What are the ingredients for a vibrant city?

[Hipster Duck]

What does it take to make a city a really vibrant place rather than a boring burgh that one simply inhabits?

The answer is not so clear cut. For example, Waterloo Region is very drab, despite having 40,000 university students and being rather wealthy. Meanwhile, Peterborough has only 100,000 people and maybe just 5,000 students and it has an exciting nightlife. How do 400,000 tri-city residents and the 40,000 students that live there entertain themselves?

Likewise, among larger NA cities, I could not believe the dullness of Cleveland, a city with a regional population larger than that of Vancouver. I had a car, so I drove around in vain looking for a few good places - nightlife, pubs, a strip of good restaurants. I didn't even care if it was in some faraway suburb and I had to spend my night in a strip mall, I expected some interesting things to pop up and, save for a small neighbourhood across the river called 'Ohio City' they just never materialized. If you took a city with the same population as Toronto - say like Houston - there probably aren't even as many decent, independent bohemian commercial establishments in the entire city as there are on just 4 blocks of Queen street.

You could even have a very pedestrian-friendly city that doesn't cut it versus a very auto-friendly city that does. For example, LA is interesting, but there are any number of European cities that are deathly dull like Stuttgart (which is actually very big) even though they are dense and urban.

Jane Jacobs talked about this in DLGAC. She mentioned how the Bronx, which was then a largely mixed-race (Jewish, Italian, some black) working class borough of 2 million people could not even support one decent restaurant.

Size, students, proximity to other cities, wealth, ethnic diversity, and often even the effect of automobiles are often not factors in determining a city's vibrancy. What does it take?

 

[Admiral Beez]

My top picks....

#1 - great weather (no snow, not too hot/humid in summer, light-jacket/sweater winters)
#2 - great location, with beaches
#3 - good public transit at realistic rates
...more to follow, spent day packing for move to TO, must sleep

 

[interchange42]

What does it take to make a vibrant city?

Me.

And my friends.

Other cities should be so lucky.

42

Seriously? It's soooo complicated that I think it's ultimately unpredictable. Certainly Admiral Beez's list of ingredients have been successfully combined to creates Dullsvilles everywhere.

 

[CDL.TO]

Hmm, an interesting question. I would state that the look of a city is defined primarily by the era in which it was built, while vibrancy as you see it is defined primarily by the industry that is in that city and therefore the people who live there. The built form doesn't greatly affect the existence of vibrancy, it merely defines what form that vibrancy will end up taking if it occurs. I think I'm heading in to Richard Florida "Creative Cities" territory here.

Los Angeles's MASSIVE creative industry gives it the ability to overcome the limitations of its design, while Stuttgart and Cleveland are very industrial blue-collar towns (The Flats in Cleveland is a sad story), and The Bronx and Houston are the result of mostly corporate and industrial industries. With relation to universities, I'd wager that the student makeup plays a role as well; compare the mathematical/engineering character of Waterloo to the artsy character of Trent.

Simply, to have "vibrancy" you need people who desire and demand (and create) vibrancy!

I guess a good example of this is tourism. Places with a heavy tourist trade are almost always highly vibrant, no matter if it's anywhere from a village to a large city. Vibrancy occurs because there is a critical mass of people demanding it (They're on vacaction and want to have a good time!). Now, stop and ask yourself what type of person it takes to go looking to be a 'tourist within their own city'. Get enough of those types of people and you're gonna have vibrancy!

 

[Admiral Beez]

My top picks....

#1 - great weather (no snow, not too hot/humid in summer, light-jacket/sweater winters)
#2 - great location, with beaches
#3 - good public transit at realistic rates
...more to follow, spent day packing for move to TO, must sleep

#4 - clearly defined city and downtown limits, without suburban-sprawl (outlying towns are fine)
#5 - no shanties, shelters or public housing downtown (hostels for youth tourists are okay)
#6 - great restaurants, night-clubs, museums, galleries and tourist destinations
#7 - no begging or vagrancy (i.e. no vagrants living in parks, on city streets, etc..)
#8 - quick clean-up of grafitti and littering, with reasonable police enforcement
#9 - reasonable and accessible parking for those who drive
#10 - rail-link to airport
#11 - locals with a welcoming attitude towards visitors
#12 - great hotels at all prices ranges
#13 - defined architectual-styles, as opposed to throwing up whatever glass/steel/concrete pile the currently "hip" firms would propose (I just know that in 20 years when I visit the ROM, they'll be buckets catching water under that new crystal thing)
#14 - reasonable city plan, including building heights, transit growth

 

[interchange42]

Admiral, other than #6, what do any of your ingredients have to do with creating a vibrant city?

