>> Announcer: THE AGENDA WITH STEVE PAIKIN IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH GENEROUS PHILANTHROPIC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU. THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING TVO's JOURNALISM. >> Steve: CAN TECHNOLOGY DELIVER THE DREAM OF BETTER CITIES THAT WORK FOR ALL, OR IS THE PURSUIT OF THE SMART CITY A BAD IDEA? WE'LL SEE WHAT COMPUTES, TONIGHT. THEN, WHY AUTHOR PARIS MARX THINKS LOOKING TO SILICON VALLEY FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION IS A "ROAD TO NOWHERE."
AND, NAM KIWANUKA FINDS OUT WHAT URBAN PLANNING THROUGH A HUMAN RIGHTS LENS LOOKS LIKE. IT'S THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27th, AND THAT'S ALL AHEAD, ON THE AGENDA. [♪] >> Steve: NOT LONG AGO, A TECHNO-MARVEL SMART-EVERYTHING PROJECT WAS GOING TO RE-INVENT CITIES, STARTING RIGHT ON THE WATERFRONT OF ONTARIO'S CAPITAL CITY. AND THEN, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
MAYBE THAT'S NOT A BAD THING, SEEMS TO BE THE CONCLUSION OF SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK ABOUT CITIES A LOT. LET'S FIND OUT MORE FROM: VASS BEDNAR, SHE IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT McMASTER UNIVERSITY'S MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY IN DIGITAL SOCIETY PROGRAM; JOHN LORINC IS HERE, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR OF "DREAM STATES: SMART CITIES, TECHNOLOGY AND THE PURSUIT OF URBAN UTOPIAS"; AND JOSH O'KANE, TECHNOLOGY REPORTER FOR THE GLOBE AND MAIL AND AUTHOR OF "SIDEWAYS, THE CITY GOOGLE COULDN'T BUY." GREAT TO HAVE YOU ALL AROUND OUR TABLE HERE AT TVO TONIGHT. JOSH, I'M GOING TO PUT YOU TO WORK FIRST. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SMART CITIES.
I NEED YOU TO DEFINE WHAT THEY ARE. >> Josh: IT'S KIND OF A BUZZWORD. WHEN WE THINK OF THE REALM OF TECHNOLOGY COULD DO FOR US. IN 2007, 2008, THESE NEW THINGS CALLED SMARTPHONES WERE SUDDENLY IN EVERYONE'S POCKETS.
AND PEOPLE WERE THINKING WHAT COULD BE SMART NEXT. CISCO, IBM, WANTED TO REWIRE CITIES AND HAVE CENTRAL COMMANDS TO MAKE CITIES A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT FROM THE WAY THAT THEY'RE RUN. THAT DID NOT NECESSARILY GO OVER WELL. THERE WERE A LOT OF COST OVERRUNS, A FEW CONTROVERSIES, A PLACE IN SOUTH KOREA, IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY A GREAT, YOU KNOW, SUCCESSOR TO THE SMARTPHONE. AND THEN IN SORT OF THE MID 2010s, SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS LATER, THERE WAS SORT OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA WORLD AND THOSE COMPANIES STARTED THINKING WHAT CAN WE DO FOR CITIES, PARTICULARLY A COMPANY CALLED SIDEWALK LABS, WANTED TO BUILD A CITY FROM THE SIDEWALK UP, WHAT CAN WE DO FOR PEOPLE? CAN WE REALLY MAKE THE SIDEWALK ITSELF A LAB AND THINKING ABOUT HOW CAN WE EMBED TECHNOLOGIES TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVERYDAY PEOPLE.
BUT IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A SMART CITY? NOT NECESSARILY. BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY BUILT ONE IN A SUCCESSFUL WAY THAT'S BEEN CELEBRATED AS SOMETHING THAT HAS MADE LIFE BETTER FOR PEOPLE. >> Steve: VASS, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE ON THE GROUND, IF YOU LIVED IN A SMART CITY OR A SMART NEIGHBOURHOOD, YOU WOULD THEREFORE WHAT? >> Vass: WHEN YOU THINK OF A CITY IN A BINARY WAY, THAT'S WHERE IT FALLS DOWN. WHAT WE'RE POINTING TO IS THE APPLICATION OF PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE MEANT TO ENHANCE OUR CIVIC LIFE, MANAGE TRAFFIC BETTER, MANAGE GARBAGE DISPOSAL BETTER, HELP KIND OF FLOW PEOPLE THROUGH A CITY, TRY TO LEARN FROM EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON INSIDE A CITY TO MAKE CITIES ARGUABLY BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT, BETTER RUN.
SO WHAT WOULD IT MEAN IF WE WERE LIVING IN ONE? I MEAN, IDEALLY YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW, NOT IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S DECEPTIVE -- >> Steve: BUT THINGS WOULD WORK BETTER? >> Vass: A LITTLE BIT SMOOTHER, YEAH. >> Steve: AS YOU LOOK AT A MAP OF THE WORLD, CAN YOU POINT TO A DOT ANYWHERE THAT SAYS, OH, THAT'S A SMART CITY, THEY'RE DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS? >> John: AS JOSH MENTIONED THERE ARE PLACES THAT ARE SELF-DESCRIBED AS SMART CITIES. THEY'RE CITIES THAT HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY IN THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
BUT I THINK THE THINK ABOUT THE SMART CITY LABEL IS IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE CONSTRAINED. AND WHAT CITIES ARE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT, MUCH MORE COMPLICATED AND MORE RESILIENT TO AND DEFIANT ABOUT THE IMPOSITION OF A SET OF TECHNOLOGIES, AND SO I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY SAY, OKAY, THIS IS A GREAT WORKING EXAMPLE. >> Steve: DOES THE IDEA APPEAL TO YOU, THOUGH? >> John: I THINK THAT -- I THINK THAT IT'S AN OVERLY NARROW SET OF SOLUTIONS TO THE NATURE OF URBAN LIFE, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, I WAS IN MEXICO CITY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
IT'S 22 MILLION PEOPLE. THERE ARE AN INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF THINGS GOING ON ALL AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S A VERY VIBRANT PLACE. AND I WAS WALKING AROUND THINKING: THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY KIND OF COME UP WITH AN INVENTORY OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT MANAGE THAT SPACE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD THING, I THINK. >> Steve: YOU PREFER THE SORT OF MORE ORGANIC WAY -- >> John: YEAH, I BELIEVE IN THE MOTION OF MESSIER URBANISM AND CITIES WERE NOT MEANT TO BE KIND OF MANAGED IN A RATIONAL WAY LIKE THAT. >> Steve: VASS, DOES THE NOTION OF A SMART CITY APPEAL TO YOU, GENERALLY SPEAKING? >> Vass: ELEMENTS OF A SMARTER CITY CERTAINLY APPEAL TO ME AND I THINK WE HEAR THAT FROM CITIZENS NOW AND THEN BUT NOT ALWAYS ARTICULATED IN THAT WAY. FOR INSTANCE, WITH SOMETHING LIKE SPEED CAMERAS THAT WE'RE STARTING TO GET USED TO. WE HAVE EXPECTATIONS THAT THIS WILL BE A MORE KIND OF EFFICIENT EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF, YOU KNOW, EQUITABLY PENALIZING PEOPLE WHO SPEED IN CERTAIN AREAS. AND AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THEM, WE REALIZE THEY COME WITH ADDITIONAL COST.
THERE'S A HUMAN ELEMENT TO THIS. WE HAVE TO SEND TICKETS WITHIN 30 DAYS. SOMETIMES THESE ARE TURNED OFF. SO THE IDEA THAT A TECHNOLOGICAL INTERVENTION IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR GOVERNANCE, OVERSIGHT, HUMANS FOR PEOPLE IN SOME WAY, I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT FALLS APART.
WOULD I LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MY PRESTO CARD ON MY PHONE SO WHEN I LOSE IT, THINGS LIKE THAT, IS THAT A SMARTER CITY OR A SMARTER USE OF TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGIES THAT HELP US GET ALONG. THAT'S WHERE WE CAN GET TRIPPED UP IN SOME OF THE CONVERSATION. >> Steve: I WAS IN NEW YORK A FEW MONTHS AGO FOR A LITTLE SHORT TRIP. YOU CAN TAKE YOUR SMARTPHONE AND YOU CAN PUT IT OVER A SCANNER TO GO INTO THE SUBWAY. YOU CAN'T DO THAT HERE YET.
WHY NOT? >> Vass: THAT'S A LARGER QUESTION AROUND PROCUREMENT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING THAN I'M READY TO ANSWER. >> Steve: IT WAS MORE OF A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I GUESS. >> Vass: ONE OF THE SMARTEST THINGS I THINK WE CAN DO AS CITIES IS ANTICIPATE WHERE THESE TRENDS ARE GOING ON THE HORIZON AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ALSO BEING, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, SMART ABOUT THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT AND OUR GOVERNANCE APPROACH TO THESE TECHNOLOGIES AND I THINK THAT'S ILLUMINATED IN BOTH OF THESE BOOKS. >> Steve: JOSH, WHEN YOU WERE DOING RESEARCH FOR YOUR BOOK, DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION -- I MEAN, YOU THREE THINK ABOUT THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING. DO YOU THINK THE PUBLIC IS INTERESTED IN LIVING IN A QUOTE, UNQUOTE, SMART OR SMARTER CITY? >> Josh: I SAW THE RESEARCH THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE ABOUT WHAT SIDEWALK LABS WAS TRYING TO DO IN TORONTO IN PARTNERSHIP WITH WATERFRONT TORONTO, BASICALLY SHOWED THAT ABOUT HALF OF THE PUBLIC WASN'T REALLY AWARE OF WHAT WAS EVEN HAPPENING.
