Aller au contenu

Rechercher dans la communauté

Affichage des résultats pour les étiquettes 'oecd'.

  • Rechercher par étiquettes

    Saisir les étiquettes en les séparant par une virgule.
  • Rechercher par auteur

Type du contenu


Forums

  • Projets immobiliers
    • Propositions
    • En Construction
    • Complétés
    • Transports en commun
    • Infrastructures
    • Lieux de culture, sport et divertissement
  • Discussions générales
    • Urbanisme, architecture et technologies urbaines
    • Photographie urbaine
    • Discussions générales
    • Divertissement, Bouffe et Culture
    • L'actualité
    • Hors Sujet
  • Aviation MTLYUL
    • YUL Discussions générales
    • Spotting à YUL
  • Ici et ailleurs
    • Ville de Québec et le reste du Québec
    • Toronto et le reste du Canada
    • États-Unis d'Amérique
    • Projets ailleurs dans le monde.

Calendriers

  • Évènements à Montréal
  • Canadiens de Montréal
  • CF de Montréal

Blogs

  • Blog MTLURB

Rechercher les résultats dans…

Rechercher les résultats qui…


Date de création

  • Début

    Fin


Dernière mise à jour

  • Début

    Fin


Filtrer par nombre de…

Inscription

  • Début

    Fin


Groupe


Location


Intérêts


Occupation


Type d’habitation

3 résultats trouvés

  1. Celine Cooper: Before Montreal can thrive, it needs to educate itself Celine CooperCELINE COOPER, SPECIAL TO MONTREAL GAZETTE More from Celine Cooper, Special to Montreal Gazette Published on: July 10, 2016 | Last Updated: July 10, 2016 2:00 PM EDT The city of Montreal is reflected in the St. Lawrence River. Montreal is a city with so much potential. If only we could unlock it. PAUL CHIASSON / THE CANADIAN PRESS By now the story is familiar. It’s called the Great Montreal Paradox. It goes something like this: Montreal has everything it needs to become one of North America’s most dynamic and successful cities. Yet, we continue to lag behind other North American cities on a vast range of economic indicators including job creation, employment rates, GDP growth and population growth. And here we go again. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released a socio-economic study called Montréal: Métropole de Talent. The study looks at Montreal’s relative performance within a constellation of 18 city members of the OECD (Manchester, Boston, Dublin, Stockholm and Toronto, for example). It concludes that Montreal has the necessary DNA to thrive as a major hub for innovation and economic development at both national and international levels. It lauds our enviable quality of life. We are bursting at the seams with potential. Yet, the findings echo much of what we’ve read in other studies focused on Montreal, including the 2014 BMO and Boston Consulting Group study Building a New Momentum in Montreal and the 2014 Institut du Québec research group study. Despite our strategic advantages, Montreal seems chronically incapable of translating our potential into performance. The unemployment rate in Montreal is higher than other North American cities, and immigrants have higher levels of unemployment here than in other parts of Canada. We are hampered by a low birthrate, population growth and immigrant retention, and high interprovincial outflow. Study after study has indicated that one of Montreal’s biggest challenges is attracting and retaining people. This isn’t just a Montreal problem, but a Quebec one. A recent report by the Fraser Institute showed that Quebec has the highest cumulative out-migration of any province in Canada, having been drained of more than half a million of our citizens to other provinces between 1971 and 2015. The question, as always, is why? Here’s the message I get from reading between the lines of the OECD report: Maybe — just maybe — Montreal has been a little too accepting of mediocrity. The report suggests in relation to our North American counterparts, Montreal’s economy is marked by low levels of competence and low levels of productivity. We have too many sectors with poor-quality jobs that demand few qualifications. The OECD suggests that to create opportunities and prospects for young people and fully capitalize on the potential of immigration, Montreal needs to break a damaging cycle of low qualifications and an over-abundance of low-quality jobs. Let’s sum this up: Montreal needs people. But people need a reason to stay in Montreal. Cities around the globe are competing for the world’s best and brightest. Highly qualified people are looking for jobs where they can put their skills, talent and ambition to use. They don’t want to run the risk of finding themselves in jobs that don’t offer much in terms of pay, advancement and professional growth. Or, worse, unemployed. Among the many recommendations, the OECD report suggests that solving this problem in Montreal requires strategic partnerships among all sectors of our economy. Universities, they argue, need to be directly implicated in the development of the local economy. On this point, I couldn’t agree more. With access to six universities and 12 CÉGEPs, Montreal has the highest proportion of post-secondary students of all major cities in North America. In 2013, it was ranked the best city in the world in terms of overall return on investment for foreign undergraduate students by an Economist Intelligence Unit survey. And yet the proportion of the population with a bachelor’s or graduate degree is among the lowest in Canada — Montreal is at 29.6 percent, lagging behind Toronto and Vancouver at 36.7 and 34.1 percent respectively. As far as I’m concerned, our university ecosystem is our best bet for getting beyond the Great Montreal Paradox. celine.cooper@gmail.com Twitter.com/CooperCeline Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
