Showing posts with label Mark Holland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Holland. Show all posts

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Welcome to the JUNE 2010 postings from the Communities in Transition Information Resource


Summer's here...
Long days and warm nights. Good for growing food and enjoying the beauty of BC's rural landscapes.


Before you settle into the garden (or the garden chair), we hope you'll be inspired by some of the conversations about land use, conservation, and sustainability we've gathered in this posting of CITinfoResource.


The June 2010 Issue
Since our last editorial dispatch in mid-May we've posted a number of items that reflect some of what the Real Estate Foundation of BC does in non-metro BC communities. In her overview of the Organic Farming Institute of BC administrator Sarah Clark outlines how Foundation investments are translating into smarter, more sustainable agricultural practices in BC's Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys – and beyond. As this is being written, Tim Pringle is attending the Interface 2010 conference in Smithers. In our interview, Tim talks about what the conference is about and why it's important to non-metro communities. 


Tim is also the co-author of George Penfold's latest post on creating more effective rural economic development in BC's regions. George also responds to Maureen LeBourdais' post on the BC Rural Summit, and comments on his joint post with Tim in this audio post


A lot of what happens on the community side of the Foundation's investments have to do with sustainability. BC has a number of experts on sustainability – and a number of people who are still puzzling over what that means "on the ground." We recently interviewed Mark Holland and received a great – critical – response from Vancouver Island resident Charnal Macfie. In his most recent appearance at CITinfoResource Mark continues the dialogue. Gene Miller is another of the experts on sustainability we've had the pleasure to work with here at CITinfoResource. Gene's particular expertise is related to organizing one of the premiere sustainability conversations in Canada: the Gaining Ground Summit series, which the Real Estate Foundation of BC has helped to sponsor on a number of occasions. Our video interview with Gene looks at the 2009 Resilient Cities event, and forward to the upcoming October 2010 event in Vancouver. Finally, I weigh in with some thoughts on what Tim Pringle has described as the "rural/urban divide."

Coming soon...
CITinfoResource will host a number of posts over the summer, following up on themes we've presented during the year. We've got an interview with Kathy Bishop of Leadership BC's Central Vancouver Island chapter, talking about the June "Dialogue in Nanaimo" about water sustainability. We'll be posting about the environmental planning initiative coordinated by the South Okanagan-Similkameen Conservation Program. We're also going to be talking to Tim Pringle about the outcomes of the Smithers Interface 2010 conference. As you recline lakeside or gardenside during these summer months, take a moment to see what else is being posted about activities related to investments by the Real Estate Foundation of BC in non-metro BC communities! 


Investment in community sustainability
The Real Estate Foundation of BC funds a wide range of land use related projects in non-metro BC communities. In 22+ years the Foundation has been involved in over 1500 projects across BC, with more than half of these outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria. CITinfoResource is one way that the Foundation is extending the reach of these projects, recirculating it through CITinfoResource via our blogFacebook, and Twitter posts. You can also connect with the Foundation at its website and its new Facebook page


Our goal at CITinfoResource is to "stimulate and support the conversation about land use, conversation, and sustainability amongst land-use practitioners in non-metro BC communities." Check us out. Use and circulate our resources and posts. Let us know if we're having an impact in your region or organization. 


hanspetermeyer
Editor,
CITinfoResource


– 30 –


©Real Estate Foundation of BC / 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website for non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Mark Holland responds to Charnal Macfie

[Editor's note: In early May 2010 CITinfoResource.com posted a letter by Charnal Macfie of Parksville, directed to Mark Holland. Ms. Macfie was in part responding to articles by and interviews with Mark at CITinfoResource, but she was also expressing concern about the kinds of things that sustainability "experts" – and Mark in particular – are saying when they work in her community. You can read Ms. Macfie's open letter to Mark here. What follows is Mark's response. We look forward to hearing more from our readers, whether you are land use & sustainability "experts" or "lay people," you are what the Real Estate Foundation of BC's Tim Pringle calls the "land use practitioners," people wrestling with the real challenges facing our communities.]
Image of Mark Holland from Facebook

Charnal:

Thank you for the thoughtful letter. You raise a good question regarding the challenge of taking a position on growth in a specific (small) geographical area such as a community or the Island.  It is one that brings up several conundrums and some logical and some counterintuitive observations.