PEOPLE ARE GOING ABOUT THEIR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES AND THEY WANT THINGS TO IMPROVE THEIR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES. THEY'RE NOT THINKING IN TERMS LIKE PEOPLE WORKING FOR LARGE PRIVATE COMPANIES, MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT OR THINKING ABOUT THOSE TWO PARTS OF SOCIETY ARE THINKING ABOUT ALL THE TIME. SO IT DOESN'T -- IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS.
I THINK EVERYONE LOVES THE IDEA OF HEATED SIDEWALKS THAT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, MAKE YOUR BIKE LANE SAFE AND DRY IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT SIDEWALK LABS PROPOSED. THAT OFTEN GETS LOST IN THE MIX OF WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE THINKING ABOUT, WHAT ORDER SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS IF WE WANT TO PROPOSE A SMART CITY IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THAT GOES TO WHAT VASS SAID. THE WORD CENSOR SHOWED UP A DOZEN OF TIMES IN SIDEWALK LABS' ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WHICH LED TO THIS WHOLE PROJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY BIG IMPLICATIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT BEFORE THEY EMBARK ON THESE SORT OF BIG SHINY, GLOSSY PROJECTS. >> Steve: OKAY.
HAVING SAID THAT, VASS, CAN YOU THINK OF ANY EXAMPLES IN ONE OF THE BIGGER CITIES OF THIS PROVINCE OF ONTARIO WHERE TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO BEAR TO, I DON'T CARE IF IT'S FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION OR GARBAGE PICKUP -- PICK A PROBLEM. TECHNOLOGY WAS BROUGHT TO BEAR, THEY CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION, THINGS WORKED BETTER. >> Vass: IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY COMING FIRST AND THAT CATALYZING A POLICY RESPONSE? I CAN'T COME UP TO THAT. MAYBE I CAN POINT TO SOMETHING JOHN TACKLES IN HIS BOOK, WASTEWATER SURVEILLANCE. WE'VE BECOME USED TO ANONYMIZED AGGREGATED DATE.
AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE NECESSARILY INCORPORATE INTO OUR VISION OF BEING QUOTE, UNQUOTE, SMART. BUT IT'S A FORM OF KIND OF SOFT SURVEILLANCE. ARE WE VIEWING THAT AS A SUCCESS? THERE ARE SCHOLARS MAKING THE IMPORTANT POINT THAT WE DON'T YET HAVE THE RIGHT GOVERNANCE REGIME FOR THIS APPROACH. BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE KIND OF CITIZEN RESISTANCE TO IT THAT WE SAW AND THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS OPPOSING THE APPLICATIONS OF THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
>> Steve: DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? BECAUSE THAT WAS BIG DURING COVID. >> John: YEAH. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE WHERE THERE'S A SET OF TECHNOLOGIES LIKE WATER SAMPLING AND A PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVE AND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A WAY OF DISSEMINATING THE INFORMATION. SO IT ACTUALLY -- I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE.
I MEAN, ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHICH I THINK HAS A GREAT DEAL OF PROMISE AND USES DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY MORE IS MANAGING ELECTRICAL GRIDS, RIGHT? SO TO DECARBONIZE, IF YOU LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE ELECTRICITY IS CLEAN, LIKE ONTARIO, YOU WANT TO MOVE AS MUCH AWAY FROM NATURAL GAS AND FOSSIL FUELS TO ELECTRICITY. BUT MANAGING THE ELECTRICAL GRID IS REALLY, REALLY COMPLICATED. THERE ARE EMERGING AND IN-USE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE ABLE TO SORT OF, YOU KNOW, ADJUST LOADS AND -- YOU KNOW, SO I HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SMART THERMOSTAT IN MY HOUSE WHICH HAS AN APP ON MY PHONE.
>> Steve: WHICH MEANS WHAT? >> John: WHICH MEANS IT AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTS, IT'S GOT SENSORS IN THE HOUSE. SO I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT KEEPS THE TEMPERATURE RIGHT.
AND THEN IT ALSO FEEDS DATA ON MY ENERGY CONSUMPTION TO THE COMPANY WHICH USES IT FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES, AND, YOU KNOW, HELPS TO ASSESS WHAT EMERGENCY LOADS ARE LIKE WHEN PEOPLE ARE USING MORE ELECTRICITY. THAT'S A KIND OF APPLICATION WHICH I THINK IS SMART AND IT'S NECESSARY, RIGHT? IT'S NOT SURVEILLANCE. >> Steve: OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON. THEORETICALLY, WHEN YOU USE YOUR POWER IN YOUR HOME IS KIND OF PRIVATE, PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF YOURS, AND YET YOU DON'T MIND SHARING THAT WITH THE COMPANY THAT'S PROVIDING THE ELECTRICITY? >> John: I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE I OPTED FOR THE SHARING AND THEY HAVE A PROTOCOL WHICH ANONYMIZES THE DATA, RIGHT? SO MY CUSTOMER INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE USAGE DATA THAT THEY SORT OF GATHER FROM LOTS OF HOMES AND TRY TO DO THEIR CALCULATIONS AROUND LOAD, YOU KNOW, AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
SO I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. IT WAS A QUESTION THAT SIDEWALK -- I THINK JOSH TALKS ABOUT THIS IN HIS BOOK A LOT. THAT THEY DIDN'T REALLY ADDRESS IN A PERSUASIVE WAY. >> Steve: WE DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW SIDEWALK WENT SIDEWAYS BECAUSE INITIALLY THIS WAS UNVEILED, YOU GAVE ONE VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN YOUR VERY SPECIFIC LIFE.
SIDEWALK WAS GOING TO BUILD A WHOLE COMMUNITY DOWN AT THE WATERFRONT IN TORONTO WHICH WOULD HAVE INCORPORATED THIS IDEA AND MANY OTHERS THAT WAS GOING TO BE A VERY SMART NEIGHBOURHOOD AND THE APPEAL AMONG MANY POLITICAL LEADERS IN THIS TOWN, JOSH, WAS OFF THE CHARTS. A LOT OF PEOPLE DOVE IN. WHAT DID THEY LOVE ABOUT IT? >> Josh: YOU HAVE TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A STEP BACK ABOUT THAT. WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE WORLD LOOKED LIKE IN 2015 WHICH SOMETIMES LOOKS LIKE YESTERDAY WAS ACTUALLY SEVEN YEARS AGO WHEN SIDEWALK LABS WAS SORT OF BEGINNING, JUST BEFORE THIS THING THAT WAS CALLED THE TECH-LASH WHERE PEOPLE STARTED GETTING MORE PARANOID ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE COLLECTED ABOUT THEM, THERE WAS NOTHING MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN A JOB AT FACEBOOK OR GOOGLE OR TWITTER.
THESE REALLY LOOKED PROGRESSIVE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE SORT OF ADVANCING SOCIETY IN A TECHNOLOGICAL WAY. BUT TECHNICAL PROGRESS IS NOT NECESSARILY POLITICAL PROCESS. BUT PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO HAVE THE OPTICS OF LOOKING POLITICALLY PROGRESSIVE, SUCH AS WE HAD A LIBERAL PRIME MINISTER AND A LIBERAL PREMIER AT THE TIME IN 2017 WHEN SIDEWALK LABS FIRST WALKED INTO TORONTO AND -- >> Steve: KATHLEEN WYNNE. >> Josh: AND JUSTIN TRUDEAU AND JOHN TORY, SORT OF A CENTRIST, I THINK, AND THE OPTICS WERE GREAT. YOU HAD A COSIGN FROM ONE OF THE BIGGEST AND MOST INTERESTING COMPANIES IN THE WORLD. AS A RESULT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE SCRUTINY GIVEN BY THOSE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT WHEN SIDEWALK LABS WALKED INTO TOWN.
THEN AFTER SOMEWHAT YOU CAN LABS STARTED RUNNING INTO CONTROVERSY, WHERE VERY SMART PEOPLE, SOME OF WHOM APPEARED ON THIS SHOW, ADD HOW IS THIS DATA GOING TO BE USED -- HOW IS DATA GOING TO BE COLLECTED THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THE RFP, HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE USED? ALL THESE GOVERNMENTS WERE LIKE, OH, WAIT, SHOULD WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? IN THE END THEY DIDN'T. THAT WAS 2017. NOW IT'S 2022.
AS A EXAMPLE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO UPDATE IT'S NOW 22-YEAR-OLD PRIVATE SECTOR PRIVACY LAW. THAT'S NOT EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL MEDIA AS IT EXISTED IN 2007. >> Steve: LET ALONE TODAY. >> Josh: LET ALONE TODAY. >> Steve: WHEN THE WHOLE SIDEWALK LABS PROJECT FIRST CAME ON THE HORIZON, WHAT DID YOU THINK? >> Vass: I REMEMBER THERE BEING A GREAT DEAL OF BUZZ ABOUT IT.
THE LASH DIDN'T COME OUT THE GATE I THINK AS STRONG. CERTAINLY PEOPLE WERE STARRY EYED WANTING TO LEARN MORE, THIRSTY FOR MORE INFORMATION. MAYBE NOT AS THIRSTY AS THE POLITICAL CLASS FOR THIS VERY ELUSIVE THING CALLED INNOVATION.
AND ONCE PEOPLE WANTED TO CLICK FURTHER DOWN, READ MORE, UNDERSTAND IT BETTER, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF SPAGHETTI AT THE WALL, RIGHT? THERE WAS A TENSION BETWEEN THE CURRENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT WE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE. THERE WASAMBIGUITY ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPER RIGHTS. I REMEMBER FOLLOWING EVERYTHING WITH GREAT INTEREST AND ALSO REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO HOW WE PRESENTED POWER IN THE CITY, RIGHT? YOU HAD COALITIONS OF FORMER MAYORS. YOU HAD MAJOR URBANISTS SIGNING LETTERS IN THE GLOBE AND MAIL . AND YOU ALSO HAD EVERYDAY PEOPLE DEMANDING MORE AND ASKING REALLY IMPORTANT AND TOUGH QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK A QUESTION STILL FOR ME GOING FORWARD IS: DID TORONTO MAKE ENOUGH USE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY KEEP THINKING ABOUT THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT THAT WE NEED IN THE FUTURE FOR SMART CITIES JUST BECAUSE SIDEWALK LABS ISN'T HERE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS SUITE OF TECHNOLOGIES, THERE'S STILL TONS OF RESEARCH, INNOVATION, LOBBYING, PROCUREMENT ALL AROUND MAKING CITIES SMARTER. >> Steve: BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. YOU'RE A TECH PERSON.
YOU DON'T HATE TECH, RIGHT? YOU DON'T START FROM A DEFAULT POSITION OF HATING TECH. SO I WONDERED WHETHER YOU WERE KIND OF VERY TURNED ON BY THIS IDEA OF A SMART NEIGHBOURHOOD ON THE WATERFRONT? >> Vass: WAS I TURNED ON BY IT? I WAS CERTAINLY VERY INTRIGUED BY ELEMENTS, FOR SURE. WHAT COULD WE LEARN? WHAT'S DID IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE. HEATED SIDEWALK COMES UP A LOT. SOME OF THE GARBAGE ELEMENTS.
MAYBE BECAUSE I'M A MILLENNIAL, THE SUBJECT OF DEEP AFFORDABILITY WAS AN ASPECT. BEING A TECH POLICY PERSON, I HAVE A HEALTHY AMOUNT OF SCEPTICISM BUT I CARE ABOUT HAVING THE RIGHT RULES IN PLACE. RIGHT RULES MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR EVERYONE, COMPANIES INCLUDED.
>> Steve: WHEN YOU SAW THE PLANS AT FIRST BLUSH, WHAT DID YOU THINK? >> John: I'VE BEEN COVERING WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND SO I WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT THE BUILT FORM WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. SO I REMEMBER ACTUALLY SITTING IN A COFFEE SHOP READING THAT -- HOW LONG WAS THE PDF? LIKE 150 PAGES -- >> Josh: 225, THE ORIGINAL ONE. >> John: 225. AND THINKING THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN THERE WHICH JUST IS VERY KIND OF OUT OF STEP WITH WHAT WATERFRONT TORONTO WAS DOING IN TERMS OF ITS OWN PLANS FOR REVITALIZING THE WATERFRONT.
SO IT IMMEDIATELY STRUCK ME AS A CHANGE IN DIRECTION. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT STRUCK ME IS THAT THE WAY THEY CONCEPTUALIZED WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO, BUILDING A CITY FROM THE INTERNET UP, STRUCK ME AS BEING NOT UNLIKE THE APP STORE ON YOUR SMARTPHONE. THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE IN THE SPACE, ALL THESE USERS, AND THAT THEY WOULD KIND OF ALLOW TECH COMPANIES AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND TURN IT INTO A KIND OF SERVICE. IT SEEMED VERY OPEN-ENDED TO ME.
THE THIRD THING AND YOU TALK ABOUT THIS IN YOUR BOOK IS THE WORD "LAB" DID NOT APPEAL TO ME AT ALL. I'M INTERESTED IN CITY BUILDING WHICH I DON'T THINK IS -- I MEAN, IT HAS EXPERIMENTAL COMPONENTS TO IT. BUT WHEN YOU BUILD A CITY, YOU WANT THE CITY TO BE THERE. SO TO ME IT FELT VERY PROVISIONAL AND THOSE WERE MY FIRST REACTIONS. >> Steve: IN A WAY, JOSH, I'M KIND OF ASKING YOU TO DO IN THE NEXT MINUTE AND A HALF WHAT YOU'VE TAKEN 350 PAGES TO DO IN THE BOOK, WHICH IS TO SAY, AT FIRST THIS LOOKED LIKE IT HAD A LOT OF THE ELEMENTS THAT TORONTONIANS WOULD LIKE.
IT WAS FUTURISTIC LOOKING, IT WAS A BIG AMERICAN COMPANY FROM NEW YORK COMING UP HERE SAYING WE WANT TO MAKE TORONTO THIS JEWEL ON THE WATERFRONT TO SHOW THE WHOLE WORLD AND TORONTO'S GOT SUCH A COMPLEX ABOUT BEING A WORLD CLASS CITY SO IT FIT INTO ALL OF THAT, RIGHT? BUT AT SOME POINT IT WENT OFF THE RAILS AND ULTIMATELY, OBVIOUSLY, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. WHEN DID IT START TO GO OFF THE RAILS? >> Josh: AS SOON AS SIDEWALK LABS AND WATERFRONT TORONTO STARTED SPEAKING, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THERE WAS A DIVERGENCE IN WHAT THEY WANTED. SIDEWALK LABS, PRIOR TO EVER COMING TO TORONTO, WAS THINKING ABOUT BASICALLY BUILDING, YOU KNOW, IMPRINTING A WHOLE NEW CITY JUST LIKE ALL OVER DETROIT OR ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF DENVER OR OVER A PIECE OF THE BAY AREA, JUST PLOPPING IN A NEW CITY WITH A DOME ON TOP OF IT AT ONE POINT WAS ONE OF THEIR IDEAS.
AND WATERFRONT TORONTO SAID WE'VE GOT 12 ACRES. WOULD YOU LIKE 12 ACRES? AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS CONTEST FOR IT AND SIDEWALK LABS EASILY WON THAT CONTEST. BUT SIDEWALK LABS IS A GOOGLE AFFILIATE -- WAS A GOOGLE AFFILIATE COMPANY, NOW IT'S PART OF GOOGLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. GOOGLE IS AN ENORMOUSLY AMBITIOUS COMPANY THAT WROTE THE RULES OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY. AND THE REAL-LIFE WORLD OF CITIES AND DEMOCRACIES IS A LOT MORE RIGID AND MESSIER THAN THAT.
AND SO RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING YOU HAD A COMPANY THAT WANTED MORE THAN 12 ACRES, THREW OUT THEIR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RESPONSE AND IN THE STUFF I GOT OVER THE COURSE OF RESEARCHING FOR THE BOOK WHICH WAS NEVER MADE PUBLIC, THEY WANTED A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OF THE PORTLANDS IN THE WATERFRONT. THAT FUNDAMENTALLY WAS THE GREATEST MISALIGNMENT WAS, WHAT FROM MULTIPLE PEOPLE AROUND THE PROJECT, THIS WAS THIS SORT OF BORING BUREAUCRATIC CANADIAN TRIPARTITE GOVERNMENT AGENCY UP AGAINST, YOU KNOW, THIS SORT OF BRAND NEW SIDE PROJECT OF ONE OF THE MOST MAVERICK-LIKE COMPANIES EVER TO EXIST. THERE WAS CONSTANT CLASHES WHO WAS GOING TO PRESENT IDEAS VERSUS APPROVING THEM AND PARTICULARLY AROUND LAND BECAUSE GOOGLE THINKS BIG. IT WANTS SCALE IN TECH PARLANCE.
AND WATERFRONT TORONTO WAS REALLY ONLY PREPARED OR REALLY ONLY LEGALLY ABLE TO GIVE IT THE 12 ACRES, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VERY SLOW SLOG OF TORONTO CITY-BUILDING PROCESSES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GET ANYTHING MORE AND THAT JUST DIDN'T WORK OUT. >> Steve: SO THERE'S ALL THAT. JOHN, PICK UP THE STORY FROM THERE.
HOW MUCH, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THAT, WAS THE NOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE UP A LOT OF OUR PERSONAL PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TO THIS COMPANY, AND WE'RE NOT REALLY -- WE'RE NOT SATISFIED EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO BE USED WITH IT. HOW MUCH OF THAT WAS PART OF THE STORY? >> John: I THINK THAT WAS REALLY A DRIVING FORCE IN THE STORY AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE ACTIVISTS AND PEOPLE WHO WERE ASKING REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU -- WHEN YOU'RE WALKING THROUGH PUBLIC SPACE AND THERE ARE SENSORS ALL AROUND, HOW ARE YOU GIVING CONSENT TO THEM COLLECTING INFORMATION ON YOU, RIGHT? I HAVE A DOG. WHY DOES ANYBODY NEED TO KNOW THAT I'M TAKING MY DOG FOR A WALK AND WHAT THAT ROUTE IS, RIGHT? >> Steve: WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? WHY DID THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION? >> John: BECAUSE THE BUSINESS MODEL WHICH NEVER ACTUALLY MATERIALIZED, BUT THE IDEA WAS IF YOU AGGREGATE A LOT OF INFORMATION, YOU COLLECT A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DATA, AND THEN YOU LET SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS HAVE A GO AT IT AND SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH IT, THEN YOU CAN COME UP WITH THINGS THAT HELP THE CITY, SOLUTIONS THAT HELP THE CITY, AND THAT THESE ARE VERY TECH CONNECTED. AND SO THAT WAS THE SORT OF THINKING. THEY SAID THEY HAD A PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ON STAFF FOR A WHILE OR PRIVACY ADVISOR ON STAFF AND THEY SAID, OKAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, NO NAMES, WE'RE GOING TO ANONYMIZE EVERYTHING. BUT IN REALITY YOU CAN DEANONYMIZE DATA.
YOU COULD USE AGGREGATED DATA FOR THE WRONG REASONS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE SURVEIL A PARK AND YOU HAVE SENSORS ON PARK BENCHES FOR A WHILE, YOU DISCOVER THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY AT FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AT ONE PARTICULAR PARK BENCH, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHO, BUT YOU CAN TAKE STEPS TO ACT ON THAT INFORMATION IF YOU'RE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR THE CONDO BOARD OR WHATEVER. SO I THINK THAT THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE NOT PERSUASIVE ABOUT PRIVACY PROTECTION. AS JOSH MENTIONED, IT CAME AFTER CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, IT CAME AFTER -- THERE WAS LIKE A BIG WAKE-UP CALL ABOUT WHAT -- HOW FAR TECH CAN REACH INTO YOUR LIFE AND HOW FAR SHOULD TECH REACH INTO A CITY.
I WANT TECH IN THE CITY, RIGHT? TECH IS AN IMPORTANT PART, IT BUILDS OUR CITIES. BUT THERE IS A BALANCE, RIGHT? AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT FOUND THE BALANCE. >> Steve: WELL, LET'S FOUND OUT FROM VASS ABOUT THAT. WHEN WE USE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, WHICH SOUNDS MORE NEFARIOUS THAN PERHAPS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE, IS THERE INEVITABLY AT THE END OF THE DAY GOING TO BE A FIGHT ABOUT PRIVACY? >> Vass: ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THIS POINT THAT CANADA HAS YET TO FULLY UPDATE ITS FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALK LABS PLAN, USING THE WORD PLAN. I THINK IT WAS CLOSER TO A PITCH, SUITABLE FOR A VENTURE CAPITALIST AUDIENCE ON SPEC, ON THE PROMISE OF THIS VISION, WE'RE READY TO FUND YOU AND WE'RE READY TO GO FORWARD. JOSH MAKES THIS POINT IN HIS BOOK VERY WELL.
WE SAW BEHAVIOURS VERY COMMON TO THE DIGITAL ECONOMY WHERE IT SPILLS OVER INTO OUR ANALOGUE WORLD. AND THEY JUST DIDN'T FIT AS WELL THERE. YES, IF WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH, YOU KNOW, SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY FOR GOOD OR FOR THE PEOPLE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED BETTER REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTS FOR PEOPLE, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE COMPETITION IMPLICATION.
SO A LOT OF MY RESEARCH FOCUSES ON COMPETITION, RIGHT, AND WE MISSED SOME OF THAT. AND JOHN TOUCHES ON THIS IN HIS BOOK. SOME OF THE DOWNSIDES OF SMART CITIES, POTENTIALLY. >> Steve: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? >> Vass: THINGS LIKE IN YOUR TVO CITY YOU SIGN WITH JOHN. HIS BUSINESS GOES OUT OF BUSINESS SO YOU CAN'T GET AN UPGRADE. HE CHANGES THE PRICE ON YOU.
YOU CAN'T THEN BUY CAMERA SENSORS FROM JOSH'S COMPANY, RIGHT? YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY. YOU WANT TO ALLOW FOR TRUE COMPETITION AND YOU DON'T WANT MUNICIPALITIES TO BE ON THE HOOK IN PARTICULAR WAYS. WE MISSED A LITTLE BIT OF THAT OUT THE GATE BECAUSE CERTAINLY ALL OF THESE COMPANIES ARE KIND OF FIGHTING IN KIND OF AN ARMS RACE TO BECOME THE DE FACTO PRODUCT AND SERVICE PROVIDER OF THE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, IDEALLIZED SMART CITY BECAUSE THAT'S A REVENUE STREAM FOR THEM AS WELL. >> Steve: MM-HMM. JOSH, YOU'VE CHRONICLED HOW IT WENT DOWN. IS THERE A PART OF YOU IN TELLING THE STORY THAT REGRETS THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN? >> Josh: I MEAN, IT'S INTERESTING, RIGHT, BECAUSE I'M A TECHNOLOGY REPORTER.
I FUNDAMENTALLY SORT OF BASK MYSELF IN SORT OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF THESE COMPANIES. I CARRY A SMARTPHONE. I USE A COMPUTER. I CANNOT GET AROUND THE CITY WITHOUT GOOGLE MAPS. YOU KNOW, TO ME THE IDEA OF MAKING CITY LIFE BETTER THROUGH TECHNOLOGY, YOU KNOW, IS A WAY TO MAKE CITIES MORE EQUITABLE AND MORE INCLUSIVE.
BUT FOR ME I GUESS, YOU KNOW, AS A REPORTER, I TRY NOT TO BE SORT OF PRESCRIPTIVE. BUT I THINK -- THERE WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY IN THAT THIS COULD HAVE, IF THIS WERE THOUGHT THROUGH IN A MEANINGFUL WAY ON A PARTNERSHIP THAT WAS EQUAL ON ALL SIDES, THAT WE COULD HAVE HAD -- I REALLY ENJOYED COVERING THIS STORY BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH AT STAKE AND SO MANY PEOPLE WHO JUST HAD VERY EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO EVERYTHING THAT IT FELT VERY MUCH LIKE THIS BATTLE OVER HOW POWER WILL BE EXERTED IN 21ST CENTURY CITIES OVER THE NEXT HUNDREDS OF YEARS. AND SO AS A REPORTER I ENJOYED COVERING THAT AND I THINK WE WOULD HAVE REALLY HAD -- TORONTO COULD HAVE BEEN THE CENTRE, NOT NECESSARILY OF SHINY NEW TECHNOLOGIES, BUT THE CENTRE OF DEBATE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF WHAT WE WANT IN SOCIETY AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING AND WHAT WE WANT OUR GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNMENTS, RATHER, TO PRIORITIZE. >> Steve: GOTCHA.
THAT WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION, EVERYBODY. DO YOU MIND IF I PLUG YOUR BOOK HERE? >> John: NO. >> Steve: I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD. THAT'S JOHN LORINC, "SIDEWAYS, BOOK "DREAMSTATES." AND SIDEWAYS THE CITY GOOGLE COULDN'T BUY IS JOSH O'KANE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS. WE ARE DELIGHTED IT'S BROUGHT THE THREE OF YOU INTO OUR STUDIO AT TVO TONIGHT.
THANKS, ALL. [ ♪ ] >> Steve: THERE'S A VERSION OF THE FUTURE WHERE SELF-DRIVING ELECTRIC CARS FERRY PEOPLE AROUND IN AN EMISSION-FREE BUT CAR-FRIENDLY WORLD. PARIS MARX IS NOT BUYING IT FOR A MINUTE. WHY NOT? THAT'S LAID OUT IN THEIR NEW BOOK. IT'S CALLED: "ROAD TO NOWHERE: WHAT SILICON VALLEY GETS WRONG ABOUT THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION."
PARIS MARX HOSTS THE PODCAST, "TECH WON'T SAVE US" AND JOINS US NOW IN OUR STUDIO. NICE TO MEET YOU. NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE. I WANT TO START BY READING AN EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK AND THEN WE'LL DIVE IN. >> Steve: HMM.
THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT TAKE ON THINGS, AS YOU WELL KNOW. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE NOTION THAT WE HAVE A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WAS DEVELOPED OSTENSIBLY BY CAPITALISM, BY THE PROFIT MOTIVE? >> Paris: I THINK IT ENDS UP SERVING A CERTAIN ARRAY OF INTERESTS OVER WHAT WE NEED TO GET AROUND. IT DOESN'T BEST SERVE THE COMMUNITIES. IT DOESN'T LOOK TO ENSURE THAT WE GET AROUND IN AN EFFICIENT WAY, AN AFFORDABLE WAY. IT'S HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO SPEND MORE AND MORE OF THEIR MONEY ON TRANSPORTATION AND THEN THAT BENEFITS A WHOLE LOAD OF DIFFERENT INTERESTS, WHETHER IT'S AUTO COMPANIES OR OIL COMPANIES OR VARIOUS OTHER INTERESTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. >> Steve: YOU LIVE IN NEWFOUNDLAND.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> Steve: IS OUR EXPERIENCE DIFFERENT IN CANADA THAN WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED? >> I THINK IT'S QUITE SIMILAR, ACTUALLY. CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK TO THE UNITED STATES AS SOMEWHERE WHERE THE AUTOMOBILE IS MAYBE MOST ENTRENCHED BUT VERY MUCH THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, CARRIED OVER TO CANADA. WE'VE MADE MAJOR INVESTMENTS IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE AUTOMOBILES CERTAINLY WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE OF TRIPS THAT PEOPLE TAKE USING CARS. IT'S REALLY HIGH BECAUSE WE HAVE BUILT OUR COMMUNITIES IN SUCH A WAY THAT FOR MANY PEOPLE YOU NEED A CAR JUST TO GET AROUND.
>> Steve: HAD IT NOT UNFOLDED THE WAY IT HAS, IN OTHER WORDS IF WE COULD GO BACK AND REDESIGN IT IN A WAY THAT YOU THINK IS MORE COMMODEIOUS TO OTHER INTERESTS, HOW WOULD WE HAVE DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY? >> I THINK WE WOULDN'T HAVE PUT SO MUCH EFFORT INTO ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DRIVE BECAUSE THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- SURE, YOU HAVE CARS IN THERE BUT YOU ALSO HAVE MANY OTHER DIFFERENT WAYS OF GETTING AROUND THAT, YOU KNOW, WORK FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR CITIES, RIGHT, THERE ARE CONVENIENT. BUT IN MANY OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE ENDED UP BUILDING, AS WE BUILT OUT THE SUBURBS AND ENDED BE EXPANDING THE SIZE OF CITIES, THOSE COMMUNITIES WERE NOT BUILT IN SUCH A WAY WHERE IT'S EASY TO CYCLE TO GET TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO OR TAKE TRANSIT. IT'S BUILT IN A WAY YOU BASICALLY NEED TO DRIVE OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE REALLY INCONVENIENCED WHEN YOU NEED TO GET AROUND. >> Steve: THE SUGGESTION SEEMS TO BE THAT IT WAS THEM, THOSE SORT OF EVIL FORCES THAT FOISTED THIS SYSTEM UPON US AS OPPOSED TO OUR HAVING CHOSEN TO DO IT THIS WAY BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE LIVING IN THE SUBURBS AND THEY LIKE THE WIDER ROADS AND THEY LIKE THE FREEDOM THAT DRIVING A CAR BRINGS, ET CETERA.
YOU DON'T BUY THAT? >> I THINK IT'S A MIX, RIGHT? I THINK THAT THERE WERE DEFINITELY REASONS TO ADOPT THAT EARLY ON WHEN IT WAS BEING SOLD TO PEOPLE, RIGHT? AND WHEN YOU THINK OF, YOU KNOW, VISIONS OF THE FUTURE AS THEY'RE OFTEN SOLD TO PEOPLE, WHEN YOU THINK BACK TO THE EARLY PROMISE OF THE AUTOMOBILE, THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU WERE GOING TO SPEND STUCK IN TRAFFIC WASN'T PART OF THE PROMISE, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU SPENT ON AN AUTOMOBILE WEREN'T PART OF THE PROMISE, A LOT OF THINGS WEREN'T PART OF THE CONTRACT GIVEN TO PEOPLE AS TO WHAT THIS SUBURBAN FUTURE WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. I THINK NOW, A NUMBER OF DECADES ON, WE CAN LOOK BACK AT THAT AND SAY, THERE WERE THINGS THAT MAYBE MADE SENSE ABOUT WHAT WE WERE DOING IN THAT MOMENT BUT I THINK WE TOOK IT MUCH TOO FAR, WE ALLOWED THE AUTOMOBILE TO TAKE OVER TOO MUCH, AND IT'S TIME FOR US TO REASSESS THE PAST AND THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THE FUTURE TO RECTIFY SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE CREATED. >> Steve: WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF OUR HIGHWAYS AND CITIES AND WHY IT CAME TO BE THIS WAY? >> I THINK IT CAN BE EASY TO THINK, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT OUR CITIES RIGHT NOW, THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, THIS IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, THIS IS THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE, RIGHT? GOING BACK AND LOOK AT THAT HISTORY SHOWS US IT USED TO BE VERY DIFFERENT.
OUR STREETS WEREN'T ALWAYS EXCLUSIVE ROADWAYS FOR CARS. SURE, THERE'S BUSES ON THERE, STREETCARS, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT LARGELY THE STREET IS THE SPACE FOR A CAR. AT ONE TIME IT WAS A MUCH MORE SHARED SPACE FOR DIFFERENT FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION WHERE PEOPLE COULD WALK AND BIKE AND BECAUSE OF THE LOW SPEEDS THIS WAS NAVIGATED BETWEEN A WHOLE LOAD OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. AND WHEN THE CAR REALLY ROLLED OUT, WE FORGET THERE WAS BACKLASH TO THAT BY PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN CITIES WHO WERE EXPERIENCING THE DIRECT DOWNSIDES OF THAT, AS PEOPLE WERE DYING, CHILDREN IN PARTICULAR, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF PROTESTS AGAINST IT.
I THINK UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CAR CAME TO BE GIVES US MORE INSIGHT INTO HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND ALSO KIND OF DENATURALIZES THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND ALLOWS US TO QUESTION WHAT WE'VE BUILT AND ALSO WHERE IT CAN GO NEXT. >> Steve: I DO REMEMBER SEEING VERY OLD PICTURES OF THIS CITY, THOUGH, BEFORE THE CAR TOOK OVER AND YOU'VE ESSENTIALLY GOT -- YOU'VE GOT DIRT STREETS, RIGHT? DIRT STREETS, NO STREETCARS, VERY LITTLE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT SAYING WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT? >> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS PERFECT AND WE NEED TO LOOK BACK TO BETTER DAYS OR ANYTHING. JUST TO SAY THAT THE STREETS OPERATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY AT ONE TIME.
THEY CAN STILL OPERATE IN A DIFFERENT WAY AGAIN IF WE WANT TO RE-THINK HOW WE DISTRIBUTE SPACE ON THE STREET, WHAT FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION WE GIVE PRIORITY TO. RIGHT NOW A LOT OF PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO THE CAR. AND THE QUESTION IS SHOULD WE GIVE MORE OF THAT SPACE OVER TO CYCLISTS OR BUS LANES OR THINGS LIKE THAT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET AROUND IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE NOT TO TAKE A CAR TO GET AROUND THE CITY. >> Steve: PART OF THE CONTRACT WE HAVE APPARENTLY MADE WITH THE CAR INVOLVES, AS YOU JUST INDICATED, A LOT OF DEATH.
AND I WANT TO JUST PUT SOME NUMBERS ON THE TABLE THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN YOUR BOOK. YOU HAVE WRITTEN: IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE, 3.7 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY MOTOR VEHICLES SINCE 1899. THAT'S BASICALLY -- I LOOKED IT UP -- THAT'S CROATIA, THE COUNTRY OF CROATIA. THAT'S THEIR POPULATION.
IN THE YEAR 2020, ALMOST 40,000 AMERICANS DIED IN CAR ACCIDENTS. AND WE SHOULDN'T EVEN CALL THEM ACCIDENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACCIDENTS. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WE'RE DYING BY DESIGN. AND YET THERE ARE NO DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE STREETS ABOUT THE UNSAFETY OF OUR STREETS, OUR DESIGN, OUR FAILURE TO SHARE THE ROAD APPROPRIATELY. IT SEEMS TO BE A FACT OF LIFE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS MUCH CARNAGE ON THE ROADS. WHY DO YOU THINK? >> I THINK IT'S QUITE TROUBLING, RIGHT? I THINK IT'S QUITE TROUBLING THAT IT'S BEEN NORMALIZED TO THAT DEGREE AND CERTAINLY THE DEATH FIGURES AREN'T AS BAD IN CANADA THAN IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE IT'S PARTICULARLY BAD.
BUT I THINK IT'S WORRYING THAT WE'VE JUST KIND OF ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS THE TRADE-OFF FOR HAVING ALL THESE CARS AROUND, THAT PEOPLE ARE NATURALLY GOING TO DIE WHEN IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY, WHERE WE CAN MAKE DIFFERENT DECISIONS WHETHER IT IS JUST TO CHANGE THE WAY THAT AUTOMOBILES WORK BETTER. OUR STREETS WORK NOW TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DEATHS THAT AUTOMOBILES ARE CAUSING OR TO MOVE AWAY FROM HAVING SO MANY PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON AUTOMOBILES ALTOGETHER. THERE ARE ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE TODAY IN ORDER TO REDUCE THOSE DEATHS BUT THERE'S NOT THE PRIORITY ON IT THAT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME MOVEMENTS, SOME GROUPS THAT ARE TRYING TO CALL MORE ATTENTION TO THIS, THAT ARE TRYING TO FORCE THIS TO BE MORE OF A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION.
CERTAINLY THERE'S THE GROWTH OF, SAY, VISIONS EURO MOVEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE TRYING TO HAVE THOSE POLICIES ADOPTED TO REDUCE THOSE DEATH NUMBERS. BUT IT'S SERIOUSLY CONCERNING THAT THIS IS A TRADE-OFF THAT WE'VE MADE AND TO RELATE IT TO SOMETHING TODAY, I THINK THAT WE'RE ALSO SEEING A NORMALIZATION WITH COVID AND THINGS LIKE THAT, RIGHT? AS THESE DEATHS CONTINUE, IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO ACCEPT AS LIVING IN SOCIETY AND THE QUESTION IS DO WE REALLY NEED TO ACCEPT THAT OR COULD WE BE DOING THINGS, TO REDUCE ROAD DEATH OR COVID DEATHS, SOMETHING WE HAVE COLLECTIVELY SIDED WE DON'T WANT TO DO. >> Steve: WE SEEM TO BE GOING IN THE OPPOSITE WAY YOU WANT US TO GO.
I LOOK AT THE 400 SERIES OF HIGHWAYS IN THIS PROVINCE, THEY'VE INCREASED THE SPEED LIMITS TO 110 KILOMETRES AN HOUR. AND MY HUNCH IS IF ANYBODY RAN FOR OFFICE ON A PLEDGE TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT IN THE CITY OF TORONTO, FOR EXAMPLE, OR IN OTTAWA, TO 30 KILOMETRES AN HOUR AS OPPOSED TO 50, YOU KNOW, DRIVERS WOULD RISE UP IN ARMS. THEY'D BE FURIOUS ABOUT IT. NO ONE COULD GET ELECTED ON THAT PLATFORM. DOESN'T THIS PROVE PEOPLE LOVE THEIR CARS? THEY LOVE THEIR FREEDOM? THEY'RE PREPARED TO PUT UP WITH A LOT OF CRAP IN ORDER TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DRIVE? >> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK I WOULD SEE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? WE'VE BUILT A SOCIETY WHERE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE DEPENDENT ON CARS TO GET AROUND. AND SO NATURALLY ANYTHING THAT NOW RESTRICTS THEM IN THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT AS THEY PERCEIVE AS THE QUICKEST WAY POSSIBLE, THEY WOULD BE OPPOSED TO IT. I THINK YOU CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC SCIENCE BEHIND THAT, YOU MIGHT SAY, INCREASING THE SPEED LIMIT TO 110 ISN'T REALLY GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO GET WHERE THEY'RE GOING QUICKER FOR THE MOST PART, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO WANT TO BETTER CONTROL THAT AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE SYSTEM BEING MORE EFFICIENT AND THE TRAFFIC BEING MORE EFFICIENT. IT'S LIKE WHEN THERE ARE PROPOSALS FROM TIME TO TIME TO ADD ROADS TO HIGHWAYS OR BUILD NEW HIGHWAYS, THERE'S PLENTY OF TRAFFIC SCIENCE THAT SHOWS THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO REDUCE TRAFFIC IN THE LONG TERM. PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING TO GET STUCK IN TRAFFIC.
WE KEEP DOING IT BECAUSE THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT PEOPLE NATURALLY ASSUME IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD MORE HIGHWAY SPACE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR QUICKER. BUT ACTUALLY WE HAVE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE THAT SHOWS THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. >> Steve: WE HAD AN ELECTION IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO WHERE THE PARTY THAT WON PLEDGED TO BUILD A NEW HIGHWAY FORGOT OF HERE AND THEY WON.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> Steve: THERE YOU GO. LET'S DO ANOTHER QUOTE FROM THE BOOK HERE. SHELDON, DO YOU WANT TO BRING THIS UP? THIS IS ON THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE INTERNET. >> Steve: SO YOU ARE MAKING OBVIOUSLY A COROLLARY HERE BETWEEN WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND NOW WITH THE INTERNET. AND LET'S TALK ABOUT TESLA, WHICH EVERYBODY THINKS IS A FABULOUSLY INNOVATIVE COMPANY AND IS DOING THINGS IN A COMPLETELY NEW AND REVOLUTIONARY WAY.
YOU DON'T THINK SO. WHY NOT? >> NO, NOT EXACTLY. YOU KNOW, I THINK TESLA IS A REALLY INTERESTING EXAMPLE, RIGHT? I THINK IT'S BEEN KIND OF POSITIONED AS THE COMPANY THAT IS LEADING US INTO THE FUTURE OF KIND OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE, RIGHT? I THINK IT HAS CERTAINLY MADE SOME ADVANCES BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE BEFORE ELON MUSK AND CERTAINLY THE PEOPLE WHO HE DEPENDS ON TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK WHILE HE KIND OF DOES THE MARKETING, RIGHT? BUT I THINK THAT WE WERE ALREADY KIND OF HEADING IN A DIRECTION TOWARD ELECTRIC MOBILITY ANYWAY. THERE WERE CAR COMPANIES ALREADY WORKING ON IT JUST BEFORE TESLA.
TESLA CERTAINLY PLAYS A ROLE IN MAKING IT MORE APPEALING TO SOME PEOPLE. BUT I THINK IT'S A DIRECTION WE WERE GOING ON ANYWAY. AND, YOU KNOW, TESLA HAS ALSO BEEN PUSHING THE NOTION THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ARE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER SINCE 2014 AND THEY'RE STILL NOT HERE AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE YET. >> Steve: THERE'S A LOT OF TESTING GOING ON STILL. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> Steve: AND A LOT OF HOPE THAT THAT MAY BE THE WAY TO GO.
YOU'RE NOT SOLD. >> NO. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PAST 8 YEARS OF TALK AROUND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES HAS REALLY SERVED TO DISTRACT US FROM THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE HAVING ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IN OUR CITIES, RIGHT? THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE PROMISED THAT IT WAS GOING TO REDUCE TRAFFIC, MAKE TRANSPORTATION MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDERSERVED BY THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW, ELIMINATE ROAD DEATHS. MEANWHILE, AS YOU WERE SAYING, ROAD DEATHS ARE INCREASING IN THE UNITED STATES, MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE STUCK IN TRAFFICKER.
THE AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ISN'T SEEN IN ANY MASS WAY. WE'RE TAKING ACTIONS TO REMEDY SOME OF THE PROBLEMS. >> Steve: WHAT DO YOU FIND PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC ABOUT UBER FROM A TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION STANDPOINT? >> MANY THINGS. WE COULD TALK FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT UBER. I THINK AT THE CORE, THOUGH, UBER REALLY EMERGES OUT OF THE RECESSION PERIOD, RIGHT? REALLY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF A LOT OF PRECARIOUS LABOUR THAT EXISTED AS A RESULT. PEOPLE WHO ARE LOST THEIR JOBS DURING THE RECESSION -- SORRY.
AND REALLY PROMISED THAT BY USING THESE TECHNOLOGIES IN A WAY TO UPEND THE TAXI SYSTEM, WE WERE GOING TO MAKE TRANSPORTATION A LOT MORE EFFICIENT IN CITIES. AND WHAT INDEPENDENT RESEARCH HAS FOUND IS BASICALLY ALL THE PROMISES THEY MADE ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY WERE GOING TO DELIVER WERE NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH ON AND THEY ACTUALLY MADE TRAFFIC WORSE IN CITIES, THEY DIDN'T SERVE THE UNDERSERVED, THEY DIDN'T REDUCE CAR OWNERSHIP, THEY TOOK PEOPLE AWAY FROM TRANSIT SO IT'S MAKING THOSE TRIPS MORE EFFICIENT, AND THE CORE OF THAT AS WELL IS UBER HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOBBYING AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF ITS DRIVERS TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE CARVED OUT OF EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS, TREATED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. THAT'S NOT ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THE DRIVERS AND THE PEOPLE IN THE GIG ECONOMY, BUT ALSO IF THEY'RE SUCCESSFUL IN ENTRENCHING THAT, PRESENTS THE THREAT OF MORE COMPANIES RECLASSIFYING THEIR WORKERS IN THAT WAY TO CARVE THEM OUT OF THE PROTECTIONS THEY SHOULD HAVE. >> Steve: HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN UBER? >> I'VE BEEN IN AN UBER ONE TIME. >> Steve: AND? >> IT WAS BASICALLY A TAXI.
A FRIEND CALLED IT. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. WHEN IT WAS THERE, I SAID IT WOULD BE MEAN TO THE GUY TO NOT TAKE IT. WE JUST MADE SURE WE TIPPED HIM WELL. >> Steve: LIKE A TAXI EXCEPT YOU CAN ORDER IT ON YOUR PHONE AND I KNOW YOU CAN FOR SOME TAXIS NOW.
CERTAINLY WHEN IT EMERGED, YOU COULD ORDER IT ON YOUR PHONE, PROBABLY A NICER CAR AND PROBABLY CHEAPER. YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S AN INNOVATION? >> NOT REALLY. CERTAINLY MOVING TO BE ABLE TO HAIL IT ON YOUR PHONE, THAT'S SOMETHING NEW. AS YOU SAY A LOT OF TAXI COMPANIES HAVE ADOPTED IT. IT'S NOT A REAL KIND OF TRANSFORMATION OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY.
THE KEY THERE, THOUGH, IS THE COST, RIGHT? THE PROMISE WITH IT, THIS IS GOING TO BE CHEAPER, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE EFFICIENT THAT THE TAXI SYSTEM THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, A BIG PART OF THE REASON THAT UBER WAS CHEAPER THAN THE TAXI INDUSTRY IS THAT IT LOST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR IN ORDER TO FINANCE ITS GROWTH AND IT STILL LOSES MONEY TO THIS DAY. IT'S NOT A PROFITABLE COMPANY. SO IT BENEFITTED FROM LOSING ALL THAT MONEY BECAUSE INVESTORS KEPT GIVING IT MONEY TO LOSE BECAUSE WE WERE IN AN ERA WHERE MONEY WAS CHEAP, IT WAS EASY TO ACCESS THAT CAPITAL, BUT ALSO IT WAS ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT ITS WORKERS HAD FEWER RIGHTS AND FEWER PROTECTIONS AND IT WAS ABLE TO PAY THEM LESS AND PUSH DOWN THEIR WAGES.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY AN INNOVATION WE SHOULD BE LOOKING -- >> Steve: TRUMPETING,. >> EXACTLY. >> Steve: I SHOULD SAY IT CAN BE CHEAPER. IF YOU TAKE IT IN OFF-PEAK HOURS, SHARE IT WITH SOMEBODY ELSE, CAN BE CHEAPER. OTHERWISE IT CAN COST THE SAME AS A TAXI.
>> EXACTLY. EVERY ONE HAS THEIR OWN VEHICLE. YOU DON'T HAVE A FLEET THAT YOU'RE MANAGING.
EXPERTS HAVE SAID THE UBER MODEL IS LESS EFFICIENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE FLEET TO MANAGE, YOU ALSO HAVE THESE REALLY EXPENSIVE HEADQUARTERS, THE TECH ENGINEERS THAT ARE PAID A LOT OF MONEY INSTEAD OF THE KIND OF LOWER-COST TAXI MODEL THAT ACTUALLY HAS SOME EFFICIENCIES IN THERE THAT ARE IMPORTANT. >> Steve: YOU'VE MADE THE CASE IN THIS. YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. >> YEAH. >> Steve: OKAY.
SUCH AS -- WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN? >> AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT I THINK WE NEED TO SEE LESS OF A FOCUS ON THE AUTOMOBILE, RIGHT? ESPECIALLY IN THIS MOMENT WHERE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN THE WAY PEOPLE GET AROUND, BOTH FOR THE REASONS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE DEATHS THAT ARE HAPPENING, THE AMOUNT OF TIME PEOPLE ARE STUCK IN TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO WHEN WE RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF TRANSPORTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE, THERES A MOMENT HERE WHERE WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT THE FUTURE OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND SO THERE'S ONE DIRECTION WHERE WE MAKE A LOT OF INVESTMENTS IN ELECTRIC CARS, BUT WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE LARGELY STUCK IN THEIR CARS AS THEY ARE TODAY, OR WE PUT A LOT MORE FOCUS IN INVESTING IN TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE, TO EXPAND THAT, TO MAKE IT MORE RELIABLE, MORE AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE; WE EXPAND CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE SO WE ENSURE THAT PEOPLE CAN SAFELY GET WHERE THEY NEED TO GO, THEY CAN SCORE THEIR BIKE AND KNOW IT WON'T GET STOLEN; WE MAKE COMMUNITIES WHERE YOU CAN ACCESS MORE OF THE THINGS YOU NEED IN PROXIMITY TO WHERE YOU LIVE SO YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO TRAVEL AS FAR TO REACH THESE THINGS; AND WE HAVE BETTER TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN OUR CITIES AS WELL, WHETHER IT'S BETTER RAIL NETWORKS, HIGH-SPEED RAIL FROM WINDSOR TO QUÉBEC CITY, FOR EXAMPLE -- >> Steve: WHICH THEY'VE ONLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR HALF A CENTURY. >> EXACTLY. THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO TODAY TO MAKE THESE CHANGES TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE AND TO MAKE IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO GET AROUND IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
AS I SAID, GOING BACK TO THE HISTORY IN THE BOOK, YOU KNOW, I REALLY EXPLORED HOW THERE WERE A LOT OF INVESTMENTS, A LOT OF REGULATORY CHANGES, A LOT OF TAX MEASURES PUT IN TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MOVE TO THE SUBURBS, TO BUILD THE SUBURBS EVEN, TO ADOPT CARS. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE PUT IN PLACE, THAT SET OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND SEE IF WE NEED TO START REARRANGING THOSE TO ENCOURAGE A DIFFERENT WAY OF LIVING, A DIFFERENT WAY OF GETTING AROUND. >> Steve: I THINK WE GOT SOMEWHERE WITH THAT CONVERSATION, IN CONTRARY TO THE TITLE OF THE BOOK WHICH IS THE ROAD TO NOWHERE, WHAT SILICON VALLEY GETS WRONG ABOUT THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION. IT'S BROUGHT PARIS MARX TO OUR STUDIO AND WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU HERE. >> THANKS SO MUCH. [ ♪ ] >> Nam: URBAN PLANNING SHAPES THE CITYSCAPES AND COMMUNITY SPACES THAT MAKE UP THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE SHARE IN THEIR DAILY LIVES.
CHERYLL CASE IS THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT CP PLANNING. AND SHE'S INTERESTED IN ADDING ANOTHER DIMENSION TO WHAT GOES INTO SUCH PLANS: A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW SPACE CAN AFFIRM OR CONSTRAIN HUMAN RIGHTS. HI, >> HI, NAM. >> Nam: YOU TAKE A HUMAN RIGHTS TO PLANNING. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> A HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH TO PLANNING MEANS CENTERING THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF THOSE WHO ARE MARGINALIZED WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR CORE NEEDS, WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, A GOOD JOB, AND ACCESS TO CULTURAL SERVICES.
SO PRODUCING OUTCOMES THAT WILL HELP TO BETTER THEIR ACCESS TO THOSE NEEDS. >> Nam: I THINK WHEN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT PLANNING, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY LIKE HOW COMMUNITIES ARE MADE, WE DON'T THINK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. WHAT SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN WE PLAN NEIGHBOURHOODS? >> YEAH. SO WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS WHEN WE PLAN NEIGHBOURHOODS BECAUSE IN DEALING WITH LAND, THAT'S THE FOUNDATION OF OUR ECONOMY, RIGHT, AND SO IN PLANNING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, YOU'RE ALSO PLANNING ACCESS TO JOBS, TO HOUSING, AND SO THESE THINGS ARE INCREDIBLY CENTRAL.
IF YOU THINK EVEN TO KNOW THAT WE'RE STANDING ON STOLEN LAND. TO HAVE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS TO HAVE THEIR CULTURAL NEEDS MET. THESE ARE THINGS RECOGNIZED NOT JUST IN ONTARIO, VIS-À-VIS THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BUT INTERNATIONALLY, THE UNITED NATIONS ACKNOWLEDGES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, OF ALL PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TO GOOD JOBS AND TO CULTURAL SERVICES.
>> Nam: SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS? >> YEAH. SO THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING IS THAT MARGINALIZED PEOPLE ARE NOT HAVING THEIR VOICES ACKNOWLEDGED. >> Nam: HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE MARGINALIZED PEOPLE FIRST? >> MARGINALIZED PEOPLE INCLUDE THOSE MAKING MINIMUM WAGE, THOSE LIVING IN HOUSING AND THEY'RE PAYING 40, 50 PERCENT OF THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING AND THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO AFFORD FOOD, RIGHT, AND THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE FOOD BANK AND THEY'RE STRESSING OVER MAKING ENDS MEET AT THE END OF THE MONTH, RIGHT? AND YOU'LL GET MARGINALIZED PEOPLE, THAT WOULD BE A REALLY GREAT EXAMPLE.
