If you’re a regular reader of ATC, you’ll know that I often talk about cities in the same way that many people talk about products and services. (See: The business of cities.) And I do that because cities are our new economic unit and so I find it helpful to think of them as businesses fighting to attract and retain the best talent and win over customers (i.e. residents and businesses).

Which is why I’m intrigued by Jason Logan’s pitch to invent the position of Creative Director at the City of Toronto. Here’s his pitch:

“This is an open challenge to the all the mayoral candidates. In the past 10 years, Toronto has undergone a cultural, artistic, and technological renaissance: The ROM, the AGO, and OCAD U all underwent architectural makeovers; TIFF rose to prominence as one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world; Nuit Blanche was unleashed in 2006, and Luminato in 2007, both to huge acclaim; the high-tech industry has created 30,000 new jobs; and The New York Times admitted that Toronto’s culinary scene is more ethnically diverse than the five boroughs. But here’s the thing: The story we tell ourselves and the world about our remarkable city needs an overhaul. Toronto Needs a Creative Director is a campaign committed to building a better story by better mobilizing the arts, culture, and technology sectors to enhance civic engagement. The CDTO (the office of Creative Direction for the City of Toronto) would function as a lab for incubating ideas where art, culture, politics, science, and technology intersect.”

Truthfully, I’m not yet sure if a Creative Director is the ideal approach. I haven’t had a chance to give it enough thought. But I am certain that Toronto would benefit from a bunch of smart people who were focused on telling our story to the world, crafting our brand and identity, and honing the experience of living or visiting this great city.

I was having drinks with an old friend a couple of weeks ago and I told her about my blog. She immediately asked me what it was called. At the time, it was just called “Cities.” And truthfully, I hadn’t given the title much thought. I just knew that I wanted to take a multi-disciplinary approach to examining cities.

After that night I started thinking more about the idea of a proper title for my blog and I came to the conclusion that I did need something more creative. I should have a stronger brand and identity. So I experimented with a few names and, as you’ve probably noticed, I settled on “Architect This City.”

Now that I’ve been using the name for a few weeks, I thought I would share my thinking behind it.

I wanted the name to convey 3 things. (1) I wanted it to be clear that this blog was about cities. (2) I wanted it to be something personal to me. (3) And I wanted to somehow demonstrate that this blog isn’t a siloed look at any one particular discipline, such as architecture, planning or real estate. It’s more than that.

Given my background in architecture and the fact that “city” is in the name, I think that objectives 1 and 2 made it through. But what I hope is also clear from the name is that the term “architect” is supposed to refer to something much broader than just building design. It’s about the underlying systems, processes and structures of our cities—which could tie into the real estate market, our governance structures or some new technological innovation. Cities are complex and there are many “architects.”

Finally, I wanted the name to be a directive—a call to action. I wanted it to be a reminder that cities don’t just build themselves. They require careful thought, planning and deliberation. And that’s fundamentally what this blog is all about: city building.

What do you think about the new name? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.

If you’re a regular reader of ATC, you’ll know that I often talk about cities in the same way that many people talk about products and services. (See: The business of cities.) And I do that because cities are our new economic unit and so I find it helpful to think of them as businesses fighting to attract and retain the best talent and win over customers (i.e. residents and businesses).

Which is why I’m intrigued by Jason Logan’s pitch to invent the position of Creative Director at the City of Toronto. Here’s his pitch:

“This is an open challenge to the all the mayoral candidates. In the past 10 years, Toronto has undergone a cultural, artistic, and technological renaissance: The ROM, the AGO, and OCAD U all underwent architectural makeovers; TIFF rose to prominence as one of the most prestigious film festivals in the world; Nuit Blanche was unleashed in 2006, and Luminato in 2007, both to huge acclaim; the high-tech industry has created 30,000 new jobs; and The New York Times admitted that Toronto’s culinary scene is more ethnically diverse than the five boroughs. But here’s the thing: The story we tell ourselves and the world about our remarkable city needs an overhaul. Toronto Needs a Creative Director is a campaign committed to building a better story by better mobilizing the arts, culture, and technology sectors to enhance civic engagement. The CDTO (the office of Creative Direction for the City of Toronto) would function as a lab for incubating ideas where art, culture, politics, science, and technology intersect.”

Truthfully, I’m not yet sure if a Creative Director is the ideal approach. I haven’t had a chance to give it enough thought. But I am certain that Toronto would benefit from a bunch of smart people who were focused on telling our story to the world, crafting our brand and identity, and honing the experience of living or visiting this great city.

I was having drinks with an old friend a couple of weeks ago and I told her about my blog. She immediately asked me what it was called. At the time, it was just called “Cities.” And truthfully, I hadn’t given the title much thought. I just knew that I wanted to take a multi-disciplinary approach to examining cities.

After that night I started thinking more about the idea of a proper title for my blog and I came to the conclusion that I did need something more creative. I should have a stronger brand and identity. So I experimented with a few names and, as you’ve probably noticed, I settled on “Architect This City.”

Now that I’ve been using the name for a few weeks, I thought I would share my thinking behind it.

I wanted the name to convey 3 things. (1) I wanted it to be clear that this blog was about cities. (2) I wanted it to be something personal to me. (3) And I wanted to somehow demonstrate that this blog isn’t a siloed look at any one particular discipline, such as architecture, planning or real estate. It’s more than that.

Given my background in architecture and the fact that “city” is in the name, I think that objectives 1 and 2 made it through. But what I hope is also clear from the name is that the term “architect” is supposed to refer to something much broader than just building design. It’s about the underlying systems, processes and structures of our cities—which could tie into the real estate market, our governance structures or some new technological innovation. Cities are complex and there are many “architects.”

Finally, I wanted the name to be a directive—a call to action. I wanted it to be a reminder that cities don’t just build themselves. They require careful thought, planning and deliberation. And that’s fundamentally what this blog is all about: city building.

What do you think about the new name? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.