The wondering streets touched by Jane Jacobs

A review of Mary Soderstrom’s The Walkable City: From Haussmann’s Boulevards to Jane Jacobs’ Streets and Beyond, Chapter 4: Jane Jacbobs in New York and Toronto, by Robyn Polan, Student at the Institute without Boundaries.

 

One is able to live in a place for quite some time without understanding its history; and not knowing the people whom shaped that history. As a child one might travel up and down the Allen Expressway, in Toronto, a gazillion times and be unaware that it is incomplete, and why it is that way.

Soderstorm takes us on Jane Jacobs’ journey from New York to Toronto. Reliving her adventures of transforming and shaping both cities and recapping the various books she has written in her lifetime.

The Walkable City has given me a little peak into my past, as Jacobs’ has played a small role in fashioning my life and all Torontonians lives. It didn’t surprise me that Jacobs’ and her family were drawn to Toronto, from New York during the draft. Toronto, after New York, is the second tallest city in North America. In the 60s and 70s many large apartment buildings were built surrounding the city, when many people were moving away from the city. As a result the the outskirts of the City of Toronto has developed more up than out. This type of development left a lot of open space, which has now become underused. Today, these buildings have surpassed their predicted 30-year life and are in great need of repair. The Mayor’s Tower Renewal Project is dedicated to upgrading these buildings to become more energy efficient and to use the underused open space for new developments for residential and commercial purposes creating mixed-use and mixed-income neighbourhoods. Unaware or not, the City is encapsulating Jacobs’ visions as she “pointed out that a mix of old and new buildings allows for people of different incomes to live together, and for businesses to start up with relatively little capital. Like Richard Florida, who was strongly influenced by her thought, she understood the low rents – particularly mixed among more upscale buildings – fostered new ventures among the young and the edgy” (Soderstorm, 2008, p.65).

I can now understand why my family, along with our neighbours, protested when the City was repaving our street. The red cobblestone, which was identified as a heritage item was carefully removed and replaced to create the new street. If it were up to the city planners Glenayr Road would be no wondering place today. This is modern evidence of what Jacobs’ stated so long ago:

“It soon became obvious to me, as I looked at what was being built and what was working, that city planning had nothing to do with how cities worked successfully in real life” (Soderstorm, 2008, p.64).

Dundas Square – Anna Milan

Last week I had the pleasure of hearing Kim Storey from Brown + Storey Architects speak about her past and current projects. The majority of her projects focused on streetscape and open space development. A large focus of her presentation was on the development of Dundas Square, a public square in Toronto located on the southeast corner of Yonge Street and Dundas Street. In the 1990s the square’s site was occupied by independent retail stores and considered to be a dangerous area. Starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the retail stores were demolished and the development of the square was started. Being one of the busiest intersections in Canada, exiting to a large linear subway station and adjacent to the longest street in Ontario (Yonge Street) the square was meant to be a showcase where people could gather, relax and enjoy the area.

Storey talked about the development of the square from start to finish. The square was made up of four main elements; a sitting area covered by a canopy, a stage, large open area to gather and a linear set of water features.

After the presentation I walked over to Dundas Square. On a sunny, Saturday afternoon there were families sitting and eating food, young adults chatting on the stone benches, a group of adults playing checkers at the tables and a series of vendors selling merchandise. There was a mixture of ages, cultures and activities within the square.

The square was very welcoming and even though the square was fully made up of infrastructure and no green space, it had a sense of being a peaceful place. But as I looked past the square’s perimeter I was reminded of the City of Toronto’s choice of advertising and building architecture which made me want to retreat back into the square. I was comforted to know that Storey had no input into the bright advertising or adjacent bold buildings. The canopy along the north-side acts as a clean division from the square and the commercial elements across the street. In Storey’s talk it was refreshing to hear how she tried to develop a space that worked for the residents of the city, while having to deal with elements out of her control. It was obvious that Dundas Square had achieved this.

