This article was submitted by Rob Abbott. CivicCamp would like to welcome Rob to a growing list of thoughtful and articulate Calgarians whose op eds on Plan It somehow don’t get published in Calgary’s dailies.
To listen to the debates about Plan It, the long-range plan to guide Calgary’s future development that goes before Council on June 23, is to have a ringside seat at a predictable boxing match. Those in favour argue that in the absence of a plan we will get more of the expensive sprawl that blights too many North American cities. Those against Plan It argue that it is either social engineering or, somewhat more uncharitably, the product of earnest do-gooders who don’t understand business and the market. Neither of these positions frames the decision and opportunity Calgary faces quite right. This is not about putting the brakes on development, but neither is it about unbridled free market capitalism. Rather, it is about how as a city we become more proficient in the art and science of managing economic, social and environmental aspirations.
At its core, Plan It is about sustainability, or more to the point, resilience – the ability of a system, in this case our city, to tolerate change without deteriorating into a place in which we no longer want to live. But it is also more than that; it is an attempt to bridge the gap that too often separates environmentalists and economists, planners and developers. It is an attempt to demonstrate that sustainability and business stratgey – and the material and social success that hopefully come with that – are not mutually exclusive.
The “economy versus the environment” argument that really underlies the Plan It debate is understandable, but also tired. It’s understandable because any system is resistant to change. Moreover, in the absence of a compelling argument to change the system those with their hands on the levers that could do just that will tend to affirm the status quo. The argument is also tired, however, because sustainability is much more than a higher, faster brand of environmentalism with little to contribute to business and societal success. The experience of businesses and cities around the world increasingly points out that sustainability can both protect existing assets and value andprovide the basis for new wealth creation. Even in the face of the current recession, Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, and Lee Scott, CEO of Wal-Mart, have argued that sustainability, rather than being a drag on economic recovery, can actually speed the recovery. Scott’s blunt assessment reflects his growing awareness that sustainability and profitability can go hand-in-hand.
What I thought was going to be a defensive strategy is turning out to be precisely the opposite…To me, there can’t be anything good about putting all these chemicals in the air. There can’t be anything good about the smog you see in cities. There can’t be anything good about putting chemicals in these rivers in Third World countries so that somebody can buy an item for less money in a developed country. Those things are just inherently wrong, whether you are an environmentalist or not.
Why are these mainstream business leaders talking about the strategic benefits of sustainability? Put simply, they see sustainabilitynot as a problem to be solved, but as a future to be created – as a pragmatic response to business and organizational realities that are cast into sharp relief by planning and risk management that deliberately looks beyond the horizon of the next quarter or the next year. This is the lens that Plan It takes in looking at the future of Calgary and it is the perspective we should bring to any discussion of it. The plan asks us to think about what it might cost to heat our homes and office buildings in 2020 or 2050, and how we move people and goods around our city. It challenges us to declare our assumptions about resource constraints and commodity prices in the medium and long run – assumptions that inform development choices. Most importantly, it provides the context for the thinking and deep conversation that can guide Caglary toward choices that are nto irreversible and that enhance, rather than hinder our resilience in the face of change. This is not ideological; it is simply smart. Make no mistake; Calgary will continue to grow and much of that growth can be accomodated by single-family homes – Plan It is actually very clear on this point. The market, and the developers who defer to it, will continue to play an influential role in shaping our city. But, as we build those homes, and the road, sewer and water infrastructure to service them, Plan It suggests that we think about environmental and social costs – something the market has long ignored. This is not about slamming the suburbs, it is simply about being proactive in managing the impacts associated with continued growth of the suburbs – it costs all cities, not just Calgary, more to service suburban development, and the commute times to and from the suburbs mean more money spent on gas, more air pollution, and less time with families. Smart business and community leaders (and smart households, too) therefore know that we should take the implications of development and business practice choices over the long term into account now as a form of prudent risk management. The alternative is to walk boldly and brashly forward without a plan, at the mercy of the market. History, both old and more recent, suggests this latter course is not a recipe for success.
