다큐멘터리 _ 도시관련 리스트.

PastForward Film Series

The PastForward Film series showcases preservation efforts in all shapes and sizes – ranging from the preservation of a single Massachusetts cottage to the fight to save an entire neighborhood from big business interests.  We hope you’ll join us as we share these remarkable stories from across the country.  Pass the popcorn!

Thurs., Nov. 13, Noon-5:30 p.m.
Location: Oglethorpe Auditorium

Noon-1:00 p.m. – Brooklyn Matters
Brooklyn Matters exposes how powerful real estate interests and politicians collaborate to circumvent local laws, seize private property through eminent domain, and manipulate public participation and racial politics to push forward what could become the densest development in the United States, while raising critical questions for urban planners, architects, environmentalists, policy makers, activists and community residents. Includes Q/A with Producer/Director Isabel Hill.

1:10-1:20 p.m. – Sneak Peek – Modern Ruin: A World’s Fair Pavilion
This film tells the story of Philip Johnson’s New York State Pavilion during the glory days of the 1964-65 New York World’s Fair, and chronicles its demise over the past 50 years. The film details its post-fair use as a 60s concert venue and 70s roller rink, including the years of neglect and the recent growing advocacy efforts to save and repurpose the structure.

1:30-1:40 p.m. – Sneak Peek – The Revolving Fund Film
Revolving funds are a powerful tool for revitalization.  In places like Galveston, Boston, Savannah, and Macon, revolving funds have transformed neighborhoods into vibrant and viable places to live, work, and play.  Mary Anthony of the 1772 Foundation, Myrick Howard of Preservation North Carolina, Donovan Rypkema of PlaceEconomics, and other experts explore the many ways revolving funds can work to reinvigorate communities.  Following the film, join professors Justin Gunther and Michael Chaney to learn more about the collaboration of SCAD historic preservation, dramatic writing, and film students that created this documentary.

2:00-2:30 p.m – Reviving the Freedom Mill
When environmentalist Tony Grassi takes a gamble to rehab an abandoned mill, he inspires both skepticism and hope that it will breathe new life into the rural town of Freedom, Me. With the help of a colorful team of builders, masons, engineers and architects, he sets out to reconstruct a forgotten historical treasure. Can his 21st century vision of conservation re-power this community?  Includes Q/A with Tony Grassi.

2:50-3:50 p.m. – The Greenest Building
Narrated by David Ogden Stiers, this film demonstrates how renovation and adaptive reuse fully achieves the sustainability movement’s “triple bottom line” – economic, social and ecological balance.  The film reveals:  (a) how reuse and reinvestment leads to stronger local economies that can compete globally, (b) that sense of place and collective memory are critical components of sustainable communities, and (c) the direct correlation between reuse and t reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, degradation of the l environment and overuse of natural resources.

4:00-5:20 p.m. – Cherry Cottage: The Story of An American House
This documentary tells the story of America through the owners and inhabitants of a small cottage in Stockbridge, Ma. From the Native American inhabitants of New England to the 1960s counterculture, the history of Cherry Cottage is intertwined with the history of the region and the country as a whole.  Q/A to follow.

출처: http://www.pastforward2014.com/film-series/

최근 

http://www.hustwit.com/category/helvetica/

Why We Need to Re-Think Public Employees’ Compensation?

Why We Need to Re-Think Public Employees’ Compensation? (왜 우리는 공무원  연금에 대해 다시 생각해야 하는가?)

공무원 연금개선을 놓고 말이 많다. 경기부양과 복지지출 재원을 마련하기 위해 담뱃값인상부터 시작하여 공무원연금 그리고 쌀관세까지 증세가 시작되고 있다. Thom Reilly 가 쓴 글들의 목록을 쭉 보니, 현재의 공무원들을 위한 개혁보다, 다음 세대 공무원들을위해 개혁을 해야 한다는내용의 의견이 많다. 

Traditional public pensions widen the public-private pay gap, and they aren't a good fit for a younger government workforce.

BY THOM REILLY | SEPTEMBER 29, 2014

3 

1 

0 

1 

0 

  

 

Pensions -- except for one's own, of course -- seldom rank high on Americans' list of hot topics. But the Great Recession and the huge debt surrounding public employees' pensions have thrust this complex and rather arcane issue into the spotlight.

Which is where it belongs. Nationwide, unfunded liabilities for public-sector pensions and retiree health care range anywhere from $1.4 trillion to more than $4 trillion, depending on the assumptions used. And looking ahead, there's good reason to conclude that current public-pension plans will not fit the needs of younger generations of public workers.

The national debate over public pensions raises a number of key issues, including fairness, transparency, the proper role of government and the sanctity of the free market. The bottom line, however, is the bottom line: Are public-sector workers making out better than their private-sector counterparts? The answer, according to a new model of private-versus-public-sector lifetime compensation, is yes.

RELATED

• What a Public Employee Really Costs
• Public Employees’ Pension Dilemma
• Modernizing Government Starts with Its Workers
• The Challenge of Building the Workforce Government Needs

Taking a new approach to the ongoing debate, I constructed a public-versus-private-sector model to gauge the cost of lifetime compensation. The model, measuring total wealth accumulated during both active-employment and retirement years, includes three types of workers:

• A private-sector employee with a typical 401(k) retirement package.

• A public-sector employee with a defined-benefit pension plan plus Social Security income.

• A public-sector worker with a defined-benefit plan but no Social Security income.

Two sample occupations were reviewed: administrative assistants (white-collar workers) and engineers (professionals).

The results: For both occupations, total lifetime compensation of an average public employee was higher than that of the private-sector counterpart. While pre-retirement compensation levels were comparable between the two sectors for the administrative assistant and higher for the private-sector engineer, the retirement benefits of public-sector employees for both occupations were far greater than those of their private sector counterparts. This was not only because public-sector retirement payouts are more generous but also because public employees can retire on average five years earlier than private-sector workers.

Over the years, benefits have become a growing portion of total compensation for public employees. Elected officials have often favored more-enhanced benefits packages in lieu of salary increases because it has been politically easier: Benefit-package increases are less visible to the public, and the costs can be spread out over time.

But there is a growing conviction among policy experts that it may be time to reevaluate how we compensate public employees -- that public pay is too heavily skewed toward deferred compensation, which can hide a full accounting of the costs from the public while pushing a significant portion of those costs onto future generations.

In addition, these plans may no longer be the best choice for today's younger and more mobile workforce. Most defined-benefit plans, for example, are not portable. Thus, many workers feel constrained to remain with one employer, no matter how unhappy or unproductive they are. Other types of plans -- such as defined-contribution, cash-balance and hybrid -- may be much more appealing to workers who desire more flexibility with their retirement accounts.

The model described here clearly does not end the debate on comparative compensation. But it does offer a different perspective on the growing disparity between the retirement costs associated with public-sector workers and those of their private-sector counterparts at a time when there is growing political resistance to preserving retirement benefits for public employees that are far more generous that most private-sector workers can ever hope to enjoy.

The paramount challenge for policymakers is to design sustainable compensation systems that ensure recruitment and retention of quality public workforces while providing protection for retirees. Some hard choices are certainly ahead. But it's time -- if not well past time -- to take them on.

   

1. 미국 복지제도의 개요

미국 기업의 보상방식은 크게 임금(pay)와 같은 직접 보상방식과 복지(Benefit)와 같은 간접 보상방식이 있다. 복지제도는 일반적으로 근로자의 장기근속을 유도하고 보다 건강한 노동을 제공하도록 하며, 한편으로 기업에 대한 충성심을 제고하기 위해 설계한다. 복지제도는 정부에 의해 강제되는 것도 있지만 대부분의 복지는 기업이 선택적으로 도입하고 있으며, 자발적으로 도입하는 경우에 정부에 의한 규제를 받기도 한다. 예를 들어서 건강보험(health care benefit)은 일정한 경우가 아니면 대부분의 평균적인 직장인들에게는 재직중 의무적으로 제공되지 않기 때문에 기업들이 임의로 제공하게 되는데, 근로자로서는 입사하기 전 기업의 복지제도를 꼼꼼하게 따져서 입사할 필요가 있다. 한편 직장 건강보험을 제공하는 기업은 세제혜택 등을 받기 위해 아래와 같은 법령을 준수하게 된다.

4. 퇴직연금과 건강보험

위와같은 의무적 복지제도외에 기업이 제공하는 퇴직연금(retirement plan)과 건강보험(health care plan) 등은 기업이 임의로 제공할 수 있다.

퇴직연금은 현재의 소득이 미래로 유예(deferred)된다는 의미에서 이연보상(deferred compensation)이라고 부르며, 특히 ERISA와 국세법 등을 준수하여 세제혜택을 받을 수 있는 경우를 세제적격 이연보상(Qualified deferred compensation)이라고 부른다. 이러한 퇴직연금에는 급부가 미리 확정되는 DB형(defined benefit)과 근로자와 사용자의 기여분이 미리 확정되는 DC형(defined contribution)이 있다. DB형은 근로자가 받는 연금소득이 미리 확정되므로 이를 감독하고 연금재정이 고갈될 경우에 대신 지급해 주는 등 PBGC(The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation)의 지원을 받게 되지만, DC형의 경우에는 이런 혜택을 받지 못한다. 다만 DC형은 사용자 뿐 아니라 근로자도 연금에 기여할 수 있고 운용실적에 따라 더 큰 혜택을 받을 수 있다는 점에서 현재는 DC형이 더 선호되고 있다. DC형에는 401K, Profit-Sharing Plan, ESOP 등 다양한 제도가 운영되고 있다.

건강보험(health insurance)은 공적의료보험인 Medicare를 받을 수 있는 65세 이전에 병원진료와 입원 등에 대해 보장을 받기 위해 기업단위로 가입하게 되며, 기업의 benefit이므로 기업이 보험료를 부담하게 된다. 여기에는 주치의를 위주로 진료가 이루어지고 저렴한 비용이 드는 HMO방식, 주치의는 없고 환자가 전문의를 선택할 수 있으나 보험료가 비싼 PPO방식 등이 있다.

한편 건강보험을 도입하면 기업입장에서 막대한 비용지불을 감수해야 하므로, 기업은 건강보험의 비용을 줄이려고 노력한다. 그 방편으로 보험료 지불방식에 있어서 사용자가 모든 비용을 보험업자에게 지불하는 Fully insured plan외에 사용자 스스로 보험회사의 기능을 하는 Self-insured plan을 선택하고, HIPCs를 통해 기업들이 집단적으로 보험을 구입하여 단가를 낮추려고 노력하며, 기타 근로자 자기부담금(deductible)을 인상해서 보험료를 낮추는 등의 보험제도 재설계 방식이 등장하게 된다.

출처: 미국 복지제도(Benefit program)의 이해

이 종 수 공인노무사 ․ PHR

(www.hrpro.kr)

[사설] 공무원연금·쌀관세·담뱃세 인상 후퇴말라

2014.09.29 00:02:02 입력, 최종수정 2014.09.29 09:33:16

모처럼 정부와 여당이 몇 가지 개혁을 밀어붙이는 것은 잘한 일이다. 공무원연금 개혁, 쌀 시장 개방, 담뱃값 인상, 저탄소차협력금제(탄소세) 연기 등은 이해집단의 반발이 무서워 오랫동안 묵혀 놓은 숙제들이다.

예상했지만 발표가 있은 후 지난 주말에는 쌀 시장 개방과 공무원연금 개정을 반대하는 집회가 동시에 열리는 등 이해집단의 반발이 심하다. 공무원노조총연맹은 연금 개혁안이 안종범 청와대 경제수석의 안이라고 엉뚱한 주장을 펴고 실제 개혁안을 마련한 김용하 연금학회장은 전화부대의 항의와 악성 인터넷 댓글에 시달려 결국 학회장에서 사임하는 일까지 벌어지고 있다.

개혁은 이해집단이 아니라 전체 국민을 보고 하는 것이다. 새누리당은 국가 명운이 걸린 이번 개혁들을 꼭 밀어붙여야 한다. 그런데 여당 내 정책라인과 몇몇 의원들이 벌써부터 "공무원 전체를 적(敵)으로 돌릴 수는 없다" "당이 꼭 총대를 멜 필요가 있겠느냐"는 얘기를 하고 있다고 하니 어찌된 일인가. 내년 한 해만 3조원의 적자가 예상되는 공무원연금 개혁은 더 미뤘다간 공멸한다. 그런데도 2016년 총선과 2017년 대선을 위해 공무원 사회와 적당한 선에서 타협해야 한다는 말이 왜 나오는가. 집권 여당이 지난 정권처럼 개혁을 흐지부지한다면 100만 공무원 표보다 4900만 국민이 더 무섭다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.

2003년 통독 이후 10년간 경기침체로 `유럽의 병자`로 불렸던 독일 부활의 터닝포인트는 하르츠개혁(어젠더 2010)이었다. 노동시장 유연성과 복지 축소를 골자로 한 개혁으로 슈뢰더 총리의 사민당은 2005년 메르켈의 기민당으로 정권교체가 됐지만 개혁은 승계됐다. 국가를 위한 바람직한 정책은 여야를 가리지 않는 독일정치가 국가를 부활시킨 것이다. 새누리당은 이번 개혁들을 정권을 놓치는 한이 있더라도 반드시 해야 한다. 그런 각오로 임해야 한 걸음이라도 나아갈 수 있다. 국민만 바라보고 진정성 있는 개혁을 밀어붙이면 국민은 더 큰 평가를 해줄 것이다.
[ⓒ 매일경제 & mk.co.kr, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]

How to Write a Perfect Professional Email in English

http://www.englishtown.com/community/Channels/article.aspx?articleName=184-email

Begin with a greeting

It's important to always open your email with a greeting, such as "Dear Lillian,". Depending on the formality of your relationship, you may want to use their family name as opposed to their given name, i.e. "Dear Mrs. Price,". If the relationship is more casual, you can simply say, "Hi Kelly," If you’re contacting a company, not an individual, you may write "To Whom It May Concern:"

Thank the recipient

If you are replying to a client's inquiry, you should begin with a line of thanks. For example, if someone has a question about your company, you can say, "Thank you for contacting ABC Company." If someone has replied to one of your emails, be sure to say, "Thank you for your prompt reply." or "Thanks for getting back to me." If you can find any way to thank the reader, then do. It will put him or her at ease, and it will make you appear more courteous.

State your purpose

If, however, you are initiating the email communication, it may be impossible to include a line of thanks. Instead, begin by stating your purpose. For example, "I am writing to enquire about …" or "I am writing in reference to …" It's important to make your purpose clear early on in the email, and then move into the main text of your email. Remember to pay careful attention to grammar, spelling and punctuation, and to avoid run-on sentences by keeping your sentences short and clear.

Closing remarks

Before you end your email, it's polite to thank your reader one more time as well as add some courteous closing remarks. You might start with "Thank you for your patience and cooperation." or "Thank you for your consideration." and then follow up with, "If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to let me know." and "I look forward to hearing from you."

End with a closing

The last step is to include an appropriate closing with your name. "Best regards," "Sincerely," and "Thank you," are all professional. It's a good idea to avoid closings such as "Best wishes," or "Cheers," as these are best used in casual, personal emails. Finally, before you hit the send button, review and spell check your email one more time to make sure it's truly perfect!

- See more at: http://www.englishtown.com/community/Channels/article.aspx?articleName=184-email#sthash.i0c7E2Sb.dpuf

[특별취재팀=성연진 기자] '부자들은 우리와는 다른 사람들'. 위대한 개츠비의 작가 스콧 피츠제럴드는 일찍이 이렇게 말했다. 때문에 사회인으로의 시작을 준비 중인 대학생들이 부자들의 머릿속을 궁금해하는 것도 낯선 일이 아니다. 손꼽히는 재계 부호나 명사들이 졸업식 연사로 자리하는 것도 같은 맥락이다.

특히 올해는 유독 여성 연사들이 화제가 됐다. 크리스틴 라가르드 국제통화기금(IMF) 총재가 학생들의 IMF(국제통화기금) 정책에 대한 반대로 미국 명문 여대인 스미스 칼리지 졸업식 축사를 하지 못하게 된 데다, 콘돌리자 라이스 전 미 국방장관도 뉴저지주의 럿거스 대학에서 졸업식 축사를 거부당했기 때문이다. 이런 분위기속에 여론까지 같은 편으로 끌어들여 졸업식 연단에 선 여성 명사들의 축사가 더욱 주목된다. 유명강연 '톱5'를 뽑아봤다.

1. "정면으로 도전에 맞서라"/메리 바라 제너럴 모터스(GM) CEO. 연봉 1440만 달러

=올해 미국 자동차 업계 최초로 여성 CEO 타이틀을 거머쥔 메리 바라는 지난 5월 3일 미시간 대학의 졸업식 축사에서 "정면으로도전에 맞서라"고 강조했다. 그는 "재능만으로는 충분치 않다"면서 "더 많은 것을 갖춰 남과 구별지어야 한다"고 충고했다.