If one were to list existing cities beside each ingredient, would any city in the world appear in every category? How many of the cities that could be listed would be considered vibrant? If they're not vibrant, then your ingredient list might be faulty. #10, the rail-link to airport ingredient, would include Cleveland for example, and not us. Is Cleveland more vibrant than Toronto?

I think you're creating a recipe for your perfect city, which seems like some impossible dream to me, and no utopia in my estimation, vibrant or otherwise. I just don't get your list.

42

 

[afransen]

"compare the mathematical/engineering character of Waterloo to the artsy character of Trent."

The Faculty of Arts at UW alone (let alone WLU) is larger than the enrollment at Trent, no? I can agree that math/engineering are not your typical partiers, and perhaps not a big chunk of the Faculty of Science. There are exceptions.

WLU is a very artsy school, besides.

 

[salvius]

"compare the mathematical/engineering character of Waterloo to the artsy character of Trent."

The Faculty of Arts at UW alone (let alone WLU) is larger than the enrollment at Trent, no? I can agree that math/engineering are not your typical partiers, and perhaps not a big chunk of the Faculty of Science. There are exceptions.

WLU is a very artsy school, besides.

Yeah, this doesn't hold... UW in addition to its reputed ENG, also has ENVS (hippies, urbanists, etc.), Recreation and Leisure, and of course, ARTS (biggest faculty on campus). And yeah, there's Laurier too, which besides its business school has very popular arts and fine arts programs, etc. etc. So, the idea that either campus is populated by brown nosing nerds is actually by-and-large false. Hell, most engineering students do not fit into those stereotypes (though a lot of MATH students in Waterloo might; but again, not all).

No, I think the problem is deeper than that. You must also have the opportunity to do something if you want to. Most students do not have cars, and need their entertainment central. But what is there beside University of Waterloo and Laurier? There is the rather awful student plaza, which has but the most generic pubs & clubs. There's the uptown, which is a few blocks long and includes ONE dance place, a few pubs, and relatively few patios.

 

[unimaginative2]

Though the biggest department in Arts is Accounting, and Architecture has been moved into the Engineering faculty...

Really, though, the biggest mistake was the location of the residences at UW. They're in the worst possible spot on the whole campus. They should be concentrated down at the old Married Student Apartments and on the C parking lot, where they're an easy walk to Uptown Waterloo. Instead, it's a pretty long trek across a windswept and very deserted campus late at night just to get to the nearest convenience store.

 

[ShonTron]

Oh I agree with that. It doesn't help that Village I looks like Regent Park either. Most of the student ghetto (of which many are happy to be out of the depressing Villages) is out towards Albert Street, which is walkable to Uptown.

Guelph has more going on in its downtown than Waterloo, and Waterloo has two universities. Many of U of G's residences are in bad corners as well (like the concrete weaved-shape buildings), and it isn't that walkable.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

Here is the list I would offer.

1. Money - I don't mean that everyone has to to have a 6 digit salary (though in some cities like New York it might actually be a requirement). But most citizens should be well off, relative to local living conditions, or at least have some disposable income that they can use to participate in private or public functions. Put a harsher way, when you a poor your options for participating in the city are fairly limited. There also needs to be a certain amount of relative wealth to keep up building maintanence too, which can add or detract from a city.

2. Healthy and happy citizens - If people are not healthy, perhaps because of local industry (past and present), suffer from local health issues, obesity, or other physical conditions, it can easily restrict people from participating in the full spectrum of the city. With happiness, its simple, happy people tend to have more fun and be more active. If people are not happy because of safety, oppression, or economic stagnation, as a few examples, again it will impact how often people actually use the city or their tendencies to engage in anti-social behaviour.

3. Diversity - The more there is too do, the more often you will go out and enjoy the city. The wider the range of options for people of different incomes, the more people who will be able to have access to the city. The more varied and diverse the people, the more likely they will foster more diversity and create a healthy cycle of regeneration.

4. Tolerance and openmindness - This is rather obvious. Small minded towns and cities that do not accept those who are different will only become isolated and fail. Those that are open to the widest range of people possible, will be able to attract and engage people from all segments of society.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think we're missing something here. There are many suggestions of what people would desire in a city but I don't think they are strong indicators of vibrancy. First off what do we mean when we say vibrancy? I think we are talking about something like the strength and volume or density of human interaction in shared physical spaces.