These thoughts are of course my own opinions as are all positions on these issues – there is no consensus on these issues nor necessarily a true right or wrong as each position will have likely have tradeoffs.  Moreover, none of us can know “the truth” because the number of elements in the systems we are speculating about are far more complex together than our brains can ever know – and therefore it’s all educated guesses, speculation and the drama of emotions – particularly “fear” in the minds of many.

As you will know from the discussion we had at the Qualicum workshops, I believe deeply in the concept of carrying capacity at the global scale, but don’t believe that the global discussion of carrying capacity applies to any small area, because the scientific assumptions behind a calculation of carrying capacity don’t hold out when discussing humans, as opposed to nearly every other species.  As a species, we are unlike all others.  We can import (with renewable energy/technology) food and other things we need from many areas and we are the only species with advanced “tools” and the ability to massively change behaviour consciously to change our impact on our surroundings significantly, etc…  Other species generally are geographically bounded and operate in manners with limited flexibility and few/no “tools” – and as such, calculating the food supply, water supply, breeding ground, etc… is something we can do, and thereby derive a carrying capacity.   We can’t really do this for humans except at the global scale.

Once we begin to acknowledge that in the real world, we won’t be able to supply all the fuel, fiber, food, pharmaceuticals, steel, glass, plastics, TVs, furniture, building materials, computers, solar cells, wind generators, etc… that we on Vancouver Island need/want within the geographical limits of the Island and the nearby Lower Mainland (etc), then we begin to accept that we will be shipping things in and out of Vancouver island – at which point the issue of carrying capacity becomes something quite different.  It becomes a question of levels of impact.

There is a sense of “panic” emerging in society today based primarily on the environmental agenda that we have to become cave-people immediately – stop everything we are doing, start “culling the herd”, stop using any resources, stop all waste, etc….  The sense of panic is both unwarranted and highly unwise – and only primarily shared by highly educated, highly affluent individuals from the most industrialized countries – who interestingly generally refuse to reduce their quality of life in line with their fears, but continuously increase their personal impact on the world.   I think that while we can’t continue to do what we have been doing, we need to separate “impact” from population or economic wealth.

We do need to start taking action right away to reduce impact, but we have many decades to achieve the change we need.  Over the next 40 years or so, we need to invent and deploy a basically carbon neutral economy / lifestyle – very challenging but probably doable.  We need during that time to shift our energy supply to nearly fully renewable sources.  We need to change our food supply to being likely 75% within several hundred miles, noting we’ll always bring in food from elsewhere (eg: a powerful part of economies for thousands of years), and the list goes on.   If we think it’s not possible and ask ourselves why, we’ll likely come up with the observation that we know its possible technologically with off the shelf technology today – the reason we might be pessimistic is that we don’t think it politically will happen.  Sustainability isn’t a technology/impact issue – it’s a human nature and governance issue.

Regarding growth on Vancouver Island, we are in a bit of a conundrum here.   We have built out the Island at unsustainable low densities and the result is we will be very challenged with only our current population to achieve a sustainable urban/community system and infrastructure in nearly any community on the Island.  We need actually more people not less in order to hit the economies of scale for good transit, local businesses, demand for local food systems, district renewable energy systems, etc…

Regarding the fear of “massive impact” of these people, that is mostly a question of the technology we use to house and move our selves.  If we adopt a more sustainable approach, then we can hold a lot more people and actually have less impact.   For instance, we can build up to 6 storey wood apartment buildings that will reduce people’s housing emissions and impact by almost 30% immediately, and by 80% if done innovatively, but most people in Vancouver Island communities fight like hell to block anything over single family or 2-3 storeys in size – actually thereby making themselves less sustainable, rather than reducing the environmental impact on their communities.   The untended result is also that developers study the market and find that everyone wants single family homes – and therefore they don’t’ build higher density on the island – and therefore the trades don’t learn how to do it, banks won’t finance it, etc…  And what we get is the ubiquitous island sprawl we see everywhere.

Regarding food, fuel, etc… We can grow a staggering amount of food on the Island even through very low yield industrial agriculture approaches.  More intensive, sustainable artisan agriculture could put us awash in food – so food is not a constraining factor, and may never be.  While it feels that the area on the island is small, a very tiny fraction of it is actually impacted by settlement or agriculture.

