WinterCity Strategy: Let’s embrace winter in Edmonton

wintercity strategyTonight Edmonton took another bold step toward becoming a city that embraces winter rather than one that simply endures it. Dozens of Edmontonians filled City Hall for the WinterCity Strategy Kick-Off Party which featured a keynote address from John Furlong, CEO of the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee. His remarks were passionate and inspirational and left me feeling absolutely pumped about playing even a small role in helping to tackle the challenge before us.

As part of a move to encourage citizens to embrace and engage in winter, the City of Edmonton is leading the development of a new WinterCity Strategy to highlight Edmonton as a leading winter city.

This strategy is about changing how many of us feel about winter – from enduring to embracing it.

When John took his turn at the podium this evening, he did so wearing an Oilers jersey and joked that he hoped it would keep him safe if we didn’t like what he had to say. He started by recounting his experience of arriving in Canada from Ireland. He came to Edmonton and after being told to “help make Canada a better place” by the customs official became a nation builder, even if he didn’t realize it at the time. “I felt like they’d send me back if I didn’t do my part!”

John Furlong

For most of his speech, John took us through the ups and downs of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. Building the team, preparing for the event, pulling it off, etc. He shared many stories, everything from being interviewed for the job to watching Crosby score the game winning goal in overtime. One of my favorites was about the snow, or lack of snow, when the games began. Based on the last 100 years of history, there had to be snow in January. But there wasn’t any. “It was as if God was looking down on us saying ‘anyone can pull off the Winter Olympics with snow, you have to do it without snow!’” John told us. They eventually trucked snow in from Manning Park, which put up a banner that read “Official Snow Supplier” for the games. Feeling that the task was impossible, John was at the park every day, encouraging the team to keep going. He called in the Premier, the Prime Minister, and others to help encourage the team. One day, the guy in charge of the site finally spoke up and said “John, stop coming here every day. We’re not going to fail.” The lesson was one John cited many times throughout his remarks this evening – you need to trust people.

Another story I quite enjoyed was about transportation during the games. Enabling people to get around the city safely and efficiently was a tall order, and John and his team realized that to do it, there would have to be less cars on the road. So they asked Vancouverites to find alternative modes of transport, to leave their cars at home. Unsurprisingly, people laughed at the idea. They mocked it. The team was looking for a reduction in traffic of 25% and nobody thought it was possible. To prepare, they held single day trials a few weeks in advance of the games. The results were discouraging – traffic volumes dropped just 1 or 2 percent. But on the day the games opened, the reduction was 37%, well above targets. “We asked people nicely,” John said, “and I think they realized this was their way to play a role in making the games a success.”

Here are a few of the things he said that really stood out for me:

  • “To be a champion, you have to have belief.”
  • “Visions can’t be about stuff, they must be about people. About humanity.”
  • “The legacy you want to leave behind is the human one.”

As motivational as John’s remarks were tonight, I’ll admit that applying the lessons of Vancouver 2010 to the City of Edmonton’s WinterCity Strategy seems incredibly daunting. Someone in the audience was brave enough to ask John that very question – “how do we do that here?” He said we need two things: strong belief in the vision, and strong leadership.

WinterCity Strategy Kick-Off

Councillor Henderson has taken the lead on the WinterCity Strategy, and tomorrow morning will be sharing the results of his trip to Finland and Norway to identify best practices of winter cities. He’ll be joined by a committee of community leaders at the first symposium to explore the question, “what would make you fall in love with winter in Edmonton?” In his remarks tonight, Councillor Henderson said that “at some point, Edmonton sort of fell out of love with winter.” It’s time to get that back.

ideascaleI’ll be in and out of the symposium tomorrow, and I look forward to participating in future public involvement events related to the WinterCity Strategy as well. The goal is to draft the strategy this spring, with Council reviewing and hopefully approving in the fall. The timeline is relatively short, so don’t wait to get involved. The easiest way is to participate in the WinterCity IdeaScale site. There you can submit ideas and vote and comment on ideas from others.

Here’s my first bit of feedback to the team leading the WinterCity Strategy: get rid of all mentions of turning Edmonton into “a leading winter city” or making Edmonton “one of the best winter cities in the world.” Recognition is a by-product of doing something well, not the target we should be aiming for. Instead, let’s focus on making Edmonton a great winter city for Edmontonians. On embracing winter rather than enduring it. As John said tonight, “you almost always get the reward you deserve.” If we can succeed at making Edmonton a more winter-friendly city for the people who live here, global recognition will come.

