Photo:  Raised bike lane, No 3 Rd, Richmond, BC


Fine Tuning the Bridge

The Johnson St. Bridge and road approaches will be back in the public eye on Saturday.  Another open house will be held at Swan’s Hotel, within spitting distance of the bridge.  Turnout for the last open house was good.  Much feedback was provided for city project managers to incorporate into design features, particularly around the public realm.  For cyclists and pedestrians, a much better level of service will emerge on the new bridge.  Still the opportunity to tweak designs to reflect current understanding of target travel markets among cycling populations should not be ignored.

Pedestrians are being well taken care of, though a keen eye needs to be cast on the harbour pathway elements, new sidewalks on the downtown side, and the timing and connections through crosswalks that will help make foot travel more comfortable and convenient.  Now is the time to ensure that we get the details right.

For cyclists though, something is still missing.  To be sure, the new bridge offers a dramatic improvement over current conditions, and the features incorporated into the project a clear winner that helped secure endorsements from the cycling community that were key to the successful referendum.  Despite skepticism from some commentators, the much improved level of service for cyclists is likely to generate significant increases in the number of cyclists crossing the bridge every day.  On occasion, the numbers already exceed 4,000 trips a day – almost 20% of all vehicle trips counted on the bridge.

At every occasion though, when bridge designs were presented to council, or when I had the opportunity to share my ideas with staff and engineers, I pushed for a more emphatic design that would provide better physical separation from adjacent traffic on the bridge and along approach corridors.  It doesn’t have to be a cycle track like Hornby or the Dunsmuir projects in Vancouver, but there are other, more simple treatments that must be considered. 

Raised bike lanes are cheaper and more easily implemented than these more aggressive designs.  They make sure cars stay in their travel lane and raise cyclists a few centimetres above the vehicle lane, a few centimetres below the sidewalk.  It still features a “roll-over” curb that allows cyclists to move off the facility when or where they need to change lanes or direction, and it would still work for emergency vehicles when the situation requires it.

As the city works with firms that have made it this far in the process, they need to propose options for fine tuning pricing and design elements, and they should at raised bike lanes for the bridge deck and road approaches.  No doubt it adds some cost and complexity to a design that has faced enough challenges already, but support for shifting travel choices has always been key to the project and support in the community.

It won’t sit well with my colleagues who remain on council, nor, certainly, some who have taken my place around the table, that I am proposing another cost escalator, but there is an option.  Thus far the Province of BC has contributed not a penny to help build Victoria’s new bridge.  They recently regurgitated their fragments of cycling infrastructure funding programs and an innovative treatment like raised bike lanes should be eligible for support.  A sensible approach, though currently absent from program criteria, would have the province fund most of the cost of those improvements to help implement what is really an innovation rather than a routine project.   It might help them better design projects on their own bridges or provide a model for other municipalities so it may serve more than just local needs.

We need to get creative here – the bridge is designed for a 100 year service life and we can expect bicycle transportation to grow and maintain a very significant share of traffic using the bridge.  It’s not a major scope change requiring a new referendum or, like the illusory simplicity offered by those who would start all over again, a significant impact on project schedules.  It’s a feature that can work and can usefully help achieve city, regional and even provincial objectives.  It’s an option that deserves to be back on the table.

Dockside Green and Good Neighbours

Dockside Green, the languishing development project across the street from Point Hope Shipyards and likewise a stone’s throw from downtown and the Johnson St. Bridge, has been an issue of late, and truth be told, for much longer, as the second guessing continues in fits and starts.  To be fair, this and other way stations in the evolution of Victoria are targets of legitimate debate and discussion.  But or what it’s worth, here are some of my latest thoughts on the past and the present, and why Dockside still makes sense and well-tended, a promising future, and why the critics are off base.

Dockside was sold to private developers more than a decade ago, and with a grand vision to create a mixed use neighbourhood on what had been a busy rail-yard and a hodgepodge of industrial properties, long ago abandoned amid convoluted ownership arrangements.  City, provincial and private owners faced the challenge of contaminated soils needing millions in cleanup before it could be rescued for new uses and once again contribute to a vibrant local economy (a once again familiar issue as Transport Canada and BC Hydro struggle with more costs and more delays with Rock Bay lands north of downtown) .  As those issues were peeled away, with land exchanges between the province and the city and strategies for reclamation worked out, councils of the day and city staff began conversations with the community about the future use of the land and the unique opportunities and the now familiar challenges posed by its location.