Regarding forestry, if all major forest areas of the Island were managed in the way that Wildwood is, we’d have a sustainable supply of timber and fiber that would exceed any possibility of even a doubled population on the Island of every using – and we’d be continuing to ship it away to others who have less.

An effective train and local micro-electric vehicle transportation network on the eastern seaboard of the Island where everyone lives would reduce our transportation impacts by likely easily 80%, putting us where we need to be by 2050 – with no loss of quality of life.
And the list goes on.

The conundrum can be summed up in my mind the difference between 21st century sustainability thinking and 1970s environmentalism-thinking.  Sustainability is focused on how humans can best fit with the planet and its ecosystems given that we’re here and are biologically mandated with surviving and maximizing our environmental niche – and are doing it in a rather ignorant manner now.  Environmentalism is anti-human at its most core, and therefore any human impact is seen as horrible and untenable.

The irony of many policies and approaches based on “environmentalism” is that it is based on a paradigm of the “pristine natural world” without any significant presence of humans.  The irony of this attitude is that it has given us an environmental regulatory approach that focuses only on protecting areas, or keeping humans out only when we find ourselves facing species extinction or species at risk – meaning we can do anything stupid we want until then and we only consider things when the species are already failing fast (and only occasionally recover). The “preservationist” paradigm when delivered by humans, corporations and governments whose DNA is the maximizing of human interests, ironically is programmed to fail from the start.

What we need instead is a new ethic of human stewardship where we accept we will dominate the earth for the next epoch (or go extinct or nearly so ourselves through ignorance)and that we need to manage ourselves to be stewards of this planet.  That is hugely challenging and all the environmentalists who read this who hate people will launch many eloquent rants about our inability to have done this in the past  - rants which lead us nowhere but to nihilism – which is only the purview of the wealthy and spoiled.

I personally work on “sustainability” because I believe an anti-human stance is untenable and frankly disingenuous – especially coming from all of us in North America who are the biggest sinners on that front and who continue to not-change our ways – even while we know our lifestyle is damaging - driving, flying, shopping endlessly, owning a big home, having huge closets full of shoes/clothes,  - and most importantly, highly resource/energy intensive computers that we use to dialogue and spread our self-loathing.  And I believe these actions are hardwired biologically into humans as part of our niche-maximization mandate as advanced mammals – a state we can only overcome through consciousness, learning, and strategic collective governance.

I believe that on Vancouver Island (and everywhere) we either have to be honest and personally chose and seriously go back to a 19th century way of life (95% local food, local woven clothes, animal based transportation, etc…) or we need to move forward to build a 21st century lifestyle that offers a great quality of life but has about 75-90% less negative impact on the planet than now.  We have only those two choices.   And when we consider its not really about Vancouver island in this question, but rather about China, India, Pakistan, and others, then I believe that with every nation on the planet currently living in or emerging from the 19th century lifestyle as fast as they can, that we have no honest, ethical choice at all – we must pursue the 21st century sustainable model.

We have put people on the moon and invented the electron microscope – we can certainly build a sustainable economy.  It isn’t rocket science – it’s just grappling with human nature – and we have 4 decades to achieve our goal – many govt budgets, business cycles, changes in vehicles, etc...

If we put our minds to it, we can manage our species’ impact on the planet so that we can live effectively with all other species and be good stewards  - and we can do it within 4 decades if we work hard at it.  However,  If we take a stance that is pro-environment in a manner that is anti-human, we will make almost no progress and ultimately, work against the very thing we are trying to achieve.

…and it is why I have structured my life, company and work around dealing with communities, developers and growth because I believe we can become sustainable.

By the above, I don’t intend to change your mind on anything, but rather to outline my thoughts on the good issues you have raised in your questions in your letter.


Regarding your last question, the role of OCPs in impacting resource extraction -  it is almost impossible to use an OCP to do so.  Firstly, local governments (who use OCPs) only have jurisdiction over small areas and their powers are limited in what they can do.  For instance, the “right to farm” legislation makes it very difficult for a local government to stop a farmer from farming their land – and likewise forest companies, mining companies, etc…   Large resource management issues are the purview of senior governments (prov/fed) and as such, legal challenges can be levelled at local governments that try to stop their activity in most cases.

