special events, including a speakers series inviting experts from a wide variety of areas to offer their opinions on municipal life, arts, and culture.

Roberta Brandes Gratz, an urban critic, journalist, and consultant based out of New York City, spoke to a crowd of over 200 gathered in the Maclab Theatre at the Citadel on Thursday night. My knowledge of urban planning is murky at best, and while it took me a while to really get into her speech, by the end, she had me convinced of her philosophy of growing for the local as opposed to the transient, and optimistic, based on some of her cited examples of cities reborn, for what is possible.

She clarified the difference between density and overcrowding, and alongside the well-worn idea of building up and not out, emphasized the need for areas that are not only walkable (i.e., services available within a reasonable parameter), but that also incubate local economies. I really responded to her example of a visit to a new Home Depot in what must be mid-town Manhattan. Constructed like the department stores of old (utilizing several floors in a confined space), she mentioned passing by a small boutique on her way back to the subway, and ended up buying something from the store. If not for Home Depot, she said, she likely would not have "found" the store at all. Ms. Gratz did cite Whyte Avenue, which she visited that afternoon, as Edmonton's own successful application of this concept - where larger retail enterprises can coexist with smaller businesses.

On the topic of affordable housing, all of her observations seemed very much to be common sense - it is up to the city (and ultimately, the people who will be living in the area) to force developers include more units of affordable housing (within mixed income buildings) and create spaces with a diversity of uses (e.g. parks). Too much is at stake - the sustainability, growth, and with time, rebirth of neighbourhoods - to be left at the charitable whim of developers.

Ms. Gratz also touched on the idea of marketing and nurturing for the local as opposed to tourists. In her research on Edmonton, she came across an article about the controversial renovations to the Art Gallery of Alberta and its $88 million dollar price tag. Had the consultation process been done right, she said, residents would not have had to choose between the lesser of several designs, but would have been asked whether or not this was a worthwhile project at all. Similarly, she questioned the need for the proposed welcome gates to greet drivers coming into the city - the money is better spent for people who already live in the city; visitors are drawn to vibrant, thriving municipalities.

Ms. Gratz was gracious enough to field questions from the audience for forty-five minutes, and likely could have continued if the host did not pull her off stage. She was asked at one point about the idea of building a new hockey arena downtown. Earlier in her talk, she had mentioned that stadiums and entertainment centres were black holes of sorts for locals, and really only stood to attract visitors. To answer this question, she drew laughs by first insisting that she knew enough not to mess with the Canadian love of hockey. But that said, she indicated that it was possible to develop a harmonious arena, as long as it was right for the community and visitors were not of the 'get in, get out' variety. We'll see what the newly (re)elected city councillors do with this proposal in the coming months...

All in all, it was a stimulating evening of thoughts, ideas, and precedent that left me with a sense of optimism, and a desire to learn more about urban (re)development.

Maher Arar: Civil Liberties & National Security

On Wednesday, May and I attended a lecture by Maher Arar at the Winspear Centre sponsored by the University of Alberta Political Science Department. I know it's a formality at such events to have people of high academic ranking precede the main speaker to, in a sense, soften up the topical ground with grand introductions of the subject at hand, but to me it unnecessarily lengthens the event.

Julian Faulker, Mr. Arar's counsel during his civil suit against the Canadian government, provided his insight into what needs to change in the system in order for rights to be fully protected, not simply paid lip service to.

Mr. Arar followed, and essentially recounted the highlights of his experience, both the good and the bad. In all honesty, I had scanned the headlines and articles earlier this year when he had received his $2 million dollar settlement from the government, but I didn't know all of the details surrounding his deportation, torture, and subsequent return to Canada in 2003. He told of a time in Syria as a boy when a Canadian recognized the maple leaf on his shirt; this friendly recognition was the moment he decided he wanted to immigrate to Canada. Hearing him speak of his ordeal really personified it, and was much more powerful than reading the account in the papers. Still, I found it interesting that Mr. Arar chose to repeat the fact that he was found to be innocent three times. I'm sure some in the audience may have been suspicious of his alleged involvement, but the aural reminder almost worked against his rhetoric of ultimate exoneration. That said, I would like to echo Dr. Trimble's comment that Mr. Arar was very brave in his quest to educate the public by retelling his painful story.