특히 업무의 주변부에서 일하는 것에 만족하지 말고 중요한 미팅이나 과제에 합류하기를 기다려서는 안된다고 전했다. 주요 업무를 맡기 위해선 단지 마음 속으로 희망할 것이 아니라 행동에 나서라는 말이다.

메리 바라는 "당신이 일의 중심에 있다는 걸 확신할 수 있도록 열정을 보이고 문을 두드려야 한다"면서 "기억하라. 희망은 전략이 아니다(Remember that hope is not a strategy)"고 밝혔다.

2. "중심으로 와서 목소리를 높여라"/셰릴 샌드버그 페이스북 COO. 연봉 1620만 달러

='린 인(Lean in)'으로 전 세계 워킹맘의 멘토가 된 페이스북의 최고업무책임자(COOㆍchief Operating Officer) 셰릴 샌드버그는 5월 3일 시카고대의 졸업식에서 메리 바라와 같은 얘기를 했다. 주변부가 아닌 중심으로 스스로를 끌고 올 것을 강조한 것.

샌드버그는 "정면이 아닌 방 가장자리나 뒤에 앉아있는 사람들을 봤다. 손을 높이 들기보다 낮게 들고, 목소리를 높이기보다 낮추는 것을 봤다. 나는 반복해서 자신감이 어떤 결과를 가져오는지를 봤으며, 그것이 심지어 내가 왜 그 자리에 있는지 확신하지 못할 때에도 테이블에 앉을 수 있게 했다"고 말했다. 그는 "어찌됐건 의견에 확신을 갖지 못할 때조차 목소리를 높여야 한다"고 전했다.

3. "다른 이들이 보지 못하는 것을 보라"/토리 버치 토리버치 회장ㆍ디자이너. 자산가치 35억 달러

=패션 브랜드 토리버치의 회장이자 디자이너인 토리 버치는 5월 17일 밥슨 컬리지의 졸업식에서 연단에 올라 "하룻밤 새 성공에 이르는 방법은 없다"고 말했다.

밥슨 컬리지는 지난 10년간 5000여개 벤처 기업을 배출해 낸 미국 창업교육의 메카로 꼽히는 곳이다.

토리 버치는 이를 의식한 듯 'Fellow Entrepreneur(동료 기업가)'라 졸업생들을 칭하며 '기업가 정신'을 강조했다. 그는 "기업가란 단지 타이틀이나 회사를 창업하는 의미가 아니다. 다른 이들이 보지 못하는 것을 보고 기회를 잡고, 새로운 방향을 추구하는 것"이라고 정의했다.

4. "받은 만큼 베풀어라"/미셸 오바마. 재산 최대 700만 달러 추정(부부 합산)

=미국의 영부인 미셸 오바마는 올해 뉴올리언스의 딜라드 대학의 졸업 축사에 나섰다. 그는 아프리카계 미국인들이 미국에서 교육기회를 얻기 위해 투쟁했던 기억을 떠올리며 "Pay it foward(타인에게 받은 호의를 다시 다른 이에게 베푸는 행위)"를 강조했다.

그는 "우리는 행운아다. 그리고 우리는 많은 사람들 때문에 이 자리에 설 수 있었다"면서 "과거에 진 이 같은 빚을 갚는 것은 다음 세대를 위해 희생과 투자를 하는 것"이라고 말했다.

백악관에 따르면 지난해 기준 버락 오바마 대통령과 영부인의 재산은 모두 합해 180만~700만달러 수준으로 집계된다. 미국에서는 고위공직자들이 1년에 한번, 정확한 금액 대신 포괄적 범위를 설정해 재산을 공개하게 돼 있다.

5. "실패를 두려워 마라"/수잔 보이치키. 유튜브 CEO. 연봉 미공개

=올해 유튜브의 신임 CEO가 된 수잔 보이치키는 올해 존스홉킨스 대학의 졸업식에서 기회와 믿음에 대해 강조했다.

그는 "사회가 빠르게 변하면서 기회 역시 빠르게 다가온다. 우리 모두 완벽한 정보 없이 단지 세상에 끊임없이 변할 것이라는 사실 하나만으로 결정을 내려야 한다"고 밝혔다. 때문에 실패를 두려워하지 말고, 믿음을 잃지 말 것을 조언했다.

