Month: February 2014

• The tale of 2 Chicagos

  Over the long weekend I wrote a post called “On medium density development.” My argument was that Toronto has gotten exceptional at building infill towers, but not so great at midrise and other medium density infill solutions. Though to be fair, we are starting to see more and more of that today.

  Well it turns out that Chicago is in a similar, if not worse, position. According to Aaron Renn of the Urbanophile blog, most of the city (outside of the city center) only allows for single family homes. Though in some cases you may be allowed a duplex or triplex.

  Here’s a map:

  

  The red is where you’re only allowed to build single family homes. The yellow represents non-residential uses (parks, industry and so on). And the remaining black is where you’d see high density development. Note how it runs all along Lake Michigan. Both Toronto and Chicago are developing in a similar “T” formation.

  Now, some of you may be saying to yourself: So what? But it’s important to remember that this type of zoning effectively creates a supply constraint in the market, which, as I’ve argued before, will drive up prices. Chicago may as well be surrounded by mountains, because that red area seems almost untouchable from a development standpoint.

  With so many people rushing back to cities today, a lot of them are struggling to create the same market environment that our parents enjoyed. You know the one where you finish school, get a job, and then you’re able to buy a house. But I think it’s because many of our cities are at a turning point, and yet are clinging to outdated principles of city building, such as single-use zoning.

  But I’m certainly no expert on Chicago, so if you are, please speak up in the comment section below.

  2014.02.18

• Say hello to Kingston&Co

  

  As of today, Family Day Monday, you’re going to start seeing information released regarding TAS’s (in partnership with Main & Main) newest community called Kingston&Co. It’s located on Kingston Road, just east of Victoria Park Avenue, in a neat area called Kingston Road Village. You can already register at kingstonandco.ca. And as part of the registration process, we’re also soliciting feedback as to the types of retail the community would like to see added to the area. Note: There’s already a Starbucks 🙂

  At the same time, we’ve also launched a redesign of our corporate site (tasdesignbuild.com). The biggest change is that we’ve taken the blog—which was hidden under a “Neighbourhoods” tab—and made it front and center on the homepage. We see this as a pretty significant change. One that shows that we would like you to join us in a conversation around city building. We now allow comments on all of our blog posts and you can see right on the homepage who the author of the post is.

  If you have any feedback on either Kingston&Co or the new homepage, we’d love to hear from you in the comment section below.

  2014.02.17

• On medium density development

  Over the past decade, Toronto has seen a proliferation of condos across the city. And while I do think this intensification is a great thing, we’ve been much better at building towers than anything else. We’ve neglected medium density development and it has bifurcated our housing market: you’re either in the market for a condo or for a house.

  And since we’re not really building anymore of the latter, Toronto has become accustomed to bidding wars and multiple offers. Every young couple I know is in the market for an “hip fixer-upper in the city.” Problem is, that’ll cost you $700,000 or more and you may still need to gut it.

  At this point, it’s not realistic to expect that we’ll be building anymore single family homes in the city—at least not at any sort of significant scale. We’re tapped out. But what we can reasonably expect is more medium density development. I’m talking about midrise developments along our avenues, laneway houses in people’s backyards and other creative infill solutions that sit somewhere between a house and a highrise.

  If we’re concerned about creating equitable housing opportunities, then we’re going to need relieve some of the pressures on low rise housing. We’re going to need more diversity in our product offerings.

  2014.02.16

• Is laneway housing a good idea or a bad idea?

  As a follow up to my recent post called “Disrupting everything”, I thought I would share this talk by venture capitalist Chris Dixon at Y Combinator’s Startup School. In it, he talks about why good ideas often seem like bad ideas at first.

  Chris frames the discussion by saying that when you have a good idea—that everyone else thinks is a bad idea—you effectively know a secret. But by a secret, it’s really that you believe something that nobody else believes to be true. So much so that when you try and tell everyone else about your secret, they all think you’re crazy, which is frustrating because it seems so obvious to you.