Let’s embrace winter in Edmonton! You can learn more about the WinterCity Strategy here.

The City of Edmonton is failing at public involvement

In my opinion, the City of Edmonton needs to completely transform its public involvement practices. Over the last few years there has been the odd glimmer of hope that things are changing for the better, but I don’t think progress is actually being made. Sometimes it even feels like we’re moving backwards.

Here’s an excerpt from Mayor Mandel’s Swearing-In Address on October 26, 2010 (PDF):

Looking ahead to some of the major projects entering the consultation stage – the arena, LRT design and EXPO 2017 – it’s clear that we need to refine our consultation process and vastly improve how we communicate with our citizens.

Methods are changing, people contribute their opinions and receive information in different ways, and we are not keeping pace.

A City with a bold creative vision has to be able to communicate clearly with its citizens – we simply must do better here.

And from better process will come better solutions – ones where our citizens can witness their impacts and know that together we’ve all done the best for Edmonton.

Nothing has changed in the five months since he gave those remarks, and there’s no indication that anything is going to change.

The most recent example is the Walterdale Bridge project. There are so many issues I almost don’t even know where to begin. It’s a good illustration of some of the larger issues plaguing the public involvement process.

Oh look City of Edmonton, a dictionary!

The terminology used for public involvement is inconsistent and confusing. What’s the difference between an open house, an information session, and a community consultation? All three have been used on the Walterdale Bridge project, and I’m sure you have seen other terms used for other events. Can I always give feedback? Are some events more heavily geared toward sharing information than others? Does the name imply a certain stage of the process? There’s absolutely no way to tell based on the terminology used.

There are a bunch of other terms that are poorly defined as well. Who’s a stakeholder, for instance?

No consultation on the consultation itself?

Why doesn’t anyone ever ask how we’d like to be consulted on something? Is a bunch of private meetings with “important stakeholders” followed by an information sharing session open to the general public always the best approach? Why don’t more consultations make use of the vast array of effective technologies we have at our disposal? It wasn’t without fault, but at least the online questionnaire on the arena project was different. I think one of the simplest ways we could improve the public involvement process would be to gather feedback on how the process should work before starting it.

What’s happening?

Do you know when the public involvement process for the Walterdale Bridge started? Me neither. The first time the public became aware of the process was on November 15, three days before the first open house. Some “selected stakeholder groups” were interviewed prior to that event, but when? A couple of weeks before? Or years before as the issue popped up with each rehabilitation?

I went to the open house on November 18, and wrote about it here. At the bottom of that post, I captured the “next steps” as they were presented. There would be an interim plan in January, followed by a public information session (different from an open house apparently) in February or March, and then the final plan would go to Council in April. I added my email to the contact sheet at that event.

The update that was presented to TPW on January 25, 2011 came and went without any notice. No press release, no email. Unless you’re checking the agenda of each Council and committee meeting, there’s almost no way you’d have found out about that update. Part of the information shared at that meeting was an update on the public involvement process. The report mentioned the stakeholder interviews and the open house, then finished with this:

The balance of the Public Involvement Plan, to be undertaken in February and March, will be comprised of a series of meetings with key stakeholder groups to further discuss options and recommendations that will have been developed since the November Open House, in addition to another widely publicized public Information Session.  The purpose of this Information Session will be to communicate the content of the final report to City Council.  This Information Session will be held in late March.

So basically if you wanted to provide input but you didn’t attend the November open house, too bad. Unless of course you’re part of those secretive stakeholder groups that may or may not have taken place – no update on those was ever provided.

Finally we come to yesterday’s “widely publicized public information session”. The open house in November got a press release, this one didn’t. The only notice that went out about the event, in addition to a tweet the day of, was an email sent on March 14 to people who signed up at the November open house. That and the web page was updated, though unless you constantly check it, you’d never know that. Hardly a “widely publicized” event, if you ask me.

Actually there is one other way you could have found out about the event – at the City of Edmonton’s Public Involvement Calendar. That would be the calendar without email or text notifications, no RSS feeds, and no ability to search by keyword. None of those events show up in the much more functional Events Calendar, for some unacceptable reason.

You mean you didn’t see my tweet?