그는 "세상이 매우 빠르게 돌아가고 있다는 것은, 무엇이 정답인지 누가 실패를 마주할 지도 모른다는 뜻"이라고 설명했다. 보이치키는 포브스가 선정한 가장 영향력 있는 여성 100인 가운데 16위를 차지한 바 있다.

yjsung@heraldcorp.com
- Copyrights ⓒ 헤럴드경제 & heraldbiz.com, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지 -

[헤럴드경제 BEST 클릭]

Economic Gardening with stage 2 companies

Economic Gardening Is Growing, But What Is It?

Instead of trying to lure big companies with tax incentives, more and more places are trying to increase the number of local businesses to boost their economies.

by Liz Farmer | June 27, 2014

Downtown Littleton, Colo. FlickrCC/Jeffrey Beall

 

Nearly 30 years ago, city officials in Littleton, Colo., put a novel theory to test: Could a small group of local businesses, with assistance from the city, boost Littleton out of its downward spiral?
The Denver suburb was reeling in 1987 after its then-major employer, missile manufacturer Martin Marietta (today Lockheed Martin) left town, laying off about 7,800 people over an 18-month period. The company also left about 1 million square feet of industrial and office space. That year, the city council directed its economic team to figure out how to not just fill the hole but to make sure Littleton was never that vulnerable again.
“As good a citizen as Martin Marietta was, they were headquartered out east,” says Chris Gibbons, Littleton’s business director at the time. “Our future was being determined by people far, far away. They didn’t have to see the people in the grocery store on Saturday that they laid off.”
 
Soon after, Gibbons and his team connected with a Denver think tank, the Center for the New West, that was anxious to test a theory developed by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist economist David Burch. That theory was that so-called Stage 2 companies, employing between 10 and 100 people and with annual revenue of at least $1 million, create the best kind of jobs that will improve an economy. As opposed to small shops that create mostly minimum wage jobs, these mid-sized companies were growing the middle class workforce. Nationally speaking, Stage 2 businesses make up 10 percent of the business population -- but they create 35 percent of the jobs. The thinking was that if such companies had the proper push they could drive a local economy upward.
Gibbons called it economic gardening and began trying it out in Littleton in the late 1980s by identifying local Stage 2 companies and offering them more resources to help expand their business. Over the next 25 years, Littleton’s population increased by one-quarter but the number of jobs tripled and the city’s sales tax revenue went from $6 million to $21 million. “When Martin Marietta was there, we were a rocket town,” says Gibbons. “Now that economy is so diverse, there is no one industry that could fail and bring down Littleton like it could 25 years ago.”
Gibbons left Littleton to help set up the National Center for Economic Gardening, which is hosted by the Michigan-based Edward Lowe Foundation. The center helps other cities and states replicate what Littleton was able to do and has helped established programs across the country in varying economies including in Kansas, Florida and Michigan. Economic gardening now is catching on in states across the country as some shy away from the political unpopularity of tax incentives.
Andrew Ratner, public relations manager for the Maryland Department of Business & Economic Development, says the idea is appealing in part because it takes the focus away from competing with other states. “That’s economic hunting -- everybody’s trying to land that enormous auto plant to move halfway across the country,” Ratner says. “And the amount of incentives that often have to be given to lure those kind of things, there’s often a lot of debate if that’s even worth it.”
Maryland’s program, called Advance Maryland, launched last year and accepted five companies into the program. The cost to the state per business is roughly $5,000. Web hosting firm Unleashed Technologies, for example, got detailed market research that’s often not affordable for companies. But Unleashed’s CEO has said it helped the firm narrow its focus and identified areas where it can grow. As a result, the company is adding 10 jobs, which increases its workforce by one-third, and it expects to increase revenues.
The state is wrapping up its process for its second round of applications and this year is hoping to add some manufacturers to the program. Ratner says the success stories in more rural areas of the country show him the same principles can be applied to any industry. “Particularly in a state like Maryland, where bio- and cyber-technology industries have been successful,” he says, “sometimes getting economic development in the eastern and western rural parts of the state has been sort of a challenge.”

Liz Farmer  | 

---

lfarmer@governing.com  |  @LizFarmerTweets  |  Google+

The work of Lawrence Halprin

Opinion | January 16, 2014

What A City Needs to Foster Innovation: Cafes, Bike Lanes, and 3D Printers

By: Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner

Share on emailShare on twitterShare on facebookShare on linkedinShare on google_plusone_shareShare on stumbleuponShare on redditShare on print

Once upon a time, innovation was an isolationist sport. In America’s innovative economy 20 years ago, a worker drove to a nondescript office campus along a suburban corridor, worked in isolation, and kept ideas secret.

Today, by contrast and partly a result of the Great Recession, proximity is everything. Talented people want to work and live in urban places that are walkable, bike-able, connected by transit, and hyper-caffeinated. Major companies across multiple sectors are practicing “open innovation” and want to be close to other firms, research labs, and universities. Entrepreneurs want to start their companies in collaborative spaces, where they can share ideas and have efficient access to everything from legal advice to sophisticated lab equipment.

These disruptive forces are coming to ground in small, primarily urban enclaves—what we and others are calling “innovation districts.” By our definition, innovation districts cluster and connect leading-edge institutions with startups and spin-off companies, business incubators, and accelerators in the relentless pursuit of cutting-edge discoveries for the market. Compact, transit-accessible, and highly networked, they grow talent, foster open collaboration, and offer mixed-used housing, office, retail, and 21st century urban amenities. In many respects, the rise of innovation districts embodies the very essence of cities: an aggregation of talented, driven people assembled in close quarters, who exchange ideas and knowledge. It’s in the vein of what urban historian Sir Peter Hall calls “a dynamic process of innovation, imitation and improvement.”

Globally, Montreal, Seoul, Singapore, Medellin, Barcelona, Cambridge, and Berlin offer just a few examples of evolving innovation districts. In the US, the most iconic innovation districts can be found in the downtowns and midtowns of cities like Atlanta, Cambridge, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and St. Louis, where advanced research universities, medical complexes, research institutions, and clusters of tech and creative firms are sparking business expansion, as well as residential and commercial growth. Even a cursory visit to Kendall Square in Cambridge, University City in Philadelphia, or midtown Atlanta shows the explosion of growth and mixed development occurring around institutions like MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, and Georgia Tech.

Other innovation districts can be found in Boston, Brooklyn, San Francisco, and Seattle, where former industrial and warehouse areas are charting a new innovative path, powered by their enviable location along transit lines, their proximity to downtowns and waterfronts, and their recent addition of advanced research institutions (reflected by Carnegie Mellon University’s decision to place its Integrative Media Program at the Brooklyn Navy Yard).

Perhaps the greatest validation of this shift is found in the efforts of traditional exurban science parks (like Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham) to urbanize, in order to keep pace with the preferences of their workers for walkable communities and the preference of their firms to be near other firms and collaborative opportunities.

Innovation districts are already attracting an eclectic mix of firms in a diverse group of sectors, including life sciences, clean energy, design, and tech. We even see a return of small-scale and customized manufacturing, made possible by 3D printing, robotics, and other advanced techniques.

Unlike efforts to grow the “consumer city” via sports stadia, luxury housing, and high-end retail, innovation districts are intent on growing the firms, networks, and sectors that drive real, broad-based prosperity.

At a time of increasing concerns over inequality and resilience, innovation districts can spur productive, inclusive, and sustainable growth. If properly structured and scaled, they can provide a strong foundation for the commercialization of ideas, the expansion of firms, and the creation of jobs. They also offer the tantalizing prospect of expanding employment and educational opportunities for disadvantaged populations—many innovation districts are close to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods—as well as sparking more sustainable development patterns, given their embrace of transit, historic buildings, traditional street grids, and existing infrastructure.

Innovation districts represent one of the most positive trends that have emerged in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Smart cities, innovative companies, advanced universities, and financial institutions would be wise to embrace them.

This piece originally appeared on Quartz.

Opinion | December 30, 2013

Big Idea 2014: Goodbye Silicon Valley, Hello Silicon Cities

By: Bruce Katz

Share on emailShare on twitterShare on facebookShare on linkedinShare on google_plusone_shareShare on stumbleuponShare on redditShare on print

This opinion piece from Bruce Katz is part of a series in which LinkedIn Influencers pick one big idea that will shape 2014. See the original article here.

As the United States slowly emerges from the Great Recession, led by our cities and metropolitan areas, a remarkable shift is occurring in the spatial geography of innovation.

For the past fifty years, the landscape of innovation has been epitomized by regions like Silicon Valley — suburban corridors of spatially isolated corporate campuses, accessible only by car, with little emphasis on the quality of life or on integrating work, housing and recreation.

That model now appears outdated.

Innovative companies and talented workers are revaluing the physical assets and attributes of cities. A new spatial geography of innovation is emerging and, in 2014, it will reach a critical mass worthy of recognition and replication.

This new model — the Innovation District — clusters leading-edge anchor institutions and cutting-edge innovative firms, connecting them with supporting and spin-off companies, business incubators, mixed-use housing, office, retail and 21st century urban amenities.

Innovation Districts are already found in the downtowns and midtowns of Atlanta, Cambridge, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco and St. Louis, where existing clusters of advanced research universities, medical complexes, and tech and creative firms are sparking business expansion as well as residential and commercial growth.

Others are taking root in cities such as Boston and Seattle where underutilized areas — particularly older industrial lands — are being re-imagined and remade by leveraging their enviable location near waterfronts and downtowns and along transit lines.

Still others are developing in traditional exurban science parks like Research Triangle Park outside Raleigh-Durham, which is scrambling to urbanize in line with the preferences of their workers for walkable communities and the preferences of their firms to be near other firms and collaborative opportunities.

Why is this happening? Profound demographic, economic and cultural shifts are radically altering the preferences of both firms and people, re-forging the link between economy-shaping and place-making.

The prototypical family of the suburban era — a married couple with school-age children —now represents only 20 percent of households, down from over 40 percent in 1970. “Quality of life” is increasingly understood as proximity to restaurants, retail, cultural and educational institutions, and other urban amenities. Young professionals are starting families later and, in the meantime, demanding a vibrant street life, historic neighborhoods, and public transit.

At the same time, our open, innovative economy craves proximity and extols integration, where knowledge can be transferred seamlessly between, within and across clusters, firms, workers and supporting institutions. With the rise of open innovation and networked idea generation, the imperative to collaborate has expanded to a broad group of knowledge-intensive sectors, including science- and technology-heavy fields such as chemicals, biotechnology, telecommunications, and semiconductors. No single company can master all the knowledge it needs; rather, innovation relies on a network of connected firms. In short, companies need to collaborate to compete.

Together, these trends are fundamentally altering how firms and people interact, how ideas flow and how places — offices, research labs, business incubators — are physically designed. Innovation Districts embrace the redesign of buildings and office spaces in support of collaboration and open innovation and they provide the physical and social platform for entrepreneurial growth — incubator space, collaborative venues, social networking, product competitions, technical support and mentoring.

In turn, the line between private and public spaces is blurring. When Zappos, the online retail giant that grew to scale in Henderson, Nevada, part of suburban Las Vegas, was looking for a new headquarters in 2010, CEO Tony Hsieh sought a denser workplace to increase interaction and collaboration of workers. For Hsieh, that meant not only open floor plans and amenities within the office, but also moving the new headquarters (and 2,000 Zappos workers) downtown to Vegas’ Fremont East neighborhood, in the old City Hall. Hsieh paired the move with a new private investment fund (separate from Zappos) called the Downtown Project to build a dense, multi-use and walkable environment, including luring new startups close to the headquarters and creating more housing and co-working spaces in the district. “The idea,” Hsieh said, “went from ‘let’s build a campus’ to ‘let’s build a city.”

Cities and firms that ignore these trends risk alienating both their workers and their communities. Take Google, whose corporate campus in suburban Mountain View is forced to bus in workers living in downtown San Francisco, leaving many to question the wisdom of their location and the long-term sustainability of the arrangement for Google and for the city. (Also leaving some to speculate that the Internet giant is, in fact, planning a move into the city.)

Innovation districts represent a profound, structural shift in the physical landscape of work and living. They are both competitive places and “cool” spaces, embodying the very raison d'être of cities: to aggregate talented, driven people who exchange ideas and knowledge in what the urban historian Sir Peter Hall calls “a dynamic process of innovation, imitation and improvement.”

Over the past few years, the Innovation District idea has taken root in several cities at the vanguard of innovation in the United States; in 2014, I expect it, like all metropolitan inventions, to be embraced, replicated, and improved upon by cities across the country.