  2. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/23/sane-way-run-megalopolis-urban-governance?utm_source=SFFB Protesters march through the streets of Ferguson in August. Aaron M Renn Thursday 23 April 2015 15.39 BST Last modified on Thursday 23 April 2015 16.57 BST The death of Michael Brown, shot by a police officer last year in Ferguson, Missouri, triggered civil unrest and protests that have yet to subside, with two police officers recently shot in the city. The media has blamed lots of things for the chaos that has engulfed Ferguson, from racism to inequality, but one factor might raise an eyebrow: municipal fragmentation in the St Louis area. There are 90 separate cities and towns in St Louis County alone, which has created a landscape of small, cash-strapped cities pulling on tiny tax bases to finance their governments. The US Justice Department has specifically accused Ferguson of using its police department as a revenue-raising arm, with a racial bias and as such it could be argued that municipal fragmentation played a role in creating the conditions that produced police-community tensions in Ferguson. A few year earlier, in 2010 and 800 miles to the north-east, Toronto elected the suburban politician Rob Ford from Etobicoke as mayor. Ford swept into office pledging to “stop the gravy train” and cut spending, cancelling bike infrastructure and streetcars. His sensibilities appalled urban Torontonians. The urban studies theorist Richard Florida called him “the worst and most anti-urban mayor in the history of any major city”. His mayoralty ultimately collapsed in a wave of scandals, including when he got caught on video smoking crack. People in ​​living in cities and those in their suburbs often have different values, priorities and cultures One of the factors blamed for the Rob Ford phenomenon? Amalgamation, or the consolidation of the city of Toronto with several formerly independent municipalities, including Etobicoke. It is amalgamation that allowed suburbanites to take control of governance over the inner city by electing one of their own as mayor. Welcome to the wonderful world of governing urban regions, where between fragmentation and amalgamation no one actually knows what the right-sized box for local government is or how to change it – but everyone can see the problems of most of the existing governance models. An election on 7 April was seen as a critical step toward ending racially discriminatory practices that thrust the St. Louis suburb into the national spotlight last year. An election on 7 April was seen as a critical step toward ending racially discriminatory practices that thrust the St Louis suburb into the national spotlight last year. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Municipal fragmentation has been criticised for decades. In Cities Without Suburbs, his influential 1993 book, former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk argued that Rust Belt cities in the US failed to succeed in part because they were unable to expand, and found themselves hemmed in by a jigsaw puzzle of independent suburbs. Advertisement But with cities having become central to national governance in the 21st century, institutions like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank are weighing in, too. Both recently sounded the alarm about the risks of urban fragmentation on a global level, for the developed and the developing world. “Often, administrative boundaries between municipalities are based on centuries-old borders that do not correspond to contemporary patterns of human settlement and economic activity,” the OECD observed in a recent report. The thinktank argued that governance structures failed to reflect modern realities of metropolitan life into account. Behind the report’s dry prose lies a real problem. Fragmentation affects a whole range of things, including the economy. The OECD estimates that for regions of equal population, doubling the number of governments reduces productivity by 6%. It recommends reducing this effect with a regional coordinating body, which can also reduce sprawl, increase public transport satisfaction (by 14 percentage points, apparently) and improve air quality. The World Bank, meanwhile, is worried about the way rapid growth in developing cities has created fragmentation there, too. Metropolises often sprawl well beyond government boundaries: Jakarta, for example, has spread into three separate provinces. The World Bank calls fragmentation “a significant challenge in the East Asia region”. Urban fragmentation in Jakarta Urban fragmentation in Jakarta. The urban area covers 1,600 sq km and 12 jurisdictions. Photograph: World Bank/University of Wisconsin-Madison “It’s quite a surprise how much fragmentation there is,” says Judy Baker, one of the authors of the World Bank’s recent report titled East Asia’s Changing Urban Landscape. “It’s a challenge for almost every city.” Among the surprising findings of the report is that 135 of the nearly 350 urban regions they surveyed in East Asia had no dominant local jurisdiction. The