The first fiction that continues to be promoted by more recent arrivals aggrieved by the busy shipyard across the street is that “the city should never have approved a residential development” on the site.  The city, it needs to be remembered, did not act alone in defiance of either good planning principles or contrary to the wishes of its citizens.  Whatever the hiccups in the evolution of the development, the project still makes the most sense for this particular corner of the city core.

The Dockside plan, the choice of developers, and the sale of the lands were all the subject of one of the more extensive public engagement processes in the city’s history.  The council of the day would have been pilloried by local neighbours and residents from across the city had they not gone ahead with the chosen development.  Everyone involved had a very clear picture of what the existing site was and who their new neighbours were going to be.  Point Hope Shipyards has been there since 1873 and nobody involved at the city, living in the residential Vic West neighbourhood, or among the diverse stakeholder groups invited into the tent had any misconceptions about the future of the shipyards and the ongoing presence of industrial activity.  They well understood that, while the shipyard business was going through some difficult times, it was not going away.  In fact, within the planning framework laid out on the table, Point Hope showed they were ready to make some changes to their business operations that would generate an increase in then current business activities; perhaps even expand operations across the road and onto Dockside Green property.  A paint shed planned for the Princess Mary site (and owned outright by the shipyard) was eventually conceded to the development in exchange for options on city land on harbour-side properties now under attack by some councillors.  Nice gesture.

Today’s grievances point fingers at the city, but that’s at best willful blindness on the part of those who bought into a development knowing that an active shipyard was operating right across the street.  Promotional materials and sales agreements spelled that out pretty clearly.  Good home buyers do their homework – they explore locations, find out who their new neighbours will be, get a feel for levels of noise and activity in the area, and should take some measure of responsibility for understanding what local zoning allows for.  Farm and rural communities get it all the time – people move in next door and start complaining that agriculture is noisy and smelly.  The shipyard is no different.  For many Dockside residents, fortunately, the shipyard is an asset – an always entertaining venue of industrial theatre with an ever changing flotilla of ships dropping in and out for maintenance and repairs.

To be fair, some of those new residents probably thought that the condos they bought would be a little more sheltered, and that is indeed what the plan has called for.  With any luck, they’ll soon be exchanging shipyard noise for construction noise as yet another development company takes the reins and starts again to grow the new condos, townhouses, affordable housing and the rest of the commercial space planned as part of the original development.  Many of those projects stalled in the world economic crisis that began in 2008 and one can’t imagine that Victoria alone would be immune to the turmoil.   The city has the authority for zoning and development permits and the like, but council cannot oblige owners to spend money they don’t have to build what they can’t sell.

The tricky part now will be to ensure that today’s council keeps an eye on the development agreements to make sure the original plan is followed.  That’s more likely than the councils of the day when much of Songhees was built.  Councils in the ‘80s and early ‘90s routinely buckled to developer demands to zone out mixed use in favour of a mono-culture of residential buildings that have created their own problems for residents and the city.  People living there like what they have, but there are no services and the neighbourhood is devoid of street life and commercial activity.  The quietude is so entrenched that existing marine dependent businesses now face constant pressure from Songhees and residential owners across the harbour to shut down the float plane industry and stand firm against the return of any marine commercial activity.  The prospect of a marina on their doorstep, although envisioned in the original development plans for the neighbourhood, fomented a small rebellion.  The city got onside very quickly, though in part because the new look marina was not the small pleasure craft moorage people imagined, and more of a parking lot for oversize luxury yachts captained by distant owners looking for cheap storage.

Dockside will have some distance to go before the neighbourhood becomes what the city and the community envisioned when plans were first unveiled.  Hundreds of units need to be sold, then built.  The right market conditions will be necessary to encourage timid investors to bulk up the built presence along the barren length of Harbour Road with the commercial, office, retail uses that the city must protect from rezoning pressures.  Once in place, many of those buildings will provide a buffer between the shipyard and the upland condos generating the current complaints.  Those projects too should also help calm the runway traffic some drivers feel entitled to enjoy along a straight, wide road without destinations, a mature tree canopy or other elements of design that would otherwise close in the corridor.  Equally unhelpful complaints emanate from those in Vic West who wanted a more residential feel to the street.  Harbour Road is still, in service to the shipyard and  other industrial neighbours, and that has always meant a more generous design for the trucks and service vehicles that come and go.