Sharing of public space – Nick Crampton

Kim Storey, Architect and Urban Planner
Having come to Toronto for the first time in 2007, I have only ever known the space at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas as an overtly commercialised attempt at appearing like some sort of ‘Time Square Junior’. I have never known the discount stores, arcades and fast-food joints that once populated the area. In my Toronto, Yonge and Dundas has always been associated with crass shrines to American commercialism. On a subsequent visit to the city, I finally noticed the open public space beneath, which basked in a neon glow on a humid summer evening. Now, a resident of Toronto, that same halo of lights helps me quickly identify the location of this “heart of the city” from my bedroom window. So I was indeed interested, when I heard that we would be hosting the architect of this square at the IwB, to hear what the architect of the space had to say about the surrounding area.
It turns out I had passed judgement prematurely. Kim Storey, of Brown+Storey architects, designed Dundas Square which has absolutely no connection (she made a point of noting) to the garish structures surrounding it. With this correction made, I began to think back to my first experience of the square. I suddenly remembered the fountains that sprang forth from the slabs of granite like geysers, providing relief from the summer humidity to playing children. I also remembered relaxing with a friend, amongst hundreds of people sharing this space of repose while life continued around us at a feverous pace. This space actually offered a place for the city to converge and to seek respite from the neon barrage that surrounded it. This square is but one project in Kim Storey’s portfolio and I was intrigued to learn of her work and her worldview during her lecture.
Kim Storey has been a partner in the architectural firm B+SA with James Brown since 1981. The firm seems to be most recognised for their work in public space and recreation landscape design. She opened her lecture by discussing her ethic of how public space should be shared. She, like Enrique Peñalosa whom I coincidentally heard speak the previous week, sees the street as the public space that connects the countless private spaces in our cities. She advocates for a balance of power in this space, stating that if one user has more power than others, then these other users invariably suffer. Taking her firm’s project on St. George Street as an example, we can see how this ethic was exemplified. A busy, car-dominated street was narrowed, allowing for more pedestrian and bicycle space as well as space for trees and greenery. Fully-pedestrian zones and the narrowing of vast intersections further pushed the balance of power in the public space towards equality. What is ironic about this development is that it is essentially (in terms of road width) returning to the street’s original plan, before the automobile age changed it to serve cars rather than humans. This begs the question of whether this return to past notions of design will in fact push us forward towards better future designs. It was unfortunate to learn that her firm’s bid for the redevelopment of Bloor Street several years ago was not approved, as it would have brought similar improvements to that stretch of road which is just now being re-designed.
It was interesting to draw parallels between Storey’s work and beliefs and those of Peñalosa. In fact her firm recently completed work on the West Toronto Railpath, which immediately made me think of the bicycle and pedestrian path, many hundreds of kilometres long, that Peñalosa built in Bogota to connect marginalised neighbourhoods to the city. Will this path have the same effect on the communities to the west of Downtown Toronto? It was particularly inspiring to see how an architect can infuse political and social beliefs into designs in the way Kim Storey has. The ethics of equality and the need for places for large groups to congregate – and protest in particular – are strongly rooted in the designs she produces.

Storey speaks of the street.

A review of a lecture by Kim Storey, Brown + Storey Architects Inc., by Robyn Polan, Student at the Institute without Boundaries.

Though I have never had the luxury of hearing Jane Jacobs speak, I can imagine that Kim Storey would be much like her. Kim Storey is a successful Toronto based architect, who uses her unique poise to articulate design concepts she is trying to convey to her audience. During her lecture at the IwB she focused on various redevelopments in Toronto that her Architecture firm either designed for a competition or by contract. Such as: St. George St., College St., Bloor St., Dundas Square and the West Toronto Rail Path.

Within architectural design, her main focus is on the street and other types of paths and spaces that can be transformed for pedestrian use. Storey heavily focuses on the balance between systems within a city and expressed that if one foundation is overriding, than you have a bad street.

