Nest City: The Human Drive to Thrive in Cities – Page 36

Luke and Yoda

Nancy Duarte, author of Resonate and Slide;ology, belives that we each have the power to change the world with our ideas. She notices that when an idea is embedded in a story arc, the audience gets attached to ideas and they take root. When a story is told, we physically react, and it is through this process that ideas take hold in us.

Any presentation, then, is about the story and the audience. The story’s arc is grounded in the hero, but the hero is not the presenter, as we usually think: it is the audience. In her TEDx EAST talk, Duarte offers the perfect metaphor: the presenter is not young Luke Skywalker out to save the world, but his mentor, Yoda. The presenter is not the star of the show; the presenter is more like Yoda, who helps the audience move from one thing to another.

There is more to this metaphor than meets the eye:

The world is full of Lukes. There is not one Luke Skywalker that will save the world, but 7 billion. It is not up to one hero to make a difference, but the hero in each of us.
Yoda intelligence is everywhere. There are, all around us, people with Yoda intelligence offering their wisdom to anyone willing to receive.
The Luke in us works on inner well-being. As was the case with young Luke, heros have moments when they are frustrated and do not believe in themselves. In this mode they have great difficulty hearing the messages of their mentors. It is life’s journey to face difficulty and find peace and strength in such difficulty.
The Yoda in us notices the right challenge at the right time for apprentices. Each of us will at several points in life play the role of mentor or coach. Our default is to imagine that we must provide direction to our apprentices, but recall Yoda, who sits patiently, waiting for Luke to learn at his own pace. He knows what challenge will, at the right time, best support Luke’s learning. And he remains ever calm and patient with the apprentice while the angst of learning is taking place.

With so many Lukes and Yodas in the world, the odds are for us, not against us.

The power in consultation

What on earth is “true public consultation”? This question begs to be asked after reading an article in the January 8, 2012 Calgary Herald. Reporter Clara Ho’s first two paragraphs:

An environmental group is demanding a ‘true public consultation’ after learning of pro-posed plans to clear cut more than 700 acres of trees in the west Bragg Creek are in Kananaskis Country.

Sustain Kananaskis – comprised of Bragg Creek residents, trail users and outdoor enthusiasts – is calling for Spray Lake Sawmills and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development to hold a ‘transparent approval process that includes facilitated, accessible and meaningful public consultation in regards to logging activities in Kananaskis Country’.

A little more on the dynamics of the situation, as I read it:

The Government of Alberta (through Alberta Sustainable Resource Development) approved a 10 year logging plan that delegates forest management activities to Spray Lakes Sawmills.
Spray Lakes Sawmills has conducted ongoing public consultationover the last 10 years on various forest management activities.
Specific to west Bragg Creek, Spray Lakes Sawmills has consulted with stakeholders. The next opportunity for the public to learn more and share concerns is at an open house January 26.
Sustain Kananaskis’ mission is to hold Spray Lake Sawmills and ASRD accountable to all Albertans affected by the proposed logging.
90 percent of the trails will be affected in some way by the logging, including 30 km of new trails.
Sustain Kananaskis is advocating for a transparent approval process that includes public consultation, not just stakeholder consultation.
Sustain Kananaskis is demanding full public consultation so that dialogue can occur.

On the surface, the conflict appears to be about citizens (in the form of Sustain Kananaskis) demanding true, meaningful and full public consultation. On their web site, Sustain Kananaskis defines ‘proper’ public consultation in three stages: let people know what’s going on (notification), seek their opinions (consultation), and involve them in the formulation of objectives, policies and approaches (participation). By their own definition, they are getting consultation; they have been and are being asked for their opinion. Whether they like the decisions made with their input is another story.

Sustain Kananaskis is actually looking for one of two things. In the realm of consultation, Sustain Kananaskis is looking for evidence that their opinions and input affect the decisions of the decision-makers, in this case Spray Lakes Sawmills and ASRD. In the realm of participation, Sustain Kananaskis is really seeking a role as a decision maker to shape the future of Kananaskis Country consistent with their vision.