Next, is vibrancy desirable? or is their a limit to the acceptable level of vibrancy? In most cases in North America we are fighting against the lack of a vibrant environment but I think most of us would agree there is a limit to how much urban vitality we would be able to handle. It is likely that most of the worlds most vibrant urban experiences exist in poor to lower-middle class environments with little regulation, but few people desire either being low income or the negative aspects that can arise from lack of regulation. So I think the real question is how can a community be affluent and regulated and yet have dense levels of human interaction occuring in shared physical spaces?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Admiral, other than #6, what do any of your ingredients have to do with creating a vibrant city?

I'd say my suggestions on "no begging, vagrancy, grafitti and litter" is valid - New York City is certainly a much better place to visit and enjoy compared to the 1970s and 1980s when all four were out of control.

I'd also say that my suggestion on no shanties, shelters or public housing downtown (hostels for youth tourists are okay) again is needed for a vibrant city. Paris, London, New York, and most other classic tourist cities have pushed out all their poor and untidy. Sure it's not fair for them, but it's better for the city and welcomed by visitors. Look at Toronto, you'd be at the Eaton Centre and go for a walk or drive and within minutes you could be in Regent Park and/or the dirty areas about Moss Park. I for one am pleased that Toronto has finally understood that classic vibrant cities don't have poor houses downtown, and is taking out Regent Park, Don Mount Court, etc...and approved numerous rooming house closures. Again, not fair to the poor, but good for the city.

#9 - reasonable and accessible parking for those who drive
#10 - rail-link to airport
#11 - locals with a welcoming attitude towards visitors
#12 - great hotels at all prices ranges

All of the above are needed to have a vibrant and welcoming tourist trade. However, if vibrancy and tourism are exclusive of each other, then you can drop these four.

#13/14 - defined architectual-styles, reasonable city plan, including building heights

The best cities in the world IMO have a certain look to them. London has its tall Victorian row houses and classic gothic public buildings, New York has its brownstones and skyscrappers, Paris has exactly building height restrictions, etc. In Toronto we throw up condos that do not jive with the existing condos around it, we hire the current "hip" architects to design buildings that do not fit in with the buildings the city's already got, many of which are over a hundred years old downtown. That's why I love Cabbagetown, with its strong heritage preservation association, it's unlikely that the "hip" architects will get their chance to deface and knock down our structural heritage in the name of modernity.

 

[salvius]

I'd also say that my suggestion on no shanties, shelters or public housing downtown (hostels for youth tourists are okay) again is needed for a vibrant city. Paris, London, New York, and most other classic tourist cities have pushed out all their poor and untidy. Sure it's not fair for them, but it's better for the city and welcomed by visitors.

NYC certainly has not pushed out all of its poor; in fact, one way to secure a place in Manhattan is with low income and some luck. Public housing still lines Manhattan, and if anything, the city is much better for it. NYC is too airbrushed at the moment as it is.

You seem to have no problem sacrificing those less fortunate than you to whatever fate befalls them for what you deem to be a successful city. I guess they 'deserve it' in your books? I'd rather make sure that the city works for ALL its residents than tourists.

Out of sight, out of mind appears to be your motto.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think we're missing something here. There are many suggestions of what people would desire in a city but I don't think they are strong indicators of vibrancy. First off what do we mean when we say vibrancy? I think we are talking about something like the strength and volume or density of human interaction in shared physical spaces.

Yes, that's pretty much right on the dot.

Next, is vibrancy desirable? or is there a limit to the acceptable level of vibrancy? In most cases in North America we are fighting against the lack of a vibrant environment but I think most of us would agree there is a limit to how much urban vitality we would be able to handle. It is likely that most of the worlds most vibrant urban experiences exist in poor to lower-middle class environments with little regulation, but few people desire either being low income or the negative aspects that can arise from lack of regulation. So I think the real question is how can a community be affluent and regulated and yet have dense levels of human interaction occuring in shared physical spaces?

In any number of East Asian cities: Tokyo, Hong Kong, Taipei, Seoul, etc. you have some of the most vibrant neighbourhoods on the planet and none of this comes at the cost of being in a poor or dangerous environment. Everytime I look to a shining urban example I look 'to the east'...and I don't mean Europe.