The various redevelopment and design projects that her firm has worked on are very much driven by research of the natural environment. For example, when they underwent an extensive mapping exercise of underground streams to form public space. Once the information was collected they were able to chart street grids against this to form schoolyards, houses and main streets, focusing on density and infrastructure. Their justification of the project was to create an open space system of parks over the stream to create revenue. I agree with Storey that it is important to begin to understand these connections of systems and bring them into the realm of design to start reconnecting with nature and the natural world. Storey has found that it is hard for people to understand the purpose of these rigorous studies and is trying to educate more people into understanding how, for example, a typology study of open space can create important tools for understanding a city.

Storey has worked on many successful and innovative projects throughout Toronto. I found the West Toronto Rail Path the most inspiring project that she presented, as it utilizes human factors design. This design utilizes unused space beside a rail line and transforms it into biking and walking path. Beginning at Dupont and Dundas and heading southeast, connecting to the Junction Neighbourhood and then the Wellington bike lane to downtown. The sustainable path and linear park system is proposed to be 6.5km long and service 250,000 people.

Moreover, the most intriguing aspect of her lecture that I will be able to utilize within the projects being conducted at the IwB, is Storey’s design process. All of Storey’s designs are driven by an intensive research phase, where information of the site is highly scrutinized to support the implementation of her designs. It is important for designs to be driven by research and the work done at Brown + Storey Architects Inc. is a grand example of that.

ENRIQUE PEÑALOSA: THE REAPER OF THE ROAD

by Manish Chauhan

Enrique Peñalosa was the mayor of Bogotá from 1998 – 2001. He is seen today as one of the foremost consultants and visionaries for urban sustainable strategies.

Peñalosa currently travels around the world, highlighting his message that roads and streets are “The only true, safe and equal spaces.” That no matter which country you are in, or whatever class you are from, public space is an equal environment, and that a road can bring all classes of people together.

One of his controversial approaches was making the city more pedestrian friendly. This is done by reducing parking spots, narrowing streets and expanding sidewalks. Another technique Peñalosa undertook was building of hundreds of kilometers of sidewalks and bicycle paths to give people the ability to walk or cycle to work. Perhaps one of his greatest achievements is the incorporation of the TransMilenio (Mass Transit System) which successfully transports 1/2 million residents daily, and which has now become an integral part of the transport network in Bogotá.

To increase the usage of buses Peñalosa describes that “we must make buses sexy.” He accomplished this by building a simple but centralized bus network that became the lifeline of the transportation network. The TransMilenio is more flexible and cheaper to maintain compared to subways, which have fixed lines and expensive maintenance and installation costs.
When watching Peñalosa lecture at Toronto’s IIDEX show, I found his ideas and concepts extremely refreshing and that, many of our naive conceptions about the need for cars on the street are just that. I relish the idea that public space starts on the street, and it is the only place where religion or class does not matter. I agree that “a good city is one where people want to be outside” and a place where people feel free to explore and be safe.

As a designer, I find it extremely hard to swallow that “cities are a matter of art not engineering,” as design and engineering is based around the idea of building a structure or coming up with an idea that benefits the user. Therefore I see how it took Peñalosa courage to push the envelope and experiment with the urban system infrastructure and how we define public places.
By examining Bogotá others can consider the concept of how to take back the streets and help improve public spaces. It only takes vision, determination and efficiency to ensure that it can be integrated successfully. Can we consider Peñalosa’s idea of an integrated system of walking/cycling paths and buses here in Toronto? Can we consider it even more specifically within the Flemingdon Park community?

Could Toronto become like Bogata? Could we adjust to change and would we be willing to give up our luxury of traveling in our own sheltered transportation? Now could this model be adapted to community housing in Canada? And what challenges would we face?

