Month: January 2023

• Istanbul may have the worst traffic congestion in the world

  I just learned about the TomTom Traffic Index today. It covers 404 cities across 58 countries, and uses anonymized traffic data from more than 600 million drivers (people who use TomTom’s tech) to come up with a list of the cities with the worst traffic congestion.

  Here’s the global top 10 (for 2021):

  

  
  And here’s the North American top 10 (also for 2021):

  

  The way to interpret these congestion level percentages is to think of them as additional time over and above baseline free-flowing traffic times. For example, a 62% congestion level for Istanbul, means that a trip that would take 30 minutes without any traffic congestion, will instead take, on average, 18.6 minutes longer (0.62 x 30 minutes).

  We all like to complain about traffic in our home city, but these percentages certainly help to put things into a global perspective.

  2023.01.31

• F-150 trucks are powerful and rugged

  It is perhaps well known that the Ford F-Series has been the best selling vehicle for the last 41 years in the US. In 2022, sales surpassed 640,000 trucks, meaning one was sold about every 49 seconds. Of course, much has been written about what this means for overall safety in our cities. According to Axios, the average 8 year old is completely out of view when in front of an F-150. And the death rate of car drivers colliding with a truck versus even an SUV, looks something like this:

  

  Another important thing to point out is what has happened to the bed sizes on these trucks: they have continuously gotten smaller. Between 1961 and 1979, the bed portion occupied 64% of the length of the truck. But starting in 2021, the bed had gotten down to 37%. The reality, at least according to this consumer survey, is that the most frequent use case for these trucks is actually just “shopping/errands.” It is not hauling or towing.

  

  So like all cars, and most things, probably the real reason these trucks are so popular is that they evoke a particular self-image. In this case, it is something about appearing “powerful” and “rugged.” Lots of people clearly want these adjectives. But even if powerful and rugged aren’t what you’re going after, it is almost certain that you have simply chosen different words and found different ways to communicate that self-image.

  2023.01.30

• Brutalist live/work creative space opens in Kanazawa, Japan

  I am really interested in these sorts of spaces. In this case, these is an old brutalist office building in Kanazawa, Japan that was purchased in 2019 by artist Hiraki Sawa. The original intent was to turn it into a co-working space, but eventually the idea evolved into a hybrid “co-being” space that can be rented as a place to stay and/or as a place to facilitate creativity.

  The space itself was left mostly raw and exposed, but neon movable walls were inserted by AB Rogers Design that allow you to configure the volumes as you’d like. What’s interesting about spaces like these is that they enable play and experimentation. Maybe it also makes money, or maybe it doesn’t. But that doesn’t seem to be the main point.

  

  

  The point is to empower creativity. And finding spaces to do this can be tough in competitive markets where demand is consistently outstripping supply. Oftentimes you need some slack in the system so that there’s literal breathing room for new ideas, or rich people who can make it so.

  Whatever the case, I am a believer that when given the opportunity, people will generally find a way to imagine and create. So if you happen to find yourself in Kanazawa and would like to book this space, which is called Fish Market, click here. Guests are being asked to submit a request explaining how and why they’d like to use the space.

  It’ll be fun to see what this leads to.

  Photos: Takumi Ota via AB Rogers Design

  2023.01.29

• Victoria, BC passes missing middle housing initiative

  The City of Victoria, BC did a good thing last week: It passed its “Missing Middle Housing Initiative“, which means that up 6 dwelling units (their language not mine) will soon be permissible on every single-family lot in the city, and up to 12 dwelling units will be permissible in “corner townhouses”. These land uses changes come into effect on Sunday, March 12, 2023 (45 days after adoption).

  Here on the blog, we’ve been talking about this shift toward intensifying our single-family neighborhoods for many years. And momentum clearly continues to grow. At face value, this appears to be one of the more enlightened moves by a city: 6 homes and 12 homes. Though these headline numbers may have something to do with the average lot sizes in Victoria. Either way, the devil is in the details. And here are some of those details:

  

  What is positive to see is that a number of other zoning requirements have been updated. Because it’s not enough to just say, “Hey, we’re going to allow more homes on each lot. There, we’ve done something. Developers, go and do that.” Here, the allowable height has been increased, setbacks have been decreased, and the floor space ratio (site density) has been increased from 0.5 to 1.1 (assuming you do at least one amenity contribution).

  I don’t know if this is exactly right and if it’s everything that developers will need in order to start building a lot more missing middle housing in Victoria. (If you’re a local developer, please let me know in the comment section below.) But I think it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

  2023.01.28

• The inclusionary zoning paradox

  What do you get when you have some of the most stringent affordable housing requirements in the United States? You might think that you get lots and lots of affordable housing, but that is not the case in San Francisco. Paradoxically, you still get some of the most expensive housing in the United States. And part of the reason for this — according to this inclusionary zoning review committee — is as follows:

  Of all 40 scenarios, only four, all of them ownership-based, penciled out while satisfying the inclusionary program. Many of the projects that were designated as feasible, or came close to it, were smaller. That could be because larger structures use more expensive union labor and tend to contain advanced safety systems, like elevators that can operate during fires, said Strachan Forgan, principal at SCB, an architecture and design firm.

  Among the 20 that were rental projects, only one was shown to be feasible, but it did not satisfy the city’s mandatory inclusionary policy. While not yet ready to make recommendations, the committee members accepted the findings as accurate. Multiple development experts who reviewed the analysis for The Chronicle said it appeared to be well done.

  What is often missing from analyses about inclusionary zoning is how many projects it makes infeasible as a result of the requirement. It is not no-cost affordable housing. There are real costs and real impacts. But we like to tell ourselves that this isn’t the case because, at the end of the day, we’re not really that serious about building more housing and building more affordable housing. Too inconvenient. Too disruptive.

  2023.01.27

• Social media as zoning review board

  This is an interesting article about the neighborhood-based social network, Nextdoor, and how it has become a tool for housing politics:

  Overall, activists both for and against more housing regard Nextdoor as an increasingly influential and even critical tool in the fight, which conflicts with the platform’s marketing as a friendly, kinder social media. Rather than being the neighborhood bulletin board, Nextdoors around the country are looking more like the local zoning commission hearing.

  Housing debate is no stranger to social media, but in the case of Nextdoor, the audience gets focused down to the scale of a neighborhood. And that clearly changes things.

  For the full article, click here.

  2023.01.26

• Build whatever you want

  As a gross generalization, there are probably two ways in which one can approach the building of a new building. The first is based on demand. You believe that there is demand for new housing or new office space or some other use, and so you decide to build new space in order to satisfy that exact demand.

  Sometimes developers get it wrong and build too much space or the wrong kind of space, but the reason for building remains the same: you believe that there is a market waiting for you.

  The second way to build is to completely disregard the market and just build whatever you feel like building because it is going to serve some other alleged purpose. And that is arguably what is happening in Saudi Arabia with The Line and what happened in places like North Korea with its “Hotel of Doom.”

  I suppose that there is a chance that somebody in North Korea believed (or pretended to believe) that there was demand for a skyscraper that was 1,000 feet tall and housed 3,000 hotel rooms, but in reality, the real reason was that leadership thought it looