I suppose, on the whole, this is good news.
Smart Growth BC has announced that its programs and brand have been acquired by the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC)….
Following on the success of their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system, and the introduction of the LEED for Neighbourhood Development in early 2011, CaGBC will incorporate the established smart growth programs into an integrated set of offerings for buildings and communities.
Bad news: Smart Growth BC disappears. Good news: Smart Growth as a movement goes national through an organization that has levered the power of standards like LEED, with its measurable components, to advance what would otherwise be good intentions.
Another factor which has aided the progress of Smart Growth is the sheer power of visualization: showing people what change looks like.
Here’s an example from Ventura, California:
One of the things I like about the US is the tendency to think nationally. One more typically finds organizations with a national perspective, with state and local affiliates (CNU, US Green Building Council, American Planning Association etc. come to mind) rather than the Canadian approach, which tends to have provincially based organizations perhaps loosely confederated at the national level. This was revealed to me quite strongly at the recent APA conference in New Orleans, where planners from around the US were able to speak knowledgably about issues nationwide, typically because those in the private sector worked for firms that worked all over the country. This isn’t the situation here and our national debate on urban issues suffers for it. Yes the legislation and policies differ across the provinces, just as they do across 50 states, but as US organizations demonstrate, one can navigate that complexity. So I see this as a positive in broadening the conversation, and opening up to perspectives, solutions, and ideas from a broader, nation-wide base.
Mark,
Don’t know much about this area of work so my question may come off as naive, but could that be because of the way funding differs in the States, in terms of more and larger foundations that are willing to fund the work on a national level? I know the White House focus on urban issues is recent, but I could see that possibly being one reason that initiatives like Smart Growth start off and stay provincial.
One advocate, though much narrower in scope than Smart Growth as a whole, which I know has gone national, is the Active and Safe Routes to School program.