Visions of Cities Built on Equality

Chriz Miller

Visions of Cities Built on Equality

Report on Enrique Peñalosa’s IDEX Keynote Address

Institute Without Boundaries

Enrique Peñalosa may not have been born a rebel rouser, but he learned to be one at a young age. In his talk, he mentioned how he became political aware – his father, as a minister in Columbia’s then socialist government, was taking land from wealthy land owners for communal farms. Those owners were the parents of his classmates, and they beat him up for his father’s deeds. The lessons of public versus private ownership in a larger political context were not lost on him.

The years after were marked by travel (Paris, the USA), low-wage jobs (dishwasher, bellhop), and education in socialism, business, and the life of cities.

He returned to his native Columbia, and began a political career that is perhaps best remembered for this time serving as Mayor for his native Bogotá. His changes to the city were dramatic – building new libraries, schools, transit infrastructure, and pathways. His lecture at Toronto’s IDEX conference focused largely on his ideological reasons for changing the city transportation system.

His premise was, “The built environment can help people realize happiness, if it gives a sense of equality and respect for all people. It can add to their wellbeing.” Streets for people. Streets to allow people to walk, mingle, and perhaps most importantly, “to not feel inferior.”

Peñalosa stated the only public space in a city is its roads, parks, pathways and public buildings. The outdoor spaces are most of that space. However, the road is not for people but for cars. He said people are right to be afraid of them – according to the World Health Organization, 1 million children are killed by being hit by cars every 4 years.

So what makes a good city? A city that is there for everyone, not just adults in cars.

Peñalosa believes the 20^th century will be remembered as a terrible time in urban design. I don’t think he’s completely right. Obviously there have been remarkable technological changes – universal sewage, electricity, and communication infrastructure.

I don’t think it will be remembered for building good communities. I think the suburbs will be known as a backward indulgence that was terrible for the environment, terrible for transportation, and ultimately terrible for culture as a whole.

How does a city get better? One of the ideas I found most interesting is his idea of building up the inner suburbs into something more dense. To become useful and affordable, the city must turn in on itself, folding up against the dense core so services and transit can better serve the higher population.

In his lecture, Peñalosa asked the audience to imagine a better city. a city where everyone can walk or bike, with pathways within 4 blocks from every residence. A city where transit (largely, he opined, as buses in exclusive lanes) was rapid and constant. A city that is efficient as it was livable, where is treated with dignity, regardless of wealth or position. A city where equality is built from a spiritual foundation into the very infrastructure that creates it.

He stresses that this decision is not one to be left to traffic engineers. How to build a city is a political and spiritual decision, not an engineering one. The application and political math is dramatically different from place to place – in South America, he says there is low car ownership from a wealthy elite that relies on the government for roads and not much else. In Canadian cities the situation is dramatically different. Cars are a (costly) necessity in most cities. Density was not desired. Perhaps he’s right – gridlock is the friend of good planning. People will only change when they are forced the change, and change is painful.

Peñalosa’s insights were smart, and his passion was inspiring. I want to live in that city. I think about how to make it work in Canada, and how to serve the needs that density can lack – smaller defensible spaces, courtyards and semi-private options. I wonder about the challenges, but I am glad for the inspiration. The one-term mayor who could has valuable lessons for us all.

Toronto, a Good City by Peñalosa Standards?

A response by Anna Milan, student at the Institute without Boundaries

Most people would say that there are few things in life that are easy to achieve. But Enrique Peñalosa, a Colombian politician and a former mayor of Bogota, states the exact opposite –when speaking of the concept of “What Makes a Good City”.

In his keynote IIDEX 2009 lecture in Toronto, Peñalosa talks about the concept of a “Good City” and how it can be achieved through the happiness of its residents. The first step, he said, is to develop a child-friendly urban environment surrounded by a dense, multi-use community. Connecting all of those communities with extensive pedestrian, cyclist and transit corridors, making equal and safe access to the street for all. This places a lesser value on the infrastructure that supports the car, while encouraging all class systems to leverage the pedestrian, cyclist and transit corridors. In most cases, he says, our cities revolve around the car, not the resident. Peñalosa’s concept of a “Good City” requires a few over-arching elements- to be taken from concept to reality: the political power and the citizen-driven design rather than engineer-driven design.