The BC project of developing Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for most of the rural areas of the province may have some insights into how to interface resource management and local communities, but I am not an expert on those processes.

Generally what I find more effective is developing a powerful compelling exciting vision and partnership with resource companies about how they can work with the community and help the community achieve their goals / quality of life, while taking steps to be responsible and innovative in their practices.

Respectfully,

Mark Holland
May, 2010

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, May 3, 2010

Letter to Mark Holland: Sustainability and Vancouver Island communities


[Editor's note: The following letter, from Parksville resident Charnal Macfie, was received at CITinfoResource, and directed to Mark Holland, partly in response to Mark's recent contributions to CITinfoResource on the subject of community sustainability. Ms. Macfie's comments are symptomatic of concerns that many of us have about our communities, especially as we grapple with what exactly "sustainability" means for our communities. Thank your letter Charnal. We look forward to hearing from you about how your community is coming to grips with the various challenges – ecological, social, and economic (among others) – to your community's future.]



Hi Mark,

After attending 2 planning sessions in Qualicum Beach and reading an item in the local paper about Qualicum's plans for a sustainable community, there still exists, for me, a conflict in the basic premise of sustainability that is being presented to the community.

A Decembler 11, 2009 news item quotes you:

"Water comes up often with communities...... it can be possible to have no net loss to your quality of life while reducing our use of water from 30 to 50 percent. That translates into a population issue, because if you can reduce your use by 50 per cent you can actually absorb twice as many people on that water supply."

The conflict I'm referring to is found in your above remark. Doubling the population of our communities just isn't sustainable. Even if every individual changed their lifestyles and reduced their waste, emissions, and consumption habits by 30 to 50% (which is very unlikely for ours and the next generations), can Vancouver Island support another 750,000 people? How would an additional million people impact our environment, our ecosystems, our water sources? Do you know what is the maximum number of people this island could support while not negatively impacting our environment, resources and ecosystems?

population graph for Qualicum Beach BC to 2007Image via Wikipedia

The contradiction in many sustainability plans is that they promote sustainability, but ignore the negative consequences of growth - both economic and population growth.

Like the Comox Valley sustainability plan, the Qualicum Beach sustainability discussions include topics such as:

  • lifestyle changes,
  • targets,
  • alternative transportation,
  • green buildings,
  • food security, and
  • growth.

Continuous population growth and economic growth are simply not sustainable. These sustainability plans are about accommodating growth, about striving for prosperity (a word often interpreted as material wealth?) while trying to retain a quality of life we have enjoyed in the past. I prefer to use words like healthy or strong communities and economies rather than prosperous.

Do you really believe that we can continue to grow without having a negative affect on our environment?

Qualicum Beach OCP has a population cap. Some of the residents of Qualicum have commented on the importance of securing this population cap in the OCP or even reducing the number. I hope your final summary to the public will include this important aspect of Qualicum's sustainability plan. It may be the most useful, practical, easily implemented tool we have to begin creating a sustainable community.

Another issue that I'm curious about is how communities can integrate strategies, guidelines, bylaws, or policies into their sustainability plans and OCP documents that help the community combat man made environmental threats to their communities and region. For example, destructive logging practices in watersheds, coal mining, forest land reserves that are sold to developers, and other economic development projects by large corporations. Has this issue ever come up in any of your community projects?

Regards,

Charnal Macfie

Parksville, BC



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 22, 2010

Welcome to the March postings of the CIT Information Resource



What's happening in land use and conservation in BC's non-metro communities?
That's one of the questions that we're addressing with Communities in Transition Information Resource. We're also trying to connect a number of projects and people working on ways to enhance sustainability and quality of life in BC's non-metro communities.

Communities in Transition is a signature program at the Real Estate Foundation of BC. It was initiated in 2004 by the Governors of the Foundation as a way to focus some funding on the land-related challenges faced by rural and small town communities. Over its 22 years the Foundation has awarded 1500 grants for initiatives and projects in communities in BC. Of the 533 grants made since 2004, 10% have been for CIT projects that engage CIT partners and offer replicable services and deliverables in non-metro areas across the province, from Fort St. John to Campbell River.

These projects represent a wealth of knowledge and expertise, not only for the communities affected, but for any and all other communities that can tap into what is happing through CIT. The Foundation is able to extend the reach of this knowledge and expertise by recirculating it through CITinfoResource via our blog, Facebook, and Twitter posts.

The March 2010 posts
Not all of what happens in our posts is about non-metro BC, however. For example, this month we've got the Foundation's Executive Director, Karin Kirkpatrick, talking about her decision to park her car and use public transit. Karin also talks about how her choices in metro Vancouver are different than those in a rural community, and about the Foundation's keen interest in innovative approaches to land use and transportation issues in these more challenging contexts.

As part of our commitment to extending the "life" and "reach" of real-time events we're posting Mark Holland's Resilient Cities Manifesto, his summary address  to the October 2009 Gaining Ground Resilient Cities summit, as well as a followup audio interview with Mark about the Resilient Cities Manifesto and why it is significant. The Real Estate Foundation of BC makes significant investments in conferences like the Gaining Ground summits and the 2009 BC Land Summit. They're important resources for land use practitioners throughout BC. Through interviews and reports (before and after the event), key themes and ideas are re-presented from a variety of perspectives on land use, development, and conservation. CITinfoResource helps these ideas and perspectives reach a broader audience than the 100s who can actually attend the events. Ever wonder what a planner from Cumberland took in at the BC Land Summit? Or what a city councillor from Kelowna or a land trust activist from the Comox Valley brought home from Resilient Cities? These are a handful of examples of how CITinfoResource.com is linking non-metro resources across BC.

Among these resources are the Regional Innovation Chairs (RICs) located in a number of BC's post-secondary institutions. One of these is Dr. John Church, BC's RIC in Cattle Industry Sustainability (Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops). We have an audio post with John talking about his current work and the challenges facing meat producers and BC's grasslands. The Real Estate Foundation of BC has contributed to several RIC endowments, including the Chair at TRU. The work being done by John, by Dr. Nicole Vaugeois (in sustainability tourism at Vancouver Island University – read about it here), and George Penfold (in community economic development at Selkirk College in Castlegar – read his post on BC's rural policy here) is viewed by the Governors of the Foundation as a long-term investment in a range of sustainable land uses in BC. 

The Governors have also identified key areas of the province as worthy of special programs. One of these is a high-growth and development part of Vancouver Island. Kim Stephens is Program Coordinator for the Water Sustainability Action Plan for BC. He's also very active in the Convening for Action Vancouver Island initiative that has received Foundation support. In this posting of CITinfoResource Kim writes about the February 2010 Bowker Creek Forum and why it's an important part of water and land use sustainability on Vancouver Island.

Staff CIT project reviews are a regular part of the CITinfoResource postings. This month we feature two innovative First Nations' Comprehensive Community Planning projects, one at Musqueam in the greater Vancouver region, the other at Sliammon north of Powell River. Addressing a range of complex land use, social, and economic issues and involving innovative engagement processes, these projects are, as one participant put it, helping these communities prepare for the "day after treaty."

We close this posting of CITinfoResource with an audio interview with long-time Invermere realtor and past-Chair of the Real Estate Foundation of BC, Barry Brown-John. Barry is familiar with the industry perspective on land; as a Governor with the Foundation he's become an advocate for sustainable approaches that will benefit the long-term health of the real estate industry. In this interview he talks about the real estate market, sustainability, the Kootenays, and his experiences with the Gaining Ground series of summits.

Changes at CITinfoResource.com
Within the coming months long-awaited changes in the Real Estate Foundation of BC website will begin to show up as changes to CITinfoResource.com. In the meantime, we're moving to more regular postings, rather than releasing 5-8 posts every 2 months. We'll still be providing a 6-times-a-year compendium of recents posts (like this one you're reading), but the workflow of producing (and reading or listening to) CITinfoResource posts will be spread out over several weeks. 

Some posts to look forward to in coming weeks: 
  • George Penfold (audio) on the March 2010 BC rural development conference in Port Hardy, 
  • Tim Pringle (audio) responding to Kim Fowler's February 2010 exploration of "performance vs. regulatory" approaches to sustainability, and
  • the second in a series of video interviews with Gaining Ground wunderkind Gene Miller (the first one is posted here). 
We think that posting more regularly will make our material more useful. Let us know what you think!

Please share these resources
Social media like our blog, Facebook, and Twitter accounts make it easy to achieve one of our goals: circulating interesting, information, sometimes challenging material to land use practitioners across BC. If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please add us to your lists – and please reTweet and share items that you find interesting and engaging. 

