Raise the Hammer

As sympathetic as I am to the case, the business case behind that link is about as airtight as Aerotropolis. But maybe that's good enough.

I'm sure you are aware of the Chamber's historic track record of "benign neutrality," of its hereditary disposition to serving the needs of the trucking industry, aka "the essential lifeblood of our economy" and its flat dismissal of the "red herring" of peak oil.

I’m equally sure that you are aware of EcDev’s unblemished history of championing the cause of walkability and transit as quick-wins that will rejuvenate the downtown and bring prosperity to the broader city.

Whatever the colour of spots that these bodies are wearing in their current incarnations, I would advise against leaving this matter to them.

That 20-page report contains around a dozen pages of analysis, and opens with a question: “What is the impact of walkable and transit accessible environments on jobs and economic development?”

But it only ever offers half an answer.

The report lists the top 10 neighbourhoods in terms of WalkScore (80% of which are in Wards 1-2), but offers no corresponding numbers for creative industry population or accompanying investment. Ward 2 in particular boasts the city’s three most walkable neighbourhoods by their accounting (Beasley, Corktown and Central) but fails to acknowledge that these are among the most economically depressed neighbourhoods in the city. (As well as WalkScore’s own limitation, that its methodology doesn’t factor in pedestrian design.)

Cheaper bottom-line rents hold self-evident appeal for fiscally challenged creative workers (see Hill Strategies Research’s 2009 study that showed artists across Canada earning, on average, just 9% above LICO, and have seen their earnings erode, dropping 11% even as the cultural-sector work force tripled in size), a selling point that has earned prominent and sustained placement in media interviews with creatives who have moved here.

Nor does the report detail the number of jobs in any of these sectors, the associated income/revenue, or the local investment attributed to spin-off effects. This despite a concluding remark that “there is distinct clustering of businesses in areas close to or within the neighbourhoods that rank the highest on both scores [WalkScore/TransitScore].” Not that the data appears in the report. We’ll also discount the possibility that creative entrepreneurs might cluster where there is a glut of media coverage devoted to promoting creative entrepreneurs (or, for that matter, a social milieu where they can mix and mingle with other creatives).

Another leap: “Further, we know from recent survey data that creative industries are a fast growing sector in Hamilton and thus, this correlation demonstrates a link between walkable and transit accessible environments and jobs. Moving forward, this understanding can help inform local efforts at job creation.”

And yet there is no measure of the economic argument, aside from the anecdotal observation. No sense of what kind of jobs these are, what sector of the creative industries, how many are under one roof, how many are self-sustained or rationalized solely by grants, even whether they are full-or part-time.

No granular analysis, only “a number of interesting trends.”

Despite these quibbles, I agree with the philosophy espoused in the report following the quote that you cite: “Just as investments are made to ensure suburban business parks have the required infrastructure to make them centres of private investment, walkable environments need to be created, enhanced and maintained in order to attract jobs for other sectors… Strengthening the link between walkability, transit accessibility and jobs will be important for Hamilton to effectively build a strong and diverse economy moving forward.”