On the grand scale, most would consider Toronto to be a progressive city. But just how progressive is it when compared to Peñalosa’s concept of a “Good City”? Toronto has all the physical elements discussed by – Peñalosa; trail systems, bike lanes, subway, bus and streetcar transit system, large open space and social community facilities. But the question is at what scale are these elements integrated and do they create an equal environment for all?

My overall perception of Toronto is as an environment that is highly focused on the car and the associated infrastructure. This thought made me wonder about how the City of Toronto allocated its budget. My findings were surprising. The City of Toronto’s Operating Budget for 2009 stated that $183 million net was allocated to transportation services, $302 million net was allocated to public transit (TTC) and $246 million net was allocated to parks, forestry and recreation. It must be noted that my research into the budget was preliminary and requires more examination. The $183 million allocated for transportation services includes both roadway and roadside services. But the fact is, that public transit and parks, forestry and recreation were allocated $119 million and $58 million respectively more than transportation services. If this is truly the case, then the question is – why do we not think of the City of Toronto as a transit/park city? This may be a simplification of Toronto’s shortcomings, but as we can see from Peñalosa simple ideas and results can be achieved. Peñalosa’s point of having the political power to enact change and the residents to inspire the development may be an answer to this question. Toronto may have a good proportion of funding going into transit, parks, forestry and recreation. But if the political power is not directing it into visible initiatives that people want, it will not be recognized.

What Makes a Good City?

A response by Angelica Ramos, student at the Institute without Boundaries

Last Thursday we had the chance to listen to guest speaker Enrique Peñalosa addressing the topic “What makes a good city?” at the IIDEX, Canada’s largest exposition and conference for the design, construction and management of the built environment.

As the former Mayor of Bogotá (1997-2000), Peñalosa is known for achieving exceptional goals, including restricting the use of cars, building better sidewalks, bicycle paths and pedestrian streets. He currently works as a consultant on urban vision and strategy and gives conferences around the world on how to make better and more livable cities.

What makes a good city? Peñalosa began his speech solving this question; the answer seems so simple, a good city is one where people can be happy.

From the beginning I was impressed by the presence of this man on stage. You can tell right away that he has the charisma of a politician.  However, his words are clear and direct and his ideas seem to come from a sincere place, making them easy to adopt.

Peñalosa says cities are divided between private and public space; public space is divided as well in space for cars and space for people. He affirms that the essence of a city is in the space for people in the parks, sidewalks and pedestrian streets, because it is in these places where we can meet each other as equals.

Throughout the talk I found myself nodding at Peñalosa’s statements. I could relate his words to my life in Mexico City, and I was very impressed to see people all over the auditorium nodding too. There was a moment in the middle of the speech when he even got a round of applause. It seemed like he had become the spokesman for everyone who has ever been a pedestrian, and that’s actually all of us.

In a violent city such as Mexico we tend to think of our vehicles as a means of protection – being inside a car is like being inside a tank. It dehumanizes us in the daily battle to get to our destinations on time.  When I had a car I used to spend hours driving in the traffic in order to get to the University or to my job. Very quickly, one starts believing this is a normal thing.

The first infrastructural response to traffic in Mexico City was the building of a second level in one of the main freeways. The first stage of the project took almost 4 years to finish, it ended in 2006, and it cost around 500 million dollars. As Peñalosa said “Trying to solve traffic jams with bigger roads is like trying to put out fire with gasoline.”

The other key point Peñalosa addressed was public transport. He talked about the efficiency of buses over subway and streetcars and explained the concept of a new kind of bus system installed in Bogotá called the Transmilenio. There is a very similar model that Mexico City adopted 3 years ago called Metrobus and it actually seems to be working very well. When drivers were finally presented with a high quality and safe choice of public transportation we finally started to leave our car at home when we could.