We also hope to see your comments and "letters to the editor." Not only do these enrich the conversation; they let others know about your experience, knowledge, and interests, all of which can make the difference to someone working on a project in a community half-way across the province from you.

As I said in the opening, collaboration and sharing of resources are keys to the success of both the Real Estate Foundation of BC and of the many projects and organizations that have received Foundation support over 22+ years. The reproduction of CIT Information Resource articles and materials for non-profit educational purposes is an extension of this approach. In return, we ask that you please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses.

hanspetermeyer
Editor,
CITinfoResource

– 30 –

©Real Estate Foundation of BC / 2010. We encourage the reproduction of articles on this website for non-profit educational purposes. Please notify the Foundation and the author of all reproductions, including in-house uses


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Resilient Cities and Regenerative Regions

A manifesto of consciousness, commitment and action.

editor's note: The following post is the summary address given at the 2009 Gaining Ground Resilient Cities summit by noted sustainability planner and practitioner Mark Holland. Mark was invited to summarize and comment on the preceeding 2 days of presentations. What follows is his inspired – and inspiring – response to the challenges and gifts of the 600 or so gathered for this event. CITinfoResource thanks Mark for allowing us to repost here. It is also posted as a PDF for download at the GGRC09 site.

by Mark Holland

We hereby now accept that human beings are an urban species and that cities are now our true home.  And as such, we will embrace our cities and focus our attention to change them however necessary to not only provide us all with a good quality of life, but to deliver that life within the carrying capacity of our planet – we will create one-planet cities.

While we acknowledge that we are an urban species, we acknowledge likewise that we are a fully integrated part of the natural systems of our planet and that we are entirely dependent on the health of the world’s ecosystems for all our needs.

We acknowledge that we have undertaken two centuries of industrial and population expansion following a flawed model of our world and we now acknowledge the realities of the 21st century that we have created including:
·      That our actions are causing climate change emissions to increase at rates never before seen or modeled and this will cause our climate to change significantly this century even with radical action, and catastrophically without it;
·      That the inexpensive energy supplies that we have used to build our current society and economy will end in this century and thereby force change in every aspect of our cities;
·      That our world’s potable water supplies are decreasing at unprecedented rates in urban and agricultural watersheds thereby changing forever our cities and food-baskets;
·      That we have disrupted our planet’s ecosystems  to a such a point that they are in a rapid state of change and collapse in a manner that is serious and unpredictable;
·      That we have been exhausting the non-renewable resources of the planet and depositing  waste and toxins at unprecedented rates due to our past outdated economic models of materials management;
·      That our global food supply is in significant threat from the impending peaks of fossil fuels, water supply and soil degradation;
·      That the impending global migration from countries heavier hit from these disruptions will change our entire concept of cities as billions more become urbanized in a steadily decreasing number of metropolitan regions;
·      That the significant shift in demographics in our countries will force change in our cities physically, socially and economically and in particular, ruling many of our models of how we take care of each other obsolete;
·      That our political systems are currently inadequate and under-resourced to respond to the primary areas of market and government failure and compromised in their ability to effectively lead the envisioning, coordination, mobilization and decision-making  processes required to deliver a culture of stewardship and become sustainable;
·      That the health of individuals and families in our communities are suffering from an inestimable and growing array of stresses that exceed our social infrastructure’s ability to respond;
·      That our education systems in their current forms are entirely inadequate to empower us collectively with the knowledge and ingenuity that we need to grapple with the challenges we face;
·      That our media and information industry is inadequate in its current form to support a rapid and effective dissemination of information that will trigger emotions, understandings and motivation to make significant change;
·      That our current economy and its corporate members are built on principles that are blind to the constraints of the planet and our communities; and
·      That the belief that the economy will be relatively stable and reliable in its current state over the next century is erroneous.


In acknowledgement of this reality as the new context for our cities, we commit in all our actions from here on, to envisioning, communicating, and creating resilient cities that will deliver a great quality of life for all generations within the constraints of the planet that we are borrowing from our grandchildren.