Ironically now, for some of the critics who were leaders in the fight to preserve the old crumbling blue bridge, the way forward now with the new bridge is one of the comforts the new development company has in hand to convince them that their Dockside projects can go ahead too.  Knowing well enough how badly the old bridge was deteriorated and how problematic any rescue operation might have been, no developer was keen to forge ahead and invest heavily in Dockside without the assurance that a sensible project and robust, durable, and attractive gateway crossing was going to complete to connect their market with the city’s downtown.

Ultimately, Dockside is well designed to work as intended, and both residents and the broader community need to understand again that change is a process, not an event, and the neighbourhood evolution will unfold over time.  We don’t have the tools to force development to satisfy every condo owner.  Neither can we, or should we, force a shutdown of the shipyard that some residents have only recently discovered is across the street (and a more counterproductive economic strategy would be hard to find in this city).  For those looking for sustainable communities, this is actually what it is all about – mixed use, workplaces and housing, services and shops, all bunched up together to create more walkable, affordable and accessible neighbourhoods.  It’s Victoria’s past come to life again.

Shipyard needs to weather strong winds.

The last couple of weeks had me working on another transportation project, so I left the blog alone for a spell.

That latest back and forth on Facebook though, on the Point Hope shipyard issue lately inflaming debate at city hall and out in the public realm, needed more than just a twitter length rejoinder.

Two questions were raised in particular than need further exploration.  One was the notion that the shipyard wasn’t under threat so there is no need to rush to decide on land ownership or management issues.  The other was around Dockside Green and the city’s haste in approving a residential development so close to a busy industrial site.

First to the issues around the shipyard and land ownership.  Ironically, Councillors Isitt and Gudgeon have done a good job of demonstrating exactly why ownership is a better option for Point Hope than a long term lease arrangement.  Their efforts to politicize the decision already poses a threat to a good business plan and 200 plus new jobs.

Here’s a shipyard that’s been on the same site for 130 years and working on a strategy to take it through the next several decades.  With the potential of significant growth in contract work and the jobs that come with it, a measure of security and some freedom to manage the property to meet their needs is now more immediate than it perhaps has ever been. 

That addresses somewhat the question of why now.  For the past several years Pont Hope has been working with the city to gain approvals for new and different buildings on their site, initially to enclose painting operations (something which speaks to the neighbourhood issues as well), but also to expand their marine railway operations to allow more vessels in the yard at any given time.  Federal shipbuilding contracts that Point Hope will get a piece of in the near term, and the ongoing maintenance and repairs that will follow, are a game changer.  That new work, and the extent to which it provides an opportunity for a much more diverse and robust marine industrial operation wasn’t there when the last council took office, and discussions on the nature of the relationship between the city and the shipyard go back easily that far and probably a lot longer.

The city’s willingness to consider a right of first refusal, which is basically as far as the process has advanced, is now cause for political gamesmanship which turns the shipyard into a political football more so than a cornerstone of a vibrant local economy.  For their business, the very real threat of a city captured by politicians with a different agenda in play, and perhaps changing every three years for the next several decades, is not a strong foundation for long term planning.  For the banks they need to borrow from, that uncertainty elevates the risk of any investment.

One of the important questions raised at the recent public form asked “is this property surplus to the city’s needs”.  I suppose one could imagine that a piece of land, created with fill over the city’s history, and saturated with all sorts of contaminants, and operating for more than a century as a shipyard (and operators will tell you that no other location in the region is so uniquely suited to support the kind of shipyard we have here), might have another use 35 or 40 years down the road, or next week or next month, depending on the flavour of the day.  Most anyone with a practical appreciation of the history of the shipyard, the city’s marine economy, and a better understanding of the role of cities in community building and economic development would, I think, find no better fit for the shipyard properties, at the very least.

Alternate uses proposed at the forum were not particularly helpful in understanding either the potential of the lands, or the needs of the city. 

Housing is not a feasible land use where potential clean-up costs could run into the millions.  The city, especially if it were to lose the significant tax revenue associated with the shipyard, is in no position to finance those costs, let alone carry the possible tax free status that would be assumed for an affordable housing development on the site.  There are better models, and the city has pursued some of those already.