One of the things that surprised me the most about the projects Peñalosa did in Colombia was the political power that he must have required to accomplish them. It proves that someone with true conviction and commitment to his city can accomplish real change despite all the barriers. The fact that just building more green space in Bogotá reduced crime is such an amazing lesson.

The questions that rose in my head were: what happens in a place like Flemingdon Park? Why has it become a dysfunctional community even if it was built around the principle of pedestrian and green space?

The answers to those questions came one day after Peñalosa’s talk, when we had the chance to listen to another amazing character named John Sewell; he was Mayor of Toronto from 1978 to 1980 (two ex Mayors in two days!). He pointed out the fact that even though Flemingdon Park and other similar developments are built around gardens, they are cut out of the normal streets. This isolation brings a sense of inequality between the residents of community housing sites and the rest of the world.

I really felt inspired by Peñalosa’s words. As I left the Exhibition Center I was able to feel proud of my career and I even envisioned a gleam of hope for my home city. I loved that Peñalosa acknowledged the work of architects and designers as key figures to achieving change in the world. In his words, “Design makes life better… at the same cost”.

Response to IIDEX 2009 Keynote Speech

Enrique Peñalosa – “What makes a good city”

A Response by Nick Crampton, student at the Institute without Boundaries

Enrique Peñalosa is an impassioned man when it comes to the topic of the rights of the people. He speaks from a place of deeply rooted emotions and ethics – a belief that justice for all citizens should be the primary concern of any human in a position of power. Peñalosa is best known for his work as Mayor of Bogotá between 1997 and 2000. In that short time, he strove to shift urban design to promote happiness and focus on the needs of groups such as children – groups often left out of the urban-planning process. He commissioned the building of huge stretches of bicycle paths, pedestrian streets and expanded sidewalks. The TransMilenio bus network is perhaps the crown jewel of his term – an embodiment of his people-centred ethics.

It was invigorating to be gain a new perspective on the potential for cities to empower and inspire citizens. The combination of humour and sentiment with which Peñalosa infuses his speeches makes his lessons seem less like recommendations and more like undeniable truths of humanity. Take-away points from his speech which have stayed with me include the notion of reaching sustainability through equality, the question of whom we would rather have design our cities, the notion of designing for the “minorities” to benefit the “majority” and of the equality of road spaces.

An interesting provocation that stood out to me was his statement that when we seek equality, we achieve sustainability. It is so refreshing to hear sustainability being discussed less about solar power and hybrids and more about the social aspects of sustainability – essentially a more holistic approach to the notion of sustainability. This made me wonder, if all people in all walks of life felt they were treated equally and had as much potential and opportunity as the next person, would our species stand a better chance of sustaining our existence? Would crime disappear? Would war end? Would we reconsider our anthropocentric view of our place in the world?

A second question he provoked, asked if we want to leave the design of our cities to an engineer or to the people. I found this quite amusing as I can’t think of a single modern city that doesn’t in some way feel designed by a machinist more than a humanist. His example of holding competitions, judged by the public to decide on designs of public buildings such as libraries is one example I appreciated of giving the power of urban design back to the people. The massive highways and junctions that sprawl through our country and dissect most major North American cities are clear examples of an engineer having made design decisions with catastrophic effects on humanity. Having a clear idea of how we want to live, as Peñalosa suggests, should be the starting point of any urban plan, not an idea of how wide a sidewalk should be, or how many lanes a highway should have.

Peñalosa also brought up an interesting provocation that at first surprised me but soon made perfect sense. He purports that a city that is good for children, the elderly, the handicapped and the poor is a city that is good for everyone. This is a fundamental shift of paradigms, I feel, in the way in which we think of cities. Many North American cities I have visited certainly feel as if they were designed to accommodate the car. Few other considerations seem to have been considered; in effect they have been designed for the common denominator. In this case the needs and design considerations of the relative “minorities” appear to be after-thoughts and additional infrastructure to accommodate these groups seems to be a tacked-on solution rather than an integral part of the design. I couldn’t help but imagine what a different city we would inhabit if urban planners had adopted Peñalosa’s proposed approach of designing for the “minorities” to in turn help the majority.