Which brings us to the principles and perspectives we need to forge a path forward:
Inherent in this commitment is the recognition of the following principles that underpin our thinking around resilient cities including:
·       That the future is not inevitable, but rather that it is created by us day by day – that we are the authors of our future;
·       That no one is in charge, and therefore that we all are in charge;
·       That we are not moving from  a past state to a future one, we are moving from a past state to one of continuous unfolding and unstoppable change – and therefore, our concept of cities, communities,  economy, and ourselves must be reframed as a dance of relentless and rapid evolution – that change is the new normal;
·       That at the heart of resilience lies the capacity to regenerate and as such, we must preserve the integrity of our earth’s ecosystems and utilize them as blueprints for our cities;
·       That because cities change slowly, our decisions today define not only tomorrow but the day after tomorrow, and the day after that.
·       That in the face of the inability to know the future, we must adopt a deep ethic of planning, education and engagement to ensure we are aware, thoughtful and agile to meet the future we are both consciously and unconsciously creating;
·       That the roots of the transformation that we need lie in our deepest places because emotions lead to thoughts, which lead to stories, which lead to motivations, which lead to actions, which build cities;
·       That everything is connected and that the dispassionate karma of the earth offers a reaction for every one of our actions;
·       That we must transform our cities from a parasitic to a symbiotic relationship with our all other species in the world;
·       That we can never truly understand all implications of our actions and that as such, we must adopt an ethic of “learning cities” – of living laboratories in which we hope to succeed, but plan to fail, and then to try again;
·       That we must pause in our work to build our Towers of Babel, and return to the ground and learn to speak each other’s language – or we must certainly fragment and disperse and divided we will fall;
·       That the scale of change we need can only be realized when we work together to coauthor a future that fits us all;
·       That we must strive for ‘firsts’ in everything as the only mandate possible to deliver the  learning and change at the scale we need to meet the challenges that call our names; and
·       That  in fact, we aren’t building cities, we are building communities and as such, our cities do not exist for themselves, they are emergent outcomes of decisions we make to provide homes and lives for ourselves, our families and each other. In this context, we must never forget that we must design cities to be positive and healing places for our children.  And furthermore, because there is no “social out there” any more than there is an ecological “out there”, we must confront our fears and work to heal those who have been hurt or have hurt us - for pain is a virus that is passed on until it is confronted and healed – and while in action, it hurts all species.

Which brings us to the need for a new blueprint for a resilient city:              
In the context of the 21st century reality and these principles, we now embrace a new blueprint for our cities:
·       Our neighbourhoods will hereby be complete, offering us choice in where we work, live, play, learn, shop and pray;
·      Our transportation systems will maximize exchange and minimize travel, they will deliver access for all of us at all stages of our lives with a complete absence of carbon and will be built first and foremost around us - people - walking, meeting each other, experiencing beauty and engaging the other species with whom we share our landscapes.   We will travel under our own power, under the suns power and we will travel together;
·      Our buildings will be plants, generating their own sustenance and giving back to our city,  providing light, life and sunshine to us all, for our buildings are our civilization’s collective skin;
·      The land within our cities will be a profound cacophony of the celebration and cosmic dance of the lives of other species by our design, they will make us physically and spiritually healthy, they will provide us with food, and they will be a stage on which we come to know each other’s power and creativity;
·      The pumps, pipes and wires of our cities that supply us with energy and water and deal with our waste will be designed to be like the earth herself where everything is regenerated and there is no such thing as waste;
·      Our cities will provide food, clothing, a home, education, health care and a good quality life for every person, no matter what gifts, gaps or wounds they have;
·      Our cities will inspire us with art and the expressions of who are and will answer implicitly the question – what in fact we are trying to sustain?; and
·      Our economy will be built on the shoulders of inspired corporate citizens, creative entrepreneurs and a vision that draws all self-interested individuals and organizations to not only compete, but cooperate for the benefit of us – one and all.   To create wealth within the natural income of our planet, and to increase our social, natural and economic capital accounts.

In order to implement this blueprint, everyone has roles and responsibilities:
While we innately know we are a “we” – we also accept that we do nothing as a “we.” It is an “I” who acts or at most, a small “us.”   And even then, all “us’s” are animated, organized and lead by an “I.”

In this context, we all have responsibilities individually, in our roles, in creating our collective resilient future. In our roles, there is no one else to pass the responsibility on to.