Sometimes there are comment forms, other times there are sticky notes, sometimes you participate in a group discussion with someone recording notes, and other times you fill out a survey. There are two problems. First, it’s not clear what I need to do to ensure my comments are going to be read and considered. Second, nearly all of those mechanisms for providing input require me to physically attend an event!

There are so many tools that we’re simply not making use of. It doesn’t even have to be Twitter or whatever the popular online service at the moment is. Why can’t I just send an email? Why can’t I fill out the survey online? Why can’t I just send a link to my blog post?

The very, very, very few speaking for many.

The January update boasted that the November open house was “heavily attended” at 225 participants. Just 80 comment forms were submitted, and there’s no word on how many sticky notes were written. Yesterday’s event apparently had around 150 attendees. Just 15 interviews of “stakeholder groups” were conducted.

We’re a city of nearly 800,000 people, and we’re basing the public involvement part of the decision on 80 comment forms and 15 interviews? I truly believe more people want to provide feedback, it’s just too difficult to do so at the moment.

At the November open house, the City shared a number of alignment and style options for a replacement bridge. Yesterday, they declared they had chosen the arch. There’s no opportunity to question this. It’ll go to Council without any additional public involvement.

Just going through the motions…

I want to be engaged. I want to contribute and help to make the outcome a better one for Edmonton. But all too often it feels like the City is simply going through the motions when it comes to the public involvement process. I can see why the vast majority of citizens find it hard to get engaged. Look at how much work it took to keep up-to-date on the Walterdale Bridge project!

The Walterdale Bridge Public Involvement Plan violated City policy.

Did you know the City of Edmonton actually has a policy on public involvement? Policy C513 (Word) outlines how administration should involve the public when making recommendations to Council. Let’s ignore for a minute that the policy itself absolutely needs to be improved (“…designed to involve the appropriate people at the appropriate time in the appropriate way…”). The trademarks of any City of Edmonton public involvement process are meant to be: clear purpose, consistent approach, and commitment to involve. The “commitment to involve” is pretty hard to get wrong as it is described in the policy, but the Walterdale Bridge public involvement process completely missed the boat on the first one, in my opinion, and we have to trust that the consistent approach was achieved.

Clear purpose is achieved by using the “Continuum of Public Involvement” which essentially states that you start by sharing information to raise awareness, then you consult people to test ideas and build commitment, then you share decision making with stakeholders.

  1. Sharing Information
  2. Consultation
  3. Active Participation

This was not followed with the Walterdale Bridge project. There was no information sharing or awareness building at the start, instead there were consultations with stakeholders. That’s supposed to be the third step of the continuum, not the first! Then we got the November open house, which combined steps one and two. It doesn’t seem like steps four or five, partnering with stakeholders to make a decision, ever took place.

Consistent approach is meant to be achieved using the City of Edmonton Public Involvement Roadmap:

  • Understanding the overall project
  • Defining the purpose and outcomes of public involvement
  • Clarifying the public involvement commitment
  • Public involvement process details
  • Developing the public involvement plan

Did this happen? Maybe, but it was never shared. The public doesn’t know the purpose or outcomes of the public involvement, nor did we know the process details. There was no plan available.

We simply must do better.

The Walterdale Bridge project is not unique. The same problems plague the vast majority of Edmonton’s public involvement efforts. I’ve been to so many open houses, or information sessions, or whatever you want to call them, where attendees have expressed their frustration at the lack of clarity about the process, or the fact that they feel the consultation is happening too late in the process.

In October 2009, I wrote about the proposed Centre for Public Involvement. I’m going to repeat the opening statement of the prospectus:

The timing is right for establishing the proposed Centre. In reality, the timing is probably late by ten years.

Toward the end of 2010, there was finally some movement and the Centre is now being organized. It took more than a year to get started, when we’re already so far behind.

Is this really the best we can do? I think we can do better. We simply must do better.

Recap: Walterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open House

Last Thursday the City of Edmonton held an open house to discuss and gather feedback on two projects that will have a big impact on our river valley. The Walterdale Bridge, which has served Edmonton for nearly 100 years, is reaching the end of its usable life and needs to be replaced. The bridge connects the south side to Rossdale, the western part of which has been “rediscovered” and for which a new urban design plan has been created.

