Month: December 2013

• Wrapping my head around Bitcoin

  There’s been a lot of talk about Bitcoin over the past year, particularly as of late when the value of one bitcoin peaked at over USD $1,200.

  Truthfully, it’s only been over the past few months that I’ve really started to wrap my head around how Bitcoin works and what the implications of it might be. But the more I learn about it, the more it strikes me as something enormous in the making.

  If you’re not yet familiar with Bitcoin, you can check out this video (simple version) or this video (complicated geek version).

  Essentially though, it’s a decentralized and open source digital currency that’s managed using networked computers, as opposed to any one government. And functionally, it works as a distributed public ledger that logs every single bitcoin transaction. What this means is that when you buy or sell something using bitcoin, no exchange of bitcoin actually takes place. Instead, the distributed public ledger (called a block chain) gets updated to show who owns which coins both today and previously. 

  This is potentially a big deal for 2 reasons.

  The first is that many people view Bitcoin as the first internet native currency. The decentralized architecture of Bitcoin matches the decentralized architecture of the internet. And so it has the possibility of becoming the transactional protocol for the internet and global commerce.

  The second reason (and this is where your mind will really get blown) is that transactions can be logged in the block chain/ledger with additional information embedded into each bitcoin. What this means is that you can use Bitcoin to create contracts, such as deposits, escrows, loans and so on. And since Bitcoin is designed to function in low trust environments (ie. where nobody knows each other), there’s an opportunity to really optimize the way we buy and sell almost anything.

  In fact, if you dig deeper into what’s being contemplated with Bitcoin, you’ll find things like “smart property.”

  “Smart property is property whose ownership is controlled via the Bitcoin block chain, using contracts. Examples could include physical property such as cars, phones or houses.”

  Of course, it’s still early days for Bitcoin. But if it truly does become the transactional protocol for the internet, then I certainly do think we’ll see dramatic changes in the way we buy things like cars and real estate.

  2013.12.21

• The story behind the name “Architect This 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.

  2013.12.20

• Priced out of the city

  Earlier this month, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Pembina Institute co-published a report on Toronto’s housing market called “Priced Out”. The overarching argument is that homebuyers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) are being “priced out” of the areas in which they really want to live, which happen to be walkable and transit-oriented neighborhoods.

  In fact, according to their research, 80% of residents in the GTA would be willing to sacrifice space (size of house and yard) if it meant they could live in a more walkable and urban neighborhood. But at the same time, more than 70% of GTA residents say that they live where they do because of affordability reasons, not because of actual preference. This, of course, isn’t new. It’s the whole “drive to affordability” notion—just keep driving until you can afford the housing. 

  Overall though, the report does reinforce a macro tend that I’ve discussed many times here at Architect This City. People are returning to cities in droves (or would at least like to, if they can afford it).

  If you’re interested, the report also has some good data on Toronto and Canada’s housing markets. 

  Here’s how average home prices in Canada trended between 1980 and 2012. Vancouver became a total outlier starting in the early 90s (thanks Hong Kong).

  

  And here’s a look at housing completions (so new construction) by product type in the Greater Toronto Area. Note how apartments/condos surpassed single-detached houses in and around 2008. 

  

  2013.12.20

• A question of infrastructure

  One of the main reasons why I hear people oppose certain development projects is because of a lack of infrastructure. Whether it’s roads, transit or something else, the concern is that what we have is inadequate to service what we’re about to build.

  Now, I understand that we can’t completely overburden the city, but I still have fundamental concerns with this line of thought. 

  The population of the Greater Toronto Area is expected to grow by 2.5 million people over the next 20 some years, to almost 9 million people by 2036. What this means is that growth is happening and it doesn’t really care whether or not we have the “right” infrastructure in place. It’s coming and we need to figure out how best to house these people while at the same time building the most livable and prosperous city on the planet.

  And I’m not sure most people appreciate that if we don’t build up (intensification) it means we’re going to be building out (sprawl). Again, the growth isn’t going to stop. And this represents an even greater strain on our region’s infrastructure (both built and natural) because it puts people into less intense land use and into cars.

  So what I’m going to suggest is that instead of asking if our current infrastructure will handle the future, we ask why the future hasn’t been built into our current infrastructure? It’s a question of being proactive, rather than reactive.

  We should be demanding better infrastructure instead of holding back progress because of our inability to properly city build. We should be demanding the best as opposed to knocking everything else down to the lowest common denominator.

  A perfect example of this is transit.

  I strongly believe that transit is one of, if not the, biggest issue facing our region today. Decades of disinvestment are really showing my friends. And if we don’t get our act together, the impact on our quality of life, our environment, and our economic productivity is only going to worsen.