glaring example here is of course the largest urban area in the world, the Pearl River Delta region in China, a megapolitan region that includes many major cities, including Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and others. In Manila in the Philippines, no less than 85 municipalities are involved in the megacity’s governance. Advertisement Planners love efficiency, but even on a piece of paper it can be hard to know what size box to draw. As the OECD put it: “Even if policymakers try to reorganise local governments according to functional relations within urban agglomerations, it is often difficult to identify boundaries between functionally integrated areas.” In plain English: nobody really knows where to draw the lines. And as the Toronto example shows, amalgamation – bringing fragmented government regions together – comes with downsides of its own. Of course, you can put people in the same governmental box, but that won’t necessarily create common ground – instead, it can create a zero-sum, winner-takes-all dynamic. People in living in cities and those in their suburbs often have different values, priorities and even a different culture. They can be, as was famously said of English and French Canada, “two solitudes”. Urbanites who support regional governance frequently assume that means more power, money and resources for the central city. But as Rob Ford so richly illustrated, that’s not always the case. Among those who stand to lose from regional government are minorities. In Ferguson, black residents were already under-represented in government relative to their population. But as a voting block they would find their strength heavily diluted in a merged government: Ferguson is more than two-thirds African-American, while St Louis County plus the city of St Louis together are about 70% white. Unsurprisingly, central cities tend to prefer regional revenue-sharing without giving up political control. Detroit, despite serious financial problems, has viciously fought sharing control over city assets, even where they serve a broader region. Detroit’s convention centre is a good example of the tensions that can arise: it took years to agree renovations to the building, as despite arguing the suburbs should help pay for the building they partly enjoy, the city did not want to cede any control over it. Part of the city’s bankruptcy “grand bargain” involved raising regional water rates to funnel money back into the city while retaining city ownership over a regional water utility. But simply creating revenue streams, via regional cash sharing or consolidation, doesn’t guarantee better governance, as Detroit proves. Putting people in the same governmental box doesn’t necessarily create common ground, as the example of Toronto shows. Putting people in the same governmental box doesn’t necessarily create common ground, as the example of Toronto shows. Photograph: Alamy Indianapolis is also an instructive case. The city established a consolidated regional government in 1970 called Unigov (which Rusk hailed as a model). Unigov expanded the city’s tax base by amalgamating most of its new, fast-growing suburbs into the city. But the urban region continued to sprawl, eventually going beyond even the newly consolidated boundaries. Today’s growth in Indianapolis is all happening outside Unigov’s borders, and the city now finds itself supporting ageing suburban areas – just like Ferguson in St Louis – that it can’t afford. Consolidated government arguably gave Indianapolis four decades of financial breathing room, but that simply let it put off reform. Similarly, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was originally a well-functioning regional governance body, but is now a quagmire of dysfunction. The soaring costs of Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava’s $4.2bn PATH subway station at the World Trade Centre – and a proposal to spend $10bn to replace a bus station – are examples of an agency that has lost its grip on fiscal reality. No perfect solution exists, some cities have got it more right than others If no perfect solution exists, some cities have got it more right than others. The Greater London Authority (GLA) – because of its limited scope mostly focused on transport, public safety and economic development – has focused on doing a few things well. Its focus on transportation is targeted at an area where regional coordination really is crucial. Clearly, transport has to be designed and implemented on a regional basis, at least for major infrastructure. New York’s Port Authority arguably went off the rails in the late 1960s when it expanded beyond transportation and got into the real estate business by building the World Trade Centre. So the best way to start charting a middle ground between fragmentation and amalgamation might be for cities to look for ways to better regionalise transport governance. It won’t be easy, not least because of the common fighting over territory, both geographical and bureaucratic. London’s success with the GLA, compared with how amalgamation set Toronto’s transport planning back a decade or more, shows that creating a regional entity is only half the battle. The real drive is to create regional agreement and consensus . As cities mushroom and fragmentation increases, that consensus is becoming more crucial – and harder to achieve – than ever. sent via Tapatalk
×
×
  • Créer...