The underlying issue in Clara Ho’s article is about who has the power to make decisions. As is often the case, those without the power would like to have some.

The question I am left with: Under what conditions can power be shared while maintaining our expectations for accountability?

An entrepreneurial city hall

I can’t wait to see the GO Centre this Saturday, Edmonton’s latest recreation facility. It sounds remarkable – three huge gymnasiums that can be 12 full size basketball courts or 25 volleyball courts. And a gym for the gymnasts. It is both a facility for the U of A teams and a community centre. And unlike most recreational capital projects in cities, it came in on budget. And the price tag was only $38 million.

The funds for the GO Centre are from federal, provincial and city governments. $4 million in private donations were also made by individuals, businesses and community partners.[1] The donations are not what are unique about this project – it is the entrepreneurial spirit within Edmonton that is worth noticing. One of the two usual suspects – the City of Edmonton or the University of Alberta – could have built the facility with $4 million dollars in sponsorship. But what happened here reveals so much more of Edmonton’s creative entrepreneurial spirit.

The sports of volleyball, gymnastics and basketball came together as an unusual partnership: the Edmonton Grads Club, Ortona Gymnastics Club, Edmonton Volleyball Centre Society and the University of Alberta. As a partnership, they declare that the GO Centre project “harnesses the talents and energy of all partners to address critical issues and to create a prime venue for growth and expansion of recreation and sports opportunities for all people in the Region.”[2] They organize

d themselves to meet the needs of their organizations, their sport communities, the University community and the wider community.

What I appreciate about this project is that the handful of Edmontonians needed to get the project underway stepped up to do it, and chose to look after their own organizations needs, but also that of the larger community[3]. Federal, provincial and city government supported their work. The GO Centre builds on the City’s Recreation Master Plan and delivers on a trend toward multi-purpose facilities with versatile and flexible spaces. They take it a step forward and build a facility for sports that are underrepresented. They are thinking beyond traditional boundaries of partnership: the U of A is served, the community is served, the Edmonton Capital Region is served.

In all of this, I find myself curious about the role of City Hall in this entrepreneurial spirit. At a minimum , the City is responsible for the basic infrastructure on which we build our city. The roads to get places, the pipes to move water and wastewater, the waste we generate. On this we build our city – and our recreation facilities. In addition, the City brings rules and regulations for what we build and where, and ensure that the minimum standards for construction meet safety and construction standards through the permitting and building inspection processes. The City provides emergency support in policing and fire protection. All of this, in the strictest sense, is a service not performed by others in community. For the provision of these services, the word ‘entrepreneurship’ in City Hall is not about competition, but finding the balance between creativity and efficiency in the delivery of these services. Outside these service areas, however, entrepreneurship takes on a different meaning.

Case in point – recreation facilities. The City builds and operates recreational facilities, but unlike the service areas noted above, other players also provide facilities and programs. The city is a player among many. That immediately conjures a picture of these players in competition with each other. But the GO Centre illustrates that that is not what is happening. Entrepreneurship in this case is big scale collaboration to work in new ways to build what really needs to be built. Multi-sport facilities already exist for hockey, swimming, indoor soccer (Tri-Leisure Centre, Millenium Place, Terwilligar). The GO Centre meets a whole new need and compliments the facilities that are already in place.

City Hall could have fought this, with hurt feelings that others are stepping on its feet as a recreation service provider. The City could have insisted that its role is to build such facilities and missed the opportunity for the community to meet its own needs.

In the end, entrepreneurship at City Hall doesn’t quite mean that it gets more business like. It means that it recalibrates its authority to make more room for partnerships. An entrepreneurial City Hall will:

Acknowledge that it is not all things to all people
Recognize that the city knows what it needs
Support partnerships that enable the needs of the community to be met
Provide infrastructure to support the initiatives
Establish (and enforcing) the rules that ensure what we build meets our collective standards.

An entrepreneurial city hall is one that makes room for the city’s creativity – the ultimate entrepreneurship.