Health issues prevent the use of contaminated land for housing, at least at ground floor levels, and the prospect of further economically viable uses at the site are wishful thinking at best.  Dockside Green, with plenty of commercial space planned, is far from building out, and nearby at Bayside and the Roundhouse, the other, more sympathetic ground floor commercial uses that may be attached to those developments are also some years away from realization.

Parks, greenspace and pathways were also suggested, and similar to the other issues associated with housing etc., the land in question is zoned for industrial use and is protected by a number of city plans, backed up by democratic process too, that are now under attack by new councillors with a sudden interest in other ideas.  So much for the sound planning foundation so important to some critics of the proposed sale. 

Parks, by the way, will already see a significant increase in inventory where the “S” curve approaching the old bridge is set to disappear.  It responded to community desires, protects a more sympathetic piece of property along the waterfront, but it too needs to be balanced against the city’s other needs, and one of those is a robust and diverse economy to support the city’s services, operations and other assets.  Victoria is not, and cannot afford to become a resort community.  We should be doing what we can to help make sure we protect the shipyard and the jobs it brings to the city.

Leasing the property, as proposed by some, suggests a management regime that is clearly very problematic for the shipyard owners.  Councillors using the issue for political purposes would love nothing more than to hold onto the property, for ideological reasons, and thus perhaps ensure that city ownership could be used as leverage over any current or potential tenant to advance a more political agenda – hardly a solid foundation on which to build a long term business plan.

The city has not, by the way, sold anything yet.  It has negotiated an option for the shipyard to purchase (a public process) and make a more sensible arrangement to support a business that has been on the same site for more than a century.  It relieves the city of any risk associated with contaminated site clean-up costs and the conflict of being both regulator and landlord.  For the shipyard and any of the banks they need support from to fund the $60 million graving dock expansion, financing will likely be more difficult for four parcels of leasehold property subject to changing political whims than one parcel of fee simple land (and already zoned for the proposed use).

I think the way forward should be pretty clear.  The city is not in the land speculation business – it is in the community building and development business.  It uses its assets and resources to support a vibrant, local economy among many other responsibilities.  The timing is right, the exchange will happen at market values, the use is the right fit and for those that believe history only began after the last election, the property is already governed by the community plans, harbour plans, and economic development plans endorsed by successive generations of community leaders and council.

I’ll encourage my council to support the more sensible and practical approach a majority have already voted for.  It’s not just an academic discussion but a very real challenge to the more than 200 new jobs that a working, and growing, shipyard business can bring to the city.

Next blog:  Dockside Green.

Where the money is going:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/7003678940/in/photostream

When the Johnson St. Bridge referendum was held in Victoria, a cost estimate was offered to the electorate based on a project that included a well-defined set of works.  It did not include the cost of moving a secure data line owned by telecommunications giant Telus, who had insisted from the outset that the city was not to touch their utilities infrastructure lest they damage something of value (and what it carried they wouldn’t say).

Fast forward a year or so and the city’s contracted risk managers pushed back, suggesting to project engineers that a higher risk (and associated liabilities), would face the city if the line was not moved to keep it safe from an errant backhoe or other damage from the construction project.  Costs could balloon and schedules would be derailed by legal claims and project interruptions that the risk assessment proposed the city could ill afford.

A cautious and responsible approach had city and consulting engineers returning to plead with Telus for permission to move the line, understanding that the city would have to absorb the cost, and the project budget pressured after the fact.  The city and council could have stuck within the confines of the promised budget figures to hold the line, but that would have represented a failure of responsibilities to protect the project timelines and exposing taxpayers to the cost of doing damage to Telus property, among other problems it would have created for the bridge project.

Wisely enough, the decision at council, save for a few errant votes, took the safer course of moving ahead with the recommendation to move the line and take the political heat for changing the scope and budget for the new bridge.  Predictable accusations of cost overruns and poor management followed.  But the real issue is whether or not the city made the right choice in picking higher up-front capital costs to avoid the risk of more costly and problematic impacts on the project had the line been damaged during construction.

It is not a nickel and dime question, since project design, management and in the ground work to move the Telus line added more than $4 million to the overall cost of the new bridge.  There are other costs to be accounted for, and most of them well thought out and responsible scope changes, though still the accusations of runaway costs continue to dominate the political debate.  Never the let the facts interfere with a good story, as the saying goes.

Costs are real enough to be sure, and paying for them always a genuine challenge, though the city has managed well enough to secure funding (bringing investment, jobs and new durable infrastructure into the city).  There are those who will continue to score political points on the extra costs, and critics who have a different agenda (it’s always been about saving the old bridge and nothing else), but when the new bridge completes and the city returns to a new normal, more thoughtful reflection on the decisions of the day may come to different conclusions about what the right choice was.

On the Telus line though, and that $4 million balloon in the project budget, the city and council made the right choice, though some may yet pay a more political price as the future unfolds.  Stay tuned.

City land and the shipyards

Point Hope Shipyards has been anchored alongside Victoria’s Johnson St. Bridge for 130 years.  It’s not going anywhere else.  The current owner is pretty firm on that – he knows that the site is perfect for his business and the most sensible for the ship repair industry that has been part of the city’s maritime economy for much of its history.

The property itself is under city ownership, and leased to shipyard owners and operators, an arrangement that has the comfort of the familiar, even if a new proposal to sell the property outright makes more sense for both the shipyard and the city.

For the shipyard, ownership provides security of tenure and options to develop the site most effectively to support a growing business.  It would give them clear title on which to build the improvements they plan to sustain the next half century of operations.  They’ve been good stewards of the property and have earned the experience necessary to managing a piece of property that the city would do well to dispose of.  They’re well versed in managing the industrial impacts of their operations and in containing, if not remediating the accumulated contamination on site.

For the city, and understand that cities are in the development business, not the real estate business, it would transfer an asset into capable hands and excuse city hall and our citizens of the responsibility of managing the liabilities associated with a parcel of industrial property that for all intents and purposes has no other viable use.  Victoria values its working harbour and city planning documents are consistent in wanting to protect the shipyard and a shrinking marine industrial land base that has still helped to keep the local economy afloat.  It brings good jobs to a city well suited to the business of ship building, maintenance and repair.

The prospects for that model are very good.  Point Hope is planning a graving dock that will allow larger vessels and more complex projects to add value to their business.  New federal shipbuilding contracts are taking shape and the facility needs to be ready to take advantage of not just the capital projects, but more so the ongoing repairs and maintenance a new fleet will require.  The impact will be well beyond the 200 plus new jobs the shipyard expects to create. 

As a property owner, Victoria has been in the unusual, if not problematic role of being both landlord and regulator that creates enough headaches on its own.   The city has more than enough to do managing aging infrastructure, growing program responsibilities and increasingly diverse services along with the complex business of city building.  It’s just not part of our core business to act as superintendent of an industrial property that has no foreseeable future as anything but a shipyard – and we should be celebrating that, not chasing the illusion of a more profitable use or windfall profits if we just wait long enough.

To be sure the city needs to, secure a good return for the sale of the property.  The proceeds will come in current dollars and though some may imagine winning the lottery associated with another 30 years or so of speculation, that scenario would sell the city short.   A contaminated site is not going to be well used as a park or converted to another luxury condo development for absentee owners.  That would require costly and risky remediation that is better left to those with the experience, or a better strategy to contain the site and keep it operating as intended. 

Better value and better returns are there to be had as the shipyard takes advantage of the security of ownership and invests in improvements that will not only generate a desirable and sustainable marine industrial economy, but also significant increases in assessed values and tax returns for a city that needs new revenue sources, not more strategies for nickel and dime cuts to jobs and services.

Victoria needs to be careful managers of property portfolios and hang on to those pieces that are essential to our core business.  But even with some of our new responsibilities, like housing, Victoria has been quick to transfer ownership and management of properties purchased to agencies that are in the housing business.  The same needs to be done with the shipyard, where the ideology of ownership is like an anchor in the sand just when we need to set sail on a new course to a more sensible and sustainable economic future.   

Next weekend (May 5th, 2012), I'll be leading a Jane's Walk, exploring some features of the downtown walking environment and bringing people to the bridgehead to talk more about how the new bridge will connect back into the city's transportation network, with an emphasis on the walking environment and cycling links from the Galloping Goose.

More to come, but here's the description that will pop up at the central Jane's Walk website soon.