  He then provides a number of characteristics that can help you identity good ideas that seem like bad ideas:

  • Powerful people dismiss them as toys.
  • They unbundle the functions done by others.
  • Did it originate as a hobby?
  • Do they challenge social norms?

  Now, he’s obviously talking about startups, but I think the framework can apply outside of the technology world. I think it can apply to cities. 

  To give you one example, let’s consider laneway housing. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that I’m a big supporter of laneway housing in Toronto. But that it’s something the city generally does not support.

  However, there are laneway houses being built and they’re being built by architects and progressive urbanists. Some might even call it a hobby, because it remains a pretty tough business model at the moment.

  Personally, I think one of the main reasons the city is unwilling to formally allow laneway housing is because it challenges social norms. I’ve read the staff reports and the meeting minutes: people think it’s weird to live off a laneway. In fact, in one case somebody asserted that since laneways are generally undesirable urban spaces, anybody who would want to live off one is almost surely a social degenerate.

  But there’s absolutely nothing inherent to human beings that says we can’t live off a 5m wide street or that we can’t have a “house located behind another house.” Those are simply constructs we’ve created for ourselves.

  So the next time you hear about an idea that you think seems like a bad idea, ask yourself: Is it really a bad idea or does it just make me feel uncomfortable because it contravenes the norm? Taking yourself out of your comfort zone is a good thing. It’s how we grow.

  2014.02.15

• Why the Gardiner East should be torn down

  Warning: This post turns into a bit of a rant near the end 🙂

  Since 2009 (well, much earlier actually), Toronto has been trying to figure out what to do with the eastern portion of the elevated Gardiner Expressway (the portion from Jarvis Street to the Don Valley Parkway). The process used to help make this decision is called an Environmental Assessment (or EA) and that’s what is currently underway. But it’s a painstakingly slow process.

  Recently though, a third public meeting was held in order to solicit feedback on the various design solutions and so there’s been a renewed interest in this city building issue. Since the beginning, my position has been that we should tear it down. And in this post I’m going to explain why I think that is exactly what the city should do. 

  But first, a bit of background.

  The EA started by identifying four “Alternative Solutions” to the problem of the Gardiner East. And they are: 

  1. Maintain the elevated expressway (Basically do nothing)
  2. Improve the urban fabric while maintaining the existing expressway
  3. Replace with a new above or below grade expressway
  4. Remove the elevated expressway and build a new boulevard

  They then went out and assigned these solutions to a bunch of architects and designers—whom are some of the world’s best—and asked them to come up with specific design proposals. These proposals are available online and that’s part of what the public has been commenting on.

  City Council seems to generally want the Gardiner down, but there are some naysayers. 

  Rob Ford doesn’t want it removed (option #1) because it’ll add to driver commute times (no surprise there) and Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong is worried that tearing it down will just lead to another wall—a wall of waterfront condos.

  But I think these views are terribly shortsighted and I’ve made my position clear by submitting a formal response through the City’s public engagement portal. To explain my view here on Architect This City, I thought the best way would be to simply share my answers. So here they are.

  What do you like?

  [slideshare id=22945545&sc=no]

  I can honestly say that I love my city. I was born in this city. And I was raised in this city. This city has given me so much, which is why I feel so compelled to try and give back to it. It’s also the reason why I’m first to defend it when people talk about how great this or that city’s waterfront is and how much ours sucks. I mean, I know ours sucks. But we’re fixing it.

  We have a lot of great plans in the pipeline for our waterfront, but there’s a remaining obstacle: our elevated expressway. Boston buried theirs. And San Francisco transformed theirs into a magnificent public space. What are we going to do with ours? Now is the time to be bold and not settle for the status quo. That’s too easy. We need to remove the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway today and the design proposal by Field Operations offers a brilliant way to do it.

  Not only is removing the Gardiner the most cost effective solution ($470M, versus $870M to maintain, $865M to improve and $1.4 billion to replace), but it’s also the most desirable from a city building standpoint.