OF COURSE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS WHO ARE EVEN MORE MARGINALIZED. FOLKS WHO DON'T HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF JOB DO I WANT TO GO INTO, RIGHT? THERE IS A HUGE LACK OF ACCESS, IF WE BRING IT BACK TO PLANNING, TO HAVE ACCESS TO BEING A PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, RIGHT? YOU LOOK AT THE CHIEF PLANNERS ACROSS ONTARIO, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY AS REFLECTIVE OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS THAT ARE BEING SERVED, RIGHT? IN TORONTO WE HAVEN'T YET HAD A PERSON OF COLOUR SERVE AS OUR CHIEF PLANNER, AND IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING PROCESS AND WHAT WE LOOK AT AND PRIORITIZE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS JUST NOT BEEN TOP OF THE LIST BECAUSE AGAIN THE MARGINALIZED PEOPLE ARE NOT HAVING THEIR VOICES HEARD DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE VERY VOCAL, RIGHT? SO LEARNING ABOUT HOW, WHEN WE ARE PLANNING THE EGLINTON LRT IN TORONTO, THERE WERE COMMUNITIES THAT WERE REFLECTING THE NEED FOR GREATER PRIORITIZATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YOU SEE THE SAME THING IN OTTAWA. LRT IS GOING TO LEAD TO GENTRIFICATION. THE SAME THING IN HAMILTON. THE SAME THING IN KITCHENER-WATERLOO.
PEOPLE WERE EXPRESSING THE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YET WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PLANS ESTABLISHED ALONG THE LRT PLANS. >> Nam: HELP US UNDERSTAND WHY DO WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARCHED TRANSIT? >> WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AROUND TRANSIT BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT IT AT ONE LEVEL, RIGHT? THIS IS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BEING INVESTED INTO TRANSIT WITH THE INTENTION THAT IT'S THERE TO HELP PEOPLE MOVE FROM POINT A TO POINT B, RIGHT? YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT, RIGHT, THIS IS TAXPAYER DOLLARS BEING USED -- THE INTENTION OF HELPING MOVE FROM POINT A TO POINT B. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HAPPEN, THOUGH, IS THAT PUBLIC INVESTMENT IS BEING PRIVATIZED, WITH ARE AS THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE TRANSIT, THEY'RE JACKING UP THEIR RENTS. THEY ARE SELLING THEIR PROPERTIES TO DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPERS ARE SELLING AT MARKET PRICE THE NEW HOUSING AND SO, YOU KNOW, THESE SAME AREAS ACTUALLY WHERE YOU FIND OFTENTIMES THE HIGHEST VOLUMES AND DENSITIES OF RENTERS AND LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, RIGHT? IN BRAMPTON, FOR EXAMPLE, ALONG THE TRANSIT LINE OF HURONTARIO AND BUILDING ALONG MAIN STREET IS WHERE YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST VOLUME DENSITIES OF RENTERS. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THERE'S NO PLANS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, AGAIN, THE PRIVATE OWNERS JACKING UP THEIR RENTS, SELLING, AND THEN DEVELOPERS SELLING FOR MARKET RATE AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THESE RENTERS BEING PUSHED OUT AND DISPLACED.
SO THE ROLE OF THE CITY WOULD BE TO ADVOCATE AND TO ENGAGE MARGINALIZED PEOPLE SO THAT THE PLAN AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT KEEPS THEM IN MIND AND ALLOWS THEM TO STAY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD THAT THEY HAVE KNOWN AND LOVED FOR SO LONG. >> Nam: LET'S TALK MORE ABOUT SOLUTIONS. WHAT ARE SOLUTIONS THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING? >> YEAH.
SO LAUNCHING A PROGRAM CALLED REDEVELOPMENT PLANS TO IT'S IN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS AND NON-PROFITS ACROSS TORONTO, PEEL, HAMILTON, KITCHENER-WATERLOO AND OTTAWA, CITIES THAT HAVE HAD MAJOR INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT. IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THESE NON-PROFITS, WE'RE OPERATING SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CALLING INCLUSIVE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING HUBS. WE'LL ACTUALLY BE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTS TO BUILD CAPACITY AND TO BUILD COMMUNITY WHERE FOLKS ARE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THEIR HOUSING NEEDS, THEIR HOUSING INTERESTS, TO BUILD ALLYSHIPS WITH LOCAL HOME OWNERS WHO DON'T NECESSARILY PERSONALLY NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACCESS BUT THEY ARE INVESTED IN THE WELL-BEING OF THEIR FELLOW RESIDENTS AND TOGETHER BUILD LOCAL STRATEGIES TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THOSE NEIGHBOURHOODS.
>> Nam: THESE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING HUBS, WHAT WOULD THEY LOOK LIKE AND HOW WOULD THEY WORK? >> THE FOUNDATION OF HOW THIS IS WORKING IS BASED ON THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN LITTLE JAMAICA OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. WITH OAKWOOD VAUGHAN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, THIS IS A WONDERFUL ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL RESIDENTS WHO ARE INCREDIBLY COMMITTED TO THEIR COMMUNITY. AND SO THEY ARE A GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS WHO MEET EVERY MONTH, WE MEET EVERY MONTH AND WE REVIEW THE PROJECT PLAN AND WE DISCUSS, HOW DO WE ADJUST AND HOW DO WE ADAPT THE PROJECT PLAN. THAT'S AGAIN THE LOCAL NON-PROFIT WHO I WORK WITH ON THAT. AND SO WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT STEERING WORK, WE ARE ALSO OPERATING LOCAL WORKING GROUPS.
SO WE HAVE A WORKING GROUP THAT'S LOOKING TO EXPLORE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. THAT'S A MODEL WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PERPETUITY, AND WE'RE ALSO DOING ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL HOME OWNERS, RIGHT, BECAUSE A LOT OF HOME OWNERS WE FOUND ACTUALLY ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT TO HELP THEM CARRY THROUGH ALL THE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS NEEDED TO GET FROM AN IDEA TO EXECUTION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO THAT PROPERTY OWNER OUTREACH IS ACTUALLY INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT IN OUR WORK. AND THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THIS WORKING GROUP IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ENGAGING DIRECTLY WITH TENANTS WHO ARE MOST AT RISK OF BEING DISPLACED, AND SO AS WE BUILD A COMMUNITY OF TENANTS, AS WE BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DIRECT THOSE TENANTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT HOUSING SO THEY CAN STAY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOODS THAT THEY'VE LOVED AND BE A PART OF.
>> Nam: WHEN YOU SAID LITTLE JAMAICA, IT WAS HARD FOR ME NOT TO SMILE BECAUSE IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT NEIGHBOURHOOD IN THIS CITY. WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO TORONTO, IT WAS THE FIRST PLACE I WENT TO TRY TO FIND SOME COMMUNITY. WE ONLY HAVE A MINUTE LEFT. IF THIS PROJECT ACHIEVES YOU HOPE IT WILL ACHIEVE, HOW MANY WILL THERE BE? >> I LOVE THAT QUESTION. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WILL LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE PEOPLE LIVING IN COMMUNITY, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY WITH COVID AND ZOOM THAT WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH, PEOPLE ARE STUCK IN THEIR HOUSES AND THEY'LL GO OUT TO AN EVENT HERE AND THERE, BUT TO BE ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN YOUR COMMUNITY AND TO HAVE FOLKS IN YOUR COMMUNITY WHO YOU MEET MAYBE EVERY WEEK OR EVERY OTHER WEEK AND YOU'RE DOING NOT JUST INTENTIONAL PLANNING WORK BUT YOU'RE ALSO HAVING A LOT OF CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL, RIGHT? PEOPLE IN OAKWOOD VAUGHAN, THEY DEEPLY LOVE THEIR COMMUNITY, THEY LOVE THE RESIDENTS IN THEIR COMMUNITY. TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT TYPE OF LOVE EXPRESSED THROUGH PRACTICE AND THROUGH CONTINUED COLLABORATION, RIGHT, IT'S NOT JUST THE HOUSING THAT WOULD BE BUILT, IT WOULD BE THE FLOURISHING OF CULTURE AND OF CONNECTIONS.
THAT'S I THINK WHAT A CITY -- >> Nam: THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD FLOURISHING. >> YEAH. >> Nam: THANKS SO MUCH, CHERYLL, FOR YOUR TIME. I LEARNED A LOT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHTS AND WE CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHERE YOUR PROJECT GOES.
>> THANK YOU, NAM. GOOD TO BE HERE. [ ♪ ] >> Steve: THAT IS THE AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27th, 2022. >>> TOMORROW, NAM KIWANUKA GETS AN UPDATE ON THE HEARINGS UNDERWAY IN OTTAWA ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DECISION TO INVOKE THE EMERGENCIES ACT EARLIER THIS YEAR TO DEAL WITH THE PROTEST CONVOY IN OTTAWA AND POINTS BEYOND. HOPE YOU'LL JOIN US FOR THAT.
I'M STEVE PAIKIN. THANKS FOR WATCHING TVO, FOR JOINING US ONLINE AT tvo.org, AND NAM WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW.
>> Announcer: THE AGENDA WITH STEVE PAIKIN IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH GENEROUS PHILANTHROPIC CONTRIBUTIONS FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU. THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING TVO's JOURNALISM. >> Jeyan: TVO.org HAS A NEW
LOOK ONLINE. FOR THE LATEST ONTARIO CURRENT AFFAIRS, FROM OUR DIGITAL TEAM, FROM "THE AGENDA" OF COURSE, AND FROM ALL OF OUR PODCASTS, DOCUMENTARIES AND PROGRAMS, CHECK OUT THE SLICK WEBSITE AT TVO.org.
2022-10-29