For readers interested in Spiral Dynamics integral: The GO Centre partnership is an ORANGE initiative. To do more of this kind of work, City Hall will have to recalibrate its BLUEness. It doesn’t lose its BLUEness, but adjusts its focus to provide the structure needed for the city’s entrepreneurial ORANGE spirit to emerge more fully. What would BLUE in service to ORANGE really look like?
The GO Centre’s ORANGE flavor is also interesting because it fully intends to deliver on PURPLE and RED threads by building community and providing a healthy place for competition and sport.

[1] Scott Hennig, “Partnership, not taxes, the way to GO,” Edmonton Journal, p, A21, September 29, 2011.

[2] http://www.gocentre.com/about-edmonton-go-centre/

[3] Current board members: http://www.gocentre.com/edmonton-go-centre-board-members/

Massive gathering

People are compelled to gather. We are compelled to have time alone and in small groups, and we are also compelled to gather in large and huge groups. And we build spaces and places in our cities to do so. This is a characteristic of how we live as a species.

Last night I was struck by how we gather to listen to live music in the thousands despite our easy access to the music. Recently the only way to hear and enjoy others’ music was live, with the musician right in front of you. Radio, television, records, tapes, CDs and itunes have not dampened our interest in gathering to hear music live. And the spaces we have created for this very activity still serve this impulse. They are critical to our very being.

Having places to gather en mass are a feature in every community/town/city I have experienced. Not necessarily for everyone to gather – those who are attracted to the invitation to gather show up. And we build bigger and bigger spaces for gathering as we need to, be it hockey arenas, concert halls, open spaces in front of city hall and the provincial legisture, and expansive open green spaces. We use the spaces to gather to protest, enjoy culture, have a celebration, watch sports, raise money, hang out with families and friends, and just be with other people.

Ultimately these massive places are a place where we look after each other, whether the community hall in a rural town or the convention centre in a city. At a concert we are feeding our cultural identity and sorting out how we make our way through the world as individuals and as a collective. The same is happening when we gather to protest the decisions of our elected officials. In times of crisis we gather to hold one another, to hear news of what is happening or what to do next. We create places for the commons to nourish our souls. They help us thrive as a people.

From last night’s mass gathering to hear Death Cab for Cutie at Edmonton’s Shaw Convention Centre (from ‘The Sound of Settling’:

If you’ve got an impulse let it out

A city’s impulse? To gather its people and host them well.

I dream of a city…

A poem from the WE space at the United Way’s gathering with John Ott yesterday:

//

I dream of a city

truly great

for everyone

and I wonder where

we will put the line

between possible and

impossible

or will there be no line

and just an invitation to

imagine

learn

dream

//

my story led me

here

personally

powerfully

with allies

supporting aspirations

to evoke new stories

together

togenerate

collective knowing and

action

certain

no formula

will suspend certainty

or see the whole

no checklist

will seek diverse perspectives

or welcome all that arises

for formulas and checklists do not trust

the transcendent story

larger than me

the transcendent story

serving me

serving us

aligning with what is

emerging

//

insight

//

epiphany

//

a lifelong commitment

to what we long for

collectively

creating

//

13 ways to THRIVE in community

Our attention creates our reality. The more I complain, the more I swirl around in a trap of negativity. The more I appreciate what I have, the more I swirl in wonderful places, with wonderful people, doing wonderful things. I get more of what I put my attention to.

This notion came front and center at the Community Planning Association of Alberta Conference this week as I listened to Alberta MLA (and Conservative Party leadership candidate) Doug Griffiths speak about thirteen ways to kill a community. I was struck by his list of things that cause harm, his list of what NOT to do.

Griffiths’ 13 ways to kill a community:

Don’t have good quality and quantity of water
Don’t attract business that competes with yours
Don’t involve young people
Don’t assess community needs
Don’t shop elsewhere
Don’t paint
Don’t cooperate
Live in the past
Ignore your seniors
Do nothing new
Ignore immigrants and newcomers
Don’t become complacent
Don’t take ownership

Knowing what not to do can be useful. It is nice and clear and allows me the opportunity to easily notice if my actions (or inactions as the case may be) are harmful. Yet hearing what I shouldn’t do does not provide clear guidance about what to do instead. I still need to know what to do, so being explicit about what to do is critical. It isn’t good enough to know what doesn’t work. I have re-framed his speech. Drawing from his work, here’s my take on thirteen ways to thrive in community:

Provide good quality and quantity of water
Welcome competing business
Create ways for young people own problems, solutions and action
Notice good things everywhere
Choose local businesses first (and be a business that people want to choose first)
Be proud of where you live and look after your place. (Keep things clean and tidy.)
Support what others are doing and work together
Live in today for the future
Engage seniors everywhere
Try new things (and welcome risk)
Welcome and cultivate the “anything and everything is possible” spirit of newcomers
Be active and vibrant
Assume personal responsibility and ownership of your place

I just heard the banquet supervisor with his staff as they are cleaning and setting up the tables for the next meal. He’s nice and clear on what to do. He’s setting his community up for success: “Work on one table at a time, rather than spreading out.”

The purpose of the city: create conditions for conflict

This thought just struck me – what if the purpose of the cities/towns/villages is to bring people closer together? And the closer we get to each other, the more conflict there is. Is the purpose of the city then to generate conflict? What is the purpose of generating conflict?

Conflict generates dissonance, a distinct or subtle sense that things are not right. A city, just like a person, can sit quite a while with the feeling that things are not quite right before we decide to take action. Smoking in restaurants, idle-free parking, deciding to support active transportation are all collective decisions that have come about as a result of conflict in a community.

There is a pull in us to be closer together, but we also push each other away, to not live too close to each other. We resist being close, because we resist being in conflict. As a city planner and community volunteer I regularly hear people – on the public record and off – say they do not want people close to them, especially more people close to them. I wonder if we resist the pull to be closer to people because it brings conflict with it, and we tend to either avoid conflict wherever possible, or even stir it up, neither of which takes acknowledges of the wisdom within conflict. What are we missing as a result?

I am left with a series of questions:

What if I/we let conflict teach me/us?
What would happen to cities if I/we welcomed and invited conflict for the purposes of generating new understanding?
What if I/we viewed conflicts as opportunities?
What if I/we found ways to work through and beyond conflicts?

In the end, I notice that when I work through conflict, I arrive a new understanding. I change. Is that what I/we am/are afraid of when avoiding conflict?

Circle Tale – Habitat for Humanity in St. Albert

Christina Baldwin and Ann Linnea,wonderful leading spirits in Circle work, asked my mom, Margaret Sanders, to share our story of our work with the City of St. Albert. A wonderful tale of how Circle can bring community together around much more than what the conflict is about. As I think about it, it was a wonderful experience that deepened a design charrette experience for participants.

Here it is: PeerSpirit Circle Tale

Whack-a-mole

A fantastic image came to mind in conversation with a colleague this afternoon: the whack-a-mole game at fairs and carnivals. This is also a common phenomenon in the world where I feel like I am one of the moles. Chances are, if I come up with an idea someone is there to whack me on the head with a mallet. After a while, I might choose not to offer myself and my ideas. I have a choice to make.

I wonder who I am wacking with my mallet?

Mark’s wicked 10 year old wisdom

A 10 year old friend of mine has nailed down the simplest way to grow as a person. I am fascinated by how simple this is – and how hard.

Mark made some errors on the soccer field last week, got put on the bench and got a “talking to” by the coach. Mark felt really bad and hurt – he made mistakes, which made him feel bad, and his coach told him in no uncertain terms that he had screwed up.

Mark and his mom had a challenging conversation about this. Here is Mark’s wicked wisdom:

1. If I do something right, I want to hear about it. I want to know what I am doing right.

2. If I do something wrong, I want to hear about it. I want to learn how to play the game better.

3. It is really hard to hear that I am doing something wrong but I want to hear it anyway.

4. At times, coaches are not so good at delivering a message. I have to look past that because I want to hear what s/he has to say.

SIte Logo

Category: Nest City: The Human Drive to Thrive in Cities