If you ever want to know if Gerry “The Finger” Klein wrote the StarPhoenix editorial (and who wouldn’t?), just look for the buzzword “creative” or its variants in the text. The Finger is a disciple of Richard Florida, the increasingly discredited “creative cities” “expert,” and as such uses every opportunity to propagate the ideology.
Here’s what The Finger wrote in the September 18 editorial:
The mayor’s other defence of the automobile – that the only way to convince more people to live and play in the downtown is to have more cars on its roads – is counterintuitive to anyone who has walked in a successful urban centre. It is when there is a dearth of automobiles that streets come alive. That’s when there is more room for street vendors, outdoor restaurant tables, more casual walking. However, even successful urban cores require access for people who live in the periphery. And in a city such as Saskatoon, which is still a long way from having the kind of rapid transit options available in Calgary or Edmonton, which can bring people to the core without their cars, there will long be a need to facilitate the automobile.
Check out the “dearth of automobiles” in the living streets of New York…
…or Las Vegas…
…or, closer to home, Edmonton’s Whyte Avenue…
…or Calgary’s Red Mile.
If anything, it’s a dearth of dearth of automobiles.
It’s obvious The Finger doesn’t get out to successful urban spaces much, but does he even read his own paper? This is from the September 5, 2013, StarPhoenix:
It is dusk on Second Avenue, and the air smells of cigarettes. Groups of young people gather outside the pubs and restaurants that line the street, laughing and chatting. A woman in a dress sits on a nearby bench asking for change in a high-pitched voice. Cars circle the block looking for a parking space.
It’s a Friday night, and this street is alive and buzzing. The after-work drink crowd is slowly being replaced by nighttime revelers who have chosen this street — and more specifically this block — for a night out on the town.
Again, emphasis mine.
What The Finger and other “pedestrian-friendly” advocates don’t get is that the walkways themselves aren’t the destination. They’re a means to an end. What draws people to urban spaces are their own desires and goals: a night out with friends, a new movie at the multiplex, a great band coming to town, a fancy dinner.
They need to get to these places.
A fancy new ped- and cyclist-only bridge would be fun for those wanting to go for a nice outdoor jaunt, and I get that. But that in itself doesn’t make a space “come alive.” This goes especially for a ped bridge that would merely connect an older residential neighbourhood filled with people who look like this to the downtown. And even then only when the weather cooperates.
Every new bridge has to be accommodating to pedestrians and cyclists. I agree with that sentiment. And I also don’t have any problem with creating public infrastructure with a pleasing aesthetic, especially if it is to be a particular landmark near the centre of the city, even if it costs (a little bit) more.
My issue is with those self-anointed elitists who adhere to a particular lifestyle that suits them to the disregard to others. For me, I want to get downtown, and I’m not about to ride a bike or jog just so I can have a few beers with the boys.
The best use of public funds is to ensure that public infrastructure benefits citiziens in the broadest way possible. Excluding the 90% of people who wouldn’t cycle or walk downtown normally is a poor use of taxpayer dollars.