(A brief aside - the Department of Political Science indicated that it wanted to make the event accessible to everyone, so had sign language interpreters as well as a screen transcribing what was being said set up on stage. I'm not sure if it was just me, but these fixtures actually made it difficult for me to focus on the speeches. I think I need to learn how to block out what's visually unnecessary and irrelevant.)

On my way home, it wasn't an epiphany per se, but the enveloping thought that the problems in the world are so vast that disillusionment really becomes the easy way out. On the heels of attending speaking engagements by Stephen Lewis and Maher Arar tonight, and my current reading of Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands with the Devil, I'm feeling overwhelmed, even though the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the obstruction of civil liberties, and genocide are only three of the many multi-lateral issues plaguing society today. I know a general awareness of these challenges is vital, and I'm doing what I can to learn more, but most days, it doesn't seem like enough. At the same time, where does one start, besides the civilian duty of "rocking the vote?" There is no easy answer, but this will be something I will be grappling with as I continue to educate myself as a global citizen.

Stephen Lewis: "Canada's Status in the World: How Does It Measure Up?"

At a recent HIV/AIDS session I attended, each participant was asked who their inspiration was that brought them there that day. I can't remember what my ultimate response was, but had I answered honestly, I would have said Stephen Lewis. At the time though, his name seemed much too cliché and pedestrian for that particular forum. It was a personal travesty for me to have missed his 2006 International Week address, so when I found out he was coming back to Edmonton to deliver another lecture, I jumped at the opportunity.

So after dinner, Dickson and I headed down to the Timms Centre at the University for his lecture titled "Canada's Status in the World: How Does it Measure Up?" It was nearly a packed house, and after quite the score of introductions, Mr. Lewis was welcomed on stage.

He framed his speech with a list of five provocations - nuclear proliferation, genocide (in particular, the current Darfur crisis), the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, climate change, and of course, the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Although I respect him as a knowledgable man with perspective on a wide variety of issues because of his travels, experience, and obvious appreciation for big-picture implications if inaction remains, Mr. Lewis's lack of personal connection really weakened his discussion on the first four issues. He really did sound like he was posturing to the crowd.

By the time he reached his final topic, however, the rest of the address fell away immediately, and I was reminded of the fact that I was in awe of being in the same room with him, breathing the same air (I am not worthy!). His passion, intensity, and humanity resonated from the stage as he talked, among other things, about orphans, grandmother-headed families, the potential for a viable microbicide, the need for gender equality and sexual negotiation, and Canada's own failed legislation allowing for a warehouse of ARVs to sit idle. Though many of the stories were included in Race Against Time, it was better hearing them from him in person.

Like Art Spiegeleman, Mr. Lewis possesses a vocabulary that puts me to shame. He was expectedly long-winded, but I don't think anyone seemed to mind - the audience was clearly rapt throughout surreal pin-drop hour and a half (though really, all in attendance were likely already holding him in a state of public reverence, even before he ever had to open his mouth). I really liked how he managed to pull current media headlines and made them relevant to his topics (e.g. the War Crimes trial in Montreal, a UN negotiation with Turkey over the semantics of their Armenian genocide). He also had a genuine sense of humor (with regards to his time with the NDP, and I'm paraphrasing, but "the only difference between a cactus and a caucus is that with a cactus, the pricks are on the outside").

Since most of the talk was decidedly apocalyptic, I was surprised that he was able to bring about an optimistic ending of hope. He even recommended a book, Stephanie Nolen's upcoming 28, a collection of narratives centering on persons living with HIV/AIDS, that he believes is good enough to increase mainstream consciousness about the subject.

Perhaps I should have taken the reception as an opportunity to meet Mr. Lewis, but it's more my style to admire from a distance, so we left almost immediately after the conclusion of the event. He's a wonderful speaker, and I would not hesitate to attend another one of his lectures in the future.