Held at the TransAlta Arts Barns, I thought the open house was fairly well-attended. I stayed for the first half, and by the time I left, around 120 people had signed in. Unfortunately the Walterdale Bridge presentation went long, so I didn’t learn much about West Rossdale other than what was shared on the information display boards. You can learn more about the West Rossdale Urban Design Plan here.

Walterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open HouseWalterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open House

The Walterdale Bridge Strategic Planning Concept Study of 2008 concluded that the bridge is now too old to be rehabilitated, and must be replaced. These images of the current Walterdale Bridge come from Bing Maps:

Walterdale Bridge

Walterdale Bridge

It may be old, but I think the current Walterdale Bridge is distinct and recognizable.

The concept design for the replacement bridge calls for a “functional signature bridge”. Key design considerations include:

  • Access/traffic accommodation from 82 Avenue to 97 Avenue.
  • Grades at south approach.
  • Detours and closure impacts, utility staging.
  • Aesthetics – signature bridge.
  • Traditional Burial Grounds and Fort Edmonton Cemetery Commemoration Site, historical resources.
  • North Saskatchewan River Valley plans.
  • Environmental policies and procedures.
  • Integration with West Rossdale Urban Design Plan, EPCOR Rossdale repurposing, EXPO 2017 bid, and other area plans.
  • Pedestrian and cyclist accommodation.

Walterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open HouseWalterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open House

To date, the City has conducted meetings/interviews with 14 key stakeholder groups, including twice with Aboriginal Elders with a pipe ceremony.  As you might expect, a wide range of issues have been raised in those stakeholder meetings, but this comment nicely sums it up:

The challenge for this project is to achieve a balance between providing improved access for private vehicles to downtown Edmonton and protecting/preserving the character, safety and integrity of the communities that the roadways approaching the bridge replacement will be impacting.

There were four options presented at the open house, though they weren’t mutually exclusive (PDF, 3.9 MB). Attendees were encouraged to leave feedback using sticky notes, and if they liked the south side of one option but the north side of another, the City representatives wanted to hear that. There are four bridge types being considered: girder, arch, extradosed, and cable-stayed (PDF, 320 KB).

Walterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open HouseWalterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open House

All four alignment options get rid of the hairpin at Saskatchewan Drive and Queen Elizabeth Park Road. The first three options shift the bridge to the east slightly, whereas option four would see the replacement built significantly further east than the current bridge. Of the four options, the first seems to have the smallest impact.

I’m encouraged by the lip service paid to pedestrians and cyclists during the open house, and I hope that translates into tangible benefits for those two important types of travelers once the replacement is built. It was also encouraging to hear that 1% of the total cost of the bridge will be allocated to public art.

In the presentation, a “signature” bridge was described as one that Edmontonians feel proud of. While that’s a fair definition, I really wonder why we’d build something we’re not proud of. It seems to me that what is meant by “signature” is something different, perhaps something more along the lines of the new Art Gallery of Alberta. I think a signature bridge is one that gets Edmontonians and others talking about it.

Walterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open House

The next steps for the Walterdale Bridge project are as follows:

  • An interim plan, with three options, will go to the Transportation & Public Works Committee in January 2011.
  • Additional public information sessions will take place in February/March 2011.
  • A final recommendation will go to City Council in April 2011.

Even without EXPO 2017, we need to replace the Walterdale Bridge, so I’m not sure what impact, if any, that loss will have on the project. The Walterdale Bridge is an important, busy bridge here in Edmonton. If you have feedback on how the replacement bridge should look or function, let the team know.

Recap: Downtown Arena Public Consultation Session

Last night was the first of four City-hosted public consultation sessions on the proposed downtown arena. The sessions aim to gather input that will be provided to City Council. Roughly 150 people visited the Robbins Health Learning Centre throughout the evening, though only about a third of those stayed for the facilitated part of the session.

Proposed Downtown Arena Consultation

The first two hours of the session followed an open house format, with information displays, handouts such as a backgrounder (PDF), City officials available to answer questions, and opportunities for individuals to write questions or comments on sticky notes or in drop boxes. Promptly at 7pm, Margaret Bateman made a brief presentation (PDF) on the consultation process. The next two hours were facilitated discussion groups, where everyone had the opportunity to provide specific feedback on five key questions. Here are the questions as they were presented this evening:

  1. What’s your position on building a downtown arena?
    • If supportive, why?
    • If not, why not?
    • If conditional, why?
  2. If a new downtown arena project were to proceed, what do you think is important to consider in terms of:
    • Design?
    • Downtown connection and impact?
    • Impact on surrounding communities?
    • Community benefits/engagement?
    • Impact on the future of Rexall Place?
    • Any other issues?
  3. What about using a mix of private and public funding to fund a downtown arena?
    • Are you open to this? Why?
    • Not open to this? Why not?
    • Open under certain circumstances or conditions? If so, what are they?
  4. What do you think about other possible funding sources to cover arena costs? (some or all of these are options)
    • A ticket tax
    • A personal seat license or luxury box license
    • A community revitalization levy (which would require the facility be publicly owned)
    • Funding for non-arena infrastructure from other levels of government
    • Additional private investment
    • Any other sources?
  5. Do you have any final thoughts or views for Council?

I attended a “stakeholder” consultation last Thursday that followed a similar format, but asked slightly different questions. The first question in that session was: “Do you support building an arena to revitalize Edmonton’s downtown? If yes, why? If no, why not?” Talk about a leading question with a big assumption! Needless to say I was very pleased to see that the City (along with consultation partner Calder Bateman) had tweaked the questions this time around.

Proposed Downtown Arena ConsultationProposed Downtown Arena Consultation

My discussion group started off fine, but quickly descended into disagreement as a few very vocal members wanted to skip to the funding question right away. The City officials on hand handled the situation very well, and before long our group was back on track generating some useful discussion (the other groups didn’t seem to have any issues). Here are some of the comments from the group that I wrote down:

  • Unclear that the arena would actually bring people downtown
  • The arena will not generate tourism
  • Skepticism about an influx of commercial development surrounding the arena
  • Transit would need to be greatly improved, concern about the lack of an LRT stop right at the arena
  • What would happen to Rexall Place?
  • General feeling we would lose Canadian Finals Rodeo and maybe other events
  • Lots of concern over traffic congestion, some concern over parking
  • Feeling that the current ticket prices are already too high
  • Quite a bit of skepticism about the effectiveness of a CRL
  • Thought that spending the money on existing recreation centres would result in higher benefit to the community

As far as I could tell, my group was the most negative about the arena. The others seemed cautiously optimistic, and when everyone came together at the end of the evening for Margaret Bateman’s recap, that seemed to be the consensus. There was concern over treating the arena as the key to revitalizing downtown, and there was obviously lots of concern over the funding model, but there also seemed to be some optimism that the project could be a very good thing.

Proposed Downtown Arena Consultation

There are three more public consultation sessions currently planned:

If you can’t make it to any of those sessions, you can fill out the online questionnaire, call 311, or email downtownarena@edmonton.ca.

For more information, check out the City of Edmonton’s site, the Katz Group’s site, and the Why Downtown? site. You can follow updates on Twitter using #yegarena.

Whether you’re for or against the arena, or even if you’re unsure, it’s important to make your voice heard!

Edmonton’s new Centre for Public Involvement

One of the items that was discussed at today’s Executive Committee meeting (agenda in Word) was the proposed Centre for Public Involvement, a joint venture of the City of Edmonton and the University of Alberta. The idea is to combine the strengths of both organizations to “intentionally consider and apply the most effective means to undertake public involvement.” Here’s the proposed mission:

To provide leadership in understanding and applying innovative practices and new technologies for citizen participation, engagement, and deliberation.

The centre would try to strike a balance among research, best practices, and consulting. Annual operating costs would be $300,000, split equally between the City and the University. Other partners may join at some point in the future.

I really like the idea. That said, I want to echo the opening statement of the prospectus:

The timing is right for establishing the proposed Centre. In reality, the timing is probably late by ten years.

Both the City and the University have already started exploring new forms of public involvement. The City has been quite successful with its social media endeavors, and the University is starting to experiment as well. It seems there’s a new U of A account on Twitter each week (the latest I’ve come across is the International Centre)!

While it is true that there is some frustration among the public with regards to being able to impact decision-making, not everyone has become angry and complacent. Initiatives such as ChangeCamp are proof that some citizens are already engaged in re-imagining public involvement.

I think there’s a great opportunity here for the City, the University, and the public to work together to explore the future of public involvement. I think Raffaella nailed it in a recent post discussing the new City of Edmonton blog she’s been working on:

We seek to create informed communities, engaged citizens, and generally make our lives better.

You can download the Centre for Public Involvement Prospectus in PDF here.