  The Gardiner is not the only barrier. We also have the rail lines. So while repurposing the Gardiner might be doable in isolation, we simply have too much friction standing between us and the lake. We need to remove the barriers that we can. It’s for this precise reason that Field Operations spent so much time worrying about the north-south connections. And I think their “architectural sleeves” are a really interesting way to solve this problem.

  At the same time, timing is an important consideration. As the surrounding East Bayfront area develops, it’s only going to become more costly to remove this stretch of the Gardiner. If we’re going to do this, now is the time.

  Finally, I think it’s important to note that Field Operations is the landscape architecture firm behind the wildly successful High Line in New York. So what we have is a firm that made a name for itself repurposing an old elevated rail line, telling us that our own elevated structure is worthless and uninspiring. Think about that for a minute. Should we really be spending more money to salvage the Gardiner East?

  What concerns do you have?

  That we’re getting hung up on commute times as one of the key decision making criteria. It’s a red herring. Let’s face it: irrespective of whether we tear down the eastern portion of the Gardiner or not, Toronto is fucked from a transportation and infrastructure standpoint. We’re sitting on decades of disinvestment and some of the longest commute times in North America.

  Field Operations put it well when they said that the tearing down of the Gardiner East needs to be thought of as a paradigm shift. We have a 25-year transportation plan waiting to be funded. Let’s go out and do that instead of trying to sacrifice our waterfront so that suburban commuters can save a few minutes. Let’s give them a shiny new train instead. They’ll like that.

  Either that or Torontonians need to stop talking about how great Chicago’s waterfront is, because we can do it too. Now is our chance.

  What advice do you have for the Project Team as the study moves into the next phase?

  Don’t listen to Rob Ford.

  2014.02.15

• Disrupting everything

  Last year when I started working on Dirt—which was really my first startup—I had a number of people say things to me like: “Wow, that’s quite a change, going from real estate into tech.” But that’s not the way I saw and see it.

  I don’t think you can silo industries like that anymore. Technology is touching everything. Some would even go so far as to say that every company in the world is, or will be, a software and technology company.

  The way I looked at it was that I was starting a technology-enabled real estate company. I was hoping to leverage the internet to improve the way things are done in an existing industry. Of course, by improve I really mean disrupt—which is arguably the biggest buzzword in the tech community today:

  “Disruption is not so much a trend as an especially lucrative world philosophy favored by technophilic entrepreneurs. It’s the only path towards progress. If you’re not disrupting something you might as well go collect kindling and roast raccoon meat in the hills of Cupertino.”

  A good example of how disruptive innovation is reaching all sectors of the economy, including government, is the New Haven-based startup called SeeClickFix (which I discovered via This Big City). What it does is allow citizens to report non-emergencies (like potholes) to their local government. Governments can then respond and manage these tasks. (Sorry Rob Ford. Now you don’t need to return all those phone calls.)

  But moreover, I think it shows that technology is not only going to disrupt business and industry, it’s going to disrupt the way cities function and the way we live. I don’t know what that’s ultimately going to look like, but I can already feel it underway.

  Albert Wenger, of venture capital firm Union Square Ventures, recently argued—in a talk at DLD—that we are still in the midst of a transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. And I buy that. With every new disruption, we’re one step closer to completely making that transition. But we’re not quite there yet.

  The Industrial Age drove people out of cities. It made cities dirty and undesirable. But in the Information Age, cities are damn important and it’s where people want to be. Look at all the people rushing back to urban centers.

  So if technology has the power to disrupt business, industry, and cities, I suggest we stop just thinking about technology in isolation and remember the powerful words of Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.” Don’t just focus on the obvious or you’ll miss a tidal wave of change happening beneath the surface.

  2014.02.13

• Mapping where people run

  I’ve been meaning to write this post for about a week now. I stumbled upon a set of maps via FlowingData that used public running data to plot where people run in various cities around the world. And since I love maps, I couldn’t resist.

  Here’s Toronto:

  

  Here’s New York:

  

  Here’s San Francisco:

  

  And here’s Philadelphia:

  

  For the full set of maps, click here.