Finally, an interesting – and frankly all too logical to be ignored – assertion by Peñalosa regarding democracy and equality came when he proposed that, in a true democracy, a public bus carrying forty people should have forty times as much right to a space on the road as a single-person vehicle. The idea of equality and rights don’t often come to mind when considering public transit, nor do the “rights to space” of a bus. Peñalosa makes a salient point though, regardless of his tongue-in-cheek delivery of the idea, as often meagre attempts are made at giving rights to road space to public transit. Peñalosa’s work in bringing equality to the street by making a bus service that is more efficient than the alternatives is a shining example of the power of humble design for the betterment of society and the lives of all humans.

One question I left the presentation pondering was how Peñalosa was able to successfully revive a downtown street into a flourishing public pedestrian space when other cities have failed in attempts to do the very same thing. I am interested to know what set this project apart from examples such as the Sparks Street Promenade in Ottawa, which was converted to a pedestrian only street but has failed to attract the level of business and pubic use that was originally anticipated.

Enrique Peñalosa’s keynote speech at IIDEX 2009 came as a welcome reminder of many of the reasons I personally had for wanting to work at the IwB this year. It was welcomingly refreshing to have the scope at which we had been thinking, blown up to the macro scale to once again consider the seemingly insurmountable tasks of redesigning how cities function. And yet it was incredibly inspirational to hear how one man – with the right network and the right amount of political clout – can bring about some massive shifts for the betterment of people’s rights, well-being and happiness.

Humanitarian Rebel: Enrique Peñalosa

Enrique Peñalosa: Former Mayor of Bogota, Urban Consultant

Reviewed by Lori Endes, student at the Institute without Boundaries

The keynote lecture that Enrique Peñalosa delivered at the 2009 IIDEX show in Toronto, begins with a clear and powerful statement: “When humans fully realize their potential they approach happiness”.  He furthers this to say that “Sustainable living  is equated to happiness, equality and well being”.  His humanitarian approach to solving the problems in his city are what other nations dream of, but often fail to achieve within the capitalist system.

Mr. Peñalosa is responsible for major changes in Bogota, including the reform of childcare and programming for children, new schools, libraries, improved pubic space and the radical reform of Bogota’s transit system. In a relatively short period of time, it seems the former mayor of Bogota was able to transform a city riddled with crime and inequality to one of hope and vision. His approach included a philosophy of change through a shift in the urban psyche.

Throughout his presentation we are asked to question “what makes a city more equal”. In an effort to create equality for all people, Mr. Peñalosa was almost removed from office. His near demise involved moving cars off of sidewalks to widen pedestrian pathways and limiting car usage. These changes were made on the ideology that “pedestrian public spaces are the only true and equal spaces”. By this he infers that in public space we are all equal, there is no hierarchy. “Public space is and end in itself”. In a true humanitarian culture this would be true, however the homeless and poor are not always allowed the same privilege that others are in public space.

Many of his concepts resonate with a prevailing truth. The idea that the democracy of a city is directly related to the quality of its sidewalks, echoes the principles of Jane Jacobs. In another fearless statement he states that “parking is not a constitutional right”.  With this in mind we are made aware of how parking can block human centered urban development. The battle of cars verses people remains a constant challenge in all cities.

During the question and answer period Mr. Peñalosa was asked what resistance he faced in the process of changing Bogota. His response vaguely mentioned the challenges of bureaucracy, however he was never specific about what actually happened. Mr. Peñalosa is a fierce humanist, with a spiritual approach to governing.  What he achieved in a short period of time may seem unlikely in our culture but the inspiration he provides does make the prospect a hopeful challenge.