·       As elected city leaders:
o      We will accept our responsibility to be students, decision makers, arbitrators, gatekeepers, motivators, teachers, and risk takers, on behalf of all our citizens.  We will be fearless but careful, bold but honest.

·       As those who work in our city governments:
o      We will honour our responsibility to not let the aging ink of dog-eared and faded regulations constrain our souls, but will use our skills and the letters of our laws to make real the dream of a regenerative society;   We will not hide from the expressions of both ignorance and wisdom from our neighbours, but will engage in dialogue to teach and be taught . We will not let the failures of courage of those who must make hard decisions, define what our minds and souls believe is possible.  We will expose who we are in the public discussion to build a common ground of humanity with those whom we serve, and at the same time we will protect who we are from those who would project anger that they received  those who may have abused authority in the past – so we may serve tomorrow without yesterday’s pain.

·       For those of us who create wealth in our businesses:
o      We will embrace our responsibility to not only create wealth for ourselves and our shareholders, but to also infuse the tasks and lives of our employees and colleagues with meaning.  We will relentlessly add value and provide goods and services that meet both the physical and spiritual needs of our customers.  We will lead our suppliers and competitors forward – inspiring and asking of them increasing levels of sustainability.  We will commit to create lasting wealth and make the planet and our communities healthier and more resilient as we do so. 

·       For those of us in the academy:
o      We will honour the significant investment our society makes in us and commit to relentlessly leading the research and reframing of our world views to empower the minds and hearts of all to understand and reach for true sustainability.  We will not only speak to those who pay us, but will actively engage the minds of all citizens in our communities and economy.  And we will commit to being the sensors who report on our planet and to being the strategists of symbiosis.

·       For those of us in the world of organizations:
o      We will be both insiders and outsiders at the same time – working “with” our communities, and leading them forward simultaneously. For every place we call others out, we will discipline ourselves to provide a viable alternative. We will honour the significant responsibility and risk those in our governments and businesses face and with compassion and discipline, we will tell the truth in a story that all can understand and remember – and be inspired by. And often, we won’t wait. We’ll just do it because we can.

And finally, as we bring our “we” and all things down to ourselves as individuals we find that all things begin within ourselves.  And therefore, with a sobering but exciting knowing that I do not truly know how to proceed, I will begin with commitments to try. 
As a resident and co-author of a resilient city and regenerative region, I commit to the following:
·       I will embrace my responsibility as an author of the future and of my city;
·       I will confront my comforting illusions – but will not believe all those who would feed me news that might prey on my anxieties;
·       I will accept my disillusionment with all institutions and leaders, but will not take leave my responsibility and become embittered;
·       I will learn from whomever I can - but will never devolve my responsibility to be the author of my city to any teacher, no matter how gracious their words or beautiful their pictures;
·       I will engage my peers and declare our generation’s responsibility - but I will share my successes and failures equally;
·       I will accept that I must live in this world, but will commit to slowing to look beyond the fog of overwork, lack of sleep, gridlock, shopping, and the apparent race with others in everything to nowhere in particular – to find my quality of life within my earth’s allowance;
·       And I will be grateful;
·       I will breathe deep,  I will smile at the rain, I will soak in the sun, and I will teach my children the songs of the birds who live in our neighbourhood;
·       I will eat and drink the abundance of my region, and will share my abundance with those who work to maintain that land’s capacity;
·       In addition, I will share my abundance with many others in a manner that empowers them to create more of their own;
·       I will ask of myself the courage to see the challenges that give me fear through the eyes of those whose job it is to deal with them and I will be a compassionate, engaged and disciplined citizen;
·       And I will be grateful;
·       I will open to the pain that I cause in the world through my ignorance and fear and the distance I seem to have from my internal dignity and nobility, and I will feel the pain, shock and injustice of participating in the death of so many, if only by accident – and then I will move past that grief to the restless serenity of my responsibility – to my planet, to my community, to my family, and to myself;
·       And in that spontaneous map that comes from that honesty, I will find my well, the source of my regeneration and I will personally become resilient;
·       And I will be grateful.

And finally, I will acknowledge that I do not understand the universe enough to yet proclaim that “its over” and as a resident of a resilient city and regenerative region I will have faith in you and I will have faith in myself that we can do this – that we can change.  


October 22, 2009
4
©Mark Holland / 2009-2010 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]