Victoria's new Johnson St. Bridge is a few years away, but planning is well advanced and the city and its citizens are ever watchful.  Road re-alignments and changes to downtown approaches will emerge along with the new bridge.

What will the new walking environment look like?  Downtown Victoria has many features that support walking and invite people to explore some of the unique connections and design elements that create an appealing and supportive pedestrian environment. 

It will be a good start then to re-imagine the bridge connections and new infrastructure that will connect people to the Galloping Goose regional trail that will reach into downtown, the harbour pathway that will eventually connect along the city's waterfront and through the bridge lift mechanism, as well as a new sidewalk to be cantilevered off of the bridge deck, opening up space and providing more comfortable viewpoints form which to enjoy the vibrancy of Victoria's Inner Harbour.

Connecting the bridge, the trails and the pathways into the fabric of the downtown walking environment has been sketched out, but how can we join the conversation to envision how it will present to those on foot and what ideas can we share and offer back to the city to suggest enhancements to the landscape to give more primacy to those on foot,to make it safer, more comfortable and convenient, as well as more inviting as a walking connection or destination.

 

There are many projects planned along with the bridge and our walk will give us an opportunity to bring more ideas to the table and make sure that the walking environment (and some of the cycling connections) fit seemlessly back into the streetscapes of downtown.

And here's a map of the walk route, planned for 10 a.m. to 12 noon.
http://www.mapmywalk.com/routes/view/87099265

Today's email to Mayor and Council in advance of their stategic priorities session this afternoon.  Hope that some have time to give it a quick look.

Quick thoughts for Victoria Strategy:

As a citizen I would focus on many issues; as an advocate focusing on particular issues I’ll be more brief.

·         Protect, if not grow investments in and work on pedestrian, cycling and greenways facilities.

The city’s vision statement celebrates our “world class” status.  When it comes to livability and economic vitality, our advantage is in support for healthy lifestyles, active transportation and a green, environmentally friendly city.  Attract and retaining sustainable businesses will require more investment in supporting new generations of workers who will walk, cycle, or take transit for transportation.  North American trends show a significant decline in driving and Victoria will lose if we don’t keep ahead of that curve.  Reducing auto dependence also allows us to provide housing more cheaply, allowing people who work here to also live here.

·         Keep investing in parks, trees and our green-space.  It builds the kind of environment we will want to live in, and supports walking and cycling – an attractive environment and clean air to breathe support active lifestyles.

These initiatives would also help the city advance sustainability objectives and commitments to reducing carbon emissions and our contribution to global climate change.

·         Restore public advisory committees

Last term several committees were collapsed into super-committees where agendas were too broad to attract enough interest or enough focus on key issues facing the city to be effective.  The lack of connection to departmental staff and the absence of council liaisons deprived citizens of meaningful engagement and council of useful feedback on policy and projects undertaken by the city.

For many services and projects (and for the interests I represent), this gap undermined efforts to respond to key needs in the community for more and better walking and cycling facilities.  Losing the cycling committee and the transportation committee distanced citizens from a useful forum in which the decision to choose a new bridge over refurbishment could have been more effectively communicated, gaining more early support and capturing positive ideas on details of design – an opportunity that can still be useful on road approaches on either side of the new bridge, and particularly on improvements to the walking and cycling environment.

This too would help the city improve citizen engagement, another key objective in your Corporate Strategic Plan.  A good model exists in Saanich where, for example, a bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, chaired by a member of council, provides a very useful forum in which to review plan priorities and design details.  Better committees would be useful in other areas where citizen engagement is withering.  We need stronger connections between council and citizens.

·         Take leadership on transit issues

Take a cue from Waterloo, where the high tech industry is speaking in unison in support of their LRT plan.  Building a stronger economy and attracting the kinds of businesses that Victoria is suited to will not be in catering to more roads and parking lots.  LRT is the best tool for addressing key public transportation challenges; it can aid in the development of more density and living space in downtown and along the Douglas corridor; and it will help meet many other objectives in building a sustainable community at all levels.

There are many other issues and responsibilities that the city needs to take on to renew our aging infrastructure and build an economic model that supports dynamic and sustainable growth to maintain our “world class” status.  It will not be advanced by cutting investments in arts and culture, active transportation and other green initiatives and key services the city provides.  We can’t build a better city if our focus is on cutting more of what makes our city “world class”.