Tonight I attended a roundtable discussion at the MoMA facilitated by the
Forum for Urban Design on the topic of 'Urban Designing the Global City's Financial Core'. The participating cities were New York, Toronto, London, Singapore, Boston, and Vancouver. At one point in the discussion, the moderator asked the roundtable if a city like Vancouver were located in a place like, say, Omaha Nebraska, would it be as successful of a city? I looked around at the crowd of over 500 people and decided that I was probably the only Omahan in the room. And moreso the only Omahan with an intimate knowledge of Vancouver's coming of age.
I tried to scribble down the dialogue as it occurred, and by no means is this the conversation in it's entirety. Of course I wrote down the points that grabbed me.
Panelists:
Amanda Burden is Chair of the New York City Planning Commission and Director of the Department of City Planning
Robert Freedman is the Director of Urban Design for the City of Toronto.
Cheong Koon Hean is the Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, the national planning and conservation authority of Singapore.
Peter Rees has served as the City Planning Officer for the City of London since 1985, directing the Department of Planning & Transportation of the City of London Corporation.
Kairos Shen is the Director of Planning at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Boston's economic development and planning agency.
Brent Toderian was appointed in 2006 as the City of Vancouver's Director of Planning.
Moderator:
Paul Goldberger is the Architecture Critic for
The New Yorker, where since 1997 he has written the magazine's celebrated 'Sky Line' column.
Moderator: Have some urban theories become a sacred cow that we are scared to challenge?
Toronto: Jane Jacobs has made it difficult in my city to build anything taller than 4 story. Yes, these conventions should be challenged, and that is what Toronto is striving for.
Vancouver: Every time we as designers and planners purposefully diverge from fundamental rules of urbanism, we fail. It's pure hubris to break from Urbanism 101.
Boston: The sacred cow is different to every player.
New York: We have to continually question our goals. Diversity of experience is #1.
Singapore: Process has to be a series of checks and balances. Template is never good. We are always looking for architects who will actively challenge the process.
London: If an architect doesn't interest me, I don't listen.
Moderator: Is design democratic?
New York: Design as democracy is the significant challenge. If it's truly groundbreaking, you can't involve the public sector.
London: Everyone hated the Gherkin. Now the public loves it. And now they want more. It's a good thing we didn't listen to them in the beginning.
Toronto: It's how the process is run. Will Alsop for example, engaged the public process early on with his OCAD project. Therefore, it got built, despite it's unconventionality.
Vancouver: There is a distinction between consultation and public process. No great city is built on consensus.
Boston: Public process does not address special sites and special programs.
London: Planning only creates mediocrity out of awfulness.
Toronto: Public process creates a floor but can't get you higher than that plane.
Vancouver: We leverage public benefits from developers - so height has actually become a benefit. Vancouver is the opposite of the Bilbao Effect. Now that we have built a consistent pattern of urbanism, we are starting to get more money and will now begin to add the punctuation.
Moderator: I have always assumed that Vancouver's context IS it's punctuation. If Vancouver's physical city were located in the place that say, Omaha Nebraska exists, would it be as successful?
No comment from panelists.
Insert Anne gasp here.

[Images: Omaha - me. Vancouver - Sengsack Tsoi]
Boston: It's really landscape architecture as the glue that gives us glue. Olmsted teased that glue out of the topography. I wonder how cities like London view their glue. Where is London's master plan?
London: The nonplanning of the city is it's success.
Vancouver: But icon building is easy. Weaving in successful public space is not easy.
New York: Rather than icon building, we are on the cusp of creating an invigorating iconic horizontal plane. We have identified that as our collective goal in New York.
Vancouver: We are on the cusp of building the most sustainable city on the planet. We would like our entire city to be LEED silver. How are the rest of your cities addressing their role in sustainability?
London: Cities already have a head start in sustainability. If you live in the country and you don't grow your own food you are being subsidized by the poor people in the city.
Moderator: Tell us what you think the best city/urban feature in the world is and why?
New York: Berlin's history and arts culture is beyond admirable.
London: The accidental removal of the Embarcadero in San Francisco. If only we all had earthquakes to perform urban natural selection for us.
Toronto: The foresight of Central Park.
Singapore: London's nightlife, Sydney's waterfront, Vancouver's beauty and livability.
Boston: Barcelona
Vancouver: Boston's Big Dig for it's ambitious vision. Montreal for it's young energetic design culture - something we in Vancouver are lacking.
Moderator: A commonality between several cities on this panel is the Olympics. Tell us how your city is dealing with the Olympics.
New York: We purposefully turned from an Olympic bid because it would compromise our resources for the 2030 Initiative and investing resources for the actual citizens of the city. Plus we simply do not have room to accommodate the venues.
London: We only wanted the games to keep the French from getting it.
Vancouver: We see the Olympics as a way to increase much needed urban infrastructure that will remain long past the Olympics. The games are also an impetus to take a good look at how our city is functioning.
And that's where my notes stopped, unfortunately. What an invigorating discussion nonetheless.