Sustainable Canadian cities

from the Toronto Globe and Mail:

"A 2007 study, Mission Possible: Successful Canadian Cities, by the Conference Board of Canada, identified four cornerstones: a strong knowledge economy to attract business investment and a talented and skilled labour force; a connective physical infrastructure (i.e., a transportation system that can effectively move goods and people); environmentally sustainable growth based on sound planning and industrial ecology principles; and social cohesion, the critical components of which are attractive and accessible housing, a low crime rate, effective immigrant settlement, comprehensive cultural and entertainment amenities (not the least of which are libraries, which act as community centres as much as places to borrow books), and a strong social safety net."

from:  http://bit.ly/nDM2AS

This list is interesting.  Note that environmental concerns, cultural activities such as art and music (not sports) and a social safety net built on social cohesion are key elements.  I would have trouble believing that a California study would reach the same result, and I will search for a study in order to compare.

To review:

1.  knowledge to attract business. Schools for business, but also biotech?

2.  connected infrastructure, including transportation.  Mass transit that's cheap and accessible?

3.  environmentally responsible growth.  But why keep emphasizing growth?

4.  social cohesion.  Get people into houses, keep crime down, given them entertainment and access to knowledge?

Sounds good to me.  

Eco-sustainability

Straw Bale Houses Built in England Withstand Hurricanes
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/straw-house-built.php

Urban Farms Take to the Roofs
http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2010/05/17/community_gardens_slide_show  (requires subscription possibly)

Vertical Farms in Cities
http://www.verticalfarm.com/

In the last class discussion we had Wednesday, over an article entitled: "Medical Anthropology:  Malnutrition in Malawi" a student seriously proposed that food aid should not be provided to poor people in 3rd world countries because A.  their population would grow because the children wouldn't die, and B.  the country wouldn't be able to continue feeding a growing population.

I can understand but not agree with the perspective.  It's a perspective born out of privilege, relative wealth, and inexperience.  While she didn't seem like a rich student, she had clothes and looked clean and well fed.  Her family life may be horrible, but I doubt if she's watched while her siblings starved to death at home.

I wish I knew how to break through.  I'll look for more ideas.  We couldn't watch "Healers of Ghana" this semester because I was sick and cancelled that class, but most students like it for the perspective it provides.