  We need to be asking the right questions: Is the development the problem or is the real problem our infrastructure deficit?

  2013.12.18

• I got 88 buildings

  The NH Deutscher Kaiser Hotel building in Munich looks like this:

  

  It’s a fairly conventional tower on top of a podium.

  However, photographer Victor Enrich decided to reimagine what this tower and podium could look like. In fact, he did it 88 times. Here’s the video. And here’s one example:

  

  The realism of each is incredible. It’s also a fascinating—albeit outlandish—study of what could be.

  2013.12.18

• 100 books for city geeks

  If you’re a city geek looking for a good book to read, head over to Planetizen and check out Brent Toderian’s list of the 100 best books on city-making. Toderian was formerly Chief Planner for the City of Vancouver.

  I have a good number of those books on my own bookshelf, but also many that I should really read. I think I’ll start with #1: Cities for People by Jan Gehl.

  

  Here’s the forward for that book by British architect, Richard Rogers:

  “Cities are the places where people meet to exchange ideas, trade, or simply relax and enjoy themselves. A city‘s public domain — its streets, squares, and parks — is the stage and the catalyst for these activities. Jan Gehl, the doyen of public-space design, has a deep understanding of how we use the public domain and off ers us the tools we need to improve the design of public spaces and, as a consequence, the quality of our lives in cities.

  The compact city — with development grouped around public transport, walking, and cycling — is the only environmentally sustainable form of city. However, for population densities to increase and for walking and cycling to be widespread, a city must increase the quantity and quality of well-planned beautiful public spaces that are human in scale, sustainable, healthy, safe, and lively.

  Cities — like books — can be read, and Jan Gehl understands their language. The street, the footpath, the square, and the park are the grammar of the city; they provide the structure that enables cities to come to life, and to encourage and accommodate diverse activities, from the quiet and contemplative to the noisy and busy. A humane city — with carefully designed streets, squares, and parks — creates pleasure for visitors and passers-by, as well as for those who live, work, and play there every day.

  Everyone should have the right to easily accessible open spaces, just as they have a right to clean water. Everyone should be able to see a tree from their window, or to sit on a bench close to their home with a play space for children, or to walk to a park within ten minutes. Well-designed neighborhoods inspire the people who live in them, whilst poorly designed cities brutalize their citizens. As Jan says: “We shape cities, and they shape us.”

  No one has examined the morphology and use of public space to the extent that Jan Gehl has. Anyone who reads this book will get a valuable insight into his astonishingly perceptive understanding of the relationship between public spaces and civic society, and how the two are inextricably intertwined.”

  2013.12.16

• Tech irony

  I came across an interesting op-ed in the New York Times this morning called “What Tech Hasn’t Learned from Urban Planning.” It basically talks about how, despite the fact that tech companies are increasingly moving from the suburbs to the city, they haven’t yet figured out how to be urban.

  “The tech sector’s embrace of urbanist lingua franca and its enthusiasm to engage with urban problems is awesome, and much welcomed. But these folks need to become better urbanists.”

  The problem—Allison Arieff argues—is that they create sterile and insular environments. Breakfast, lunch and dinner are served to employees so they don’t need to leave the building. And private social spaces are created just for them.

  It strikes me as being terribly ironic that these companies—a great number of which are committed to making the world more open and connected—actually suck at doing that in real life.

  2013.12.15

• Skateboarding and the city

  Yesterday during lunch with a colleague, the topic of skateboarding came up. And I was reminded of how much I used to love it. There was a time when I used to skateboard everyday. If I missed a day or two, I felt rusty.

  What I loved about it was how incredibly challenging it was to learn and perfect new tricks. And there were always ways to continually push yourself to the next level, whether it was the number of boards you could ollie (jump) or the number of steps you could ollie down. You’d start with 3 stairs. Then it was 4. Then 5. Then 2 sets of 5. And so on. Once you mastered those, you could then introduce a kickflip to make it even more challenging. The possibilities were endless. And so—to borrow Daniel Pink’s terminology—it was all about mastery for me.

  Here are a few of my old skate decks (they’re on the wall in my apartment):

  

  But in addition to teaching me that there’s no substitute for discipline and practice, skateboarding also helped shape my love of cities (either that, or I was a born urbanist and skateboarding was a symptom). 

  Street skating is an inherently urban activity. There’s no defined field or rink. The entire city is at your disposal. And so as a skateboarder, you’re always on the look out for interesting things “to skate.” You want steps, ledges, edges, and changes in grade. You also look for sequences. What tricks can I string together across this urban landscape? You wouldn’t believe how exciting these features can be to a skateboarder.