  What’s interesting is how people tend to gravitate towards the water rather than the parks. In the case of Toronto, High Park is barely touched, which may have something to do with the fact that it’s too far from downtown. The data could also be skewed based on the type of people who make their running data available and where they happen to live.

  Either way, a neat set of maps.

  2014.02.12

• Yes In My Back Yard

  Last week I called somebody a NIMBY. And though I probably shouldn’t have, it stems from the fact that I make a concerted effort to be the exact opposite: a YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard, as opposed to Not In My Back Yard).

  I appreciate that change can be difficult for a lot of people. In fact, behavioral economic theory (specifically Prospect Theory) suggests that when people are faced with probabilistic alternatives involving risk, they tend to put more weight on the potential losses. This means that the potential benefits have to be, not just marginally better, but hugely more beneficial before people will make the change.

  Because I know I’m equipped with this bias, I try and constantly remind myself that change and motion are good and that oftentimes the potential losses or negatives aren’t going to be as bad as I might initially think.

  However, I also have a counter acting bias. I recently did a personality assessment (called the DiSC assessment) and I was found to be a creator. I would agree with this. What it means is that I prefer “to live in a world of possibilities.” I’m interested not in the way things are done today, but how they could be done in the future.

  And when I think about all the things I’m passionate about—architecture, design, real estate development, cities and tech—there’s a common thread: each one is about imagining something new. Whether you’re designing a building or building a new internet platform, it’s all about possibilities. I believe that the future will be better than today. I’m an optimist.

  But I recognize that this is a distinct personality type. I’m an early adopter. And not all people are like this. That’s why the adoption curve looks the way it does. 

  What would you say is your personality type?

  2014.02.11

• #WeAreWinter, but #AreWeSummer?

  The 2014 Winter Olympics are under way in Sochi, Russia and I’m happy to report that Canada is currently in the lead with 3 gold medals, 3 silver medals and 1 bronze medal.

  I also love our slogan: #WeAreWinter. It’s almost as good as the “Own the Podium” one associated with the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. I think it’s important to strive to be the best and I love to see us doing that.

  But beyond just sports, the Olympics can also be highly political. Consider the facts that the average daily temperature in Sochi never drops below freezing and that it’s the warmest city, ever, to host the Winter Olympics. In fact, it’s where Russians vacation to get away from the cold. 

  My only hope—through all the politics—is that the opportunity to city build isn’t lost.

  As I’ve said before, I think major sporting events like the Olympics and the Pan American Games are a wonderful opportunity to catch up on infrastructure deficits. It creates a real deadline and pushes people and government to move quicker than they otherwise would.

  It’s for this reason that I would have liked Toronto to bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics.

  A truly successful Olympic Games should leave the host city better off than it was before. It’s about the sports, but also the legacy. Here’s a fact sheet from the International Olympic Committee on the “Legacies of Games.” I would love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below regarding whether or not you think Toronto should have bid.

  2014.02.11

• I left my heart in Jackson Hole [Video]

  I am back from Jackson Hole, but missing it. I fell in love with that town this past week. It’s a small one, but a special one. It’s filled with great food and 10,000 of some of the friendliest (and most fit) people I’ve ever met. Everyone seems to be living for the next big snow storm.

  I read somewhere before that all cities speak to us in some way. Each one has a pervasive belief system that influences us.

  Boston tells us to be smarter. New York tell us to make more money. And D.C. tells us to be more powerful. If Jackson Hole were to have a message for us, it would most certainly be to get out there and shred more powder. And there’s something to be said about that.

  It was sad to leave that kind of place, especially with 24”of snow expected this weekend. But I’m sure I’ll be back. Here’s the video we made of the trip. I hope you like it. We had far too much fun making it.

  In case you like the music, the first song is “There’s A Beast And We All Feed It” by Jake Bugg. And the second is “Fitzpleasure” by alt-J. We loved these songs so much that we played them in our gondola rides up the mountain.

  2014.02.09