  In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that skateboarders are probably some of the finest surveyors of public space around. How many people do you know go around counting stairs, examining railings and measuring ledge heights? Skateboarders do.

  But as much as street skating is all about the city, that relationship is often an acrimonious one. Skateboarding is viewed as a property destroyer, an annoyance and, in some cases, a criminal activity.

  A perfect example of this is the story of LOVE Park in Philadelphia (it was a public plaza, not a park). LOVE Park was a legendary space in the skateboarding community. It put Philadelphia skateboarding on the map. It was iconic. If you skated during that era, you knew about LOVE Park.

  However, on April 25th, 2002, the Mayor of Philadelphia ordered that the park be closed off and remodelled to remove all the elements that skateboarders loved about it. It was decided that skateboarding was not an acceptable behaviour in an urban public plaza.

  That act made a huge dent in the Philadelphia skate community. And the park became essentially a homeless shelter. 

  As a former skateboarder, urbanist and ex-resident of Philadelphia, this always baffled me. Cities all around the world spend a great deal of time and money trying to create spaces that people will actually use. And here you not only had an intensely used one, but one that spurred a grassroots global phenomenon. It’s precisely what makes cities so great.

  Thankfully, many cities have woken up to the benefits of street skating by building purpose built skate parks. But in my view, those spaces lack something that places like LOVE Park had. LOVE Park was authentic. It was about a serendipitous repurposing. It had a sense of place.

  2013.12.14

• Transit panel responds to Metrolinx

  On September 18th, 2013, the Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, established a “transit investment strategy advisory panel.” Their mandate was to advise the Province on how to respond to the revenue tools proposed by Metrolinx (also an Ontario agency) to fund transit expansion in the region. Well that panel has just released their final report and you can read it here.

  I’d like to highlight 3 things from the report.

  1.

  The first is their assessment of how Canada’s transit policy framework stacks up against our competitors. Here’s a snippet:

  “Canada remains the only G8 country without a coordinated national framework of policies and programs for funding expansion and renewal of transit systems. As shown in the chart opposite, a review of national transit policy frameworks done by the Canadian Urban Transit Association indicates that Canada ranks at the bottom in terms of its engagement in urban public transit.”

  And here’s the chart they’re talking about. I hope it’s legible.

  

  2.

  The second is their conclusion on highway tolls:

  “Although highway tolls can raise a significant amount of revenue and influence travel behaviour, they are expensive, complicated, and require a lot of lead time to implement. Once transit alternatives are in place, road tolls meet our criteria and are a valid option. Following the opening of the new Highway 407 East, the Province has the option of designating the new toll revenue to the Next Wave. For now, however, the Panel has not recommended Highway Tolls as a revenue source.”

  If you’ve read any of my posts on electronic road pricing, you’ll know that I support the pricing of roads and congestion.

  3.

  The third is their list of what they call “next wave projects”, which are essentially priority projects. Here’s their list for phase one of it:

  • Relief Line
  • GO Two-Way All Day (excluding Lakeshore)
  • Hurontario LRT
  • Electrification of Union-Pearson Express
  • Yonge North Subway (partial extension, delivered after Relief Line is in service)
  • Priority portions of other rapid transit – Hamilton, Durham, Dundas, Brampton

  I’m happy to see the relief subway line on the top of that list.

  If you have any thoughts on transit planning in the Greater Toronto Area, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  2013.12.13

• Capitalism and the future of the world

  Last night I watched an interesting presentation by Fred Wilson (New York VC) where he talks (at LeWeb in Paris) about the big 3 technology trends shaping our world. In his view, they are 1) non-hierarchical networks (think Twitter vs. newspapers); 2) unbundling; and 3) smartphones (the most obvious of the 3). It’s a great talk even if you’re not interested in technology per se, because these trends are impacting virtually every industry, from banking to education.

  This morning Fred wrote a post on his blog called “The Limits of Capitalism.” And I think it’s an excellent follow-up to his talk on the future. I would also classify myself as a capitalist, but I also think that unfettered capitalism will eventually break down. And in the context of the changes outlined in his presentation, I think we need to think long and hard about how we’re going to—not stop them from happening, because they’re inevitable—but best cope with them.

  Because already we’re seeing rising income inequality and a complete “bifurcation of the labor market into high-skill and low-skill jobs.” And that in turn is impacting our cities. In fact, that bifurcation is what largely got Rob Ford elected here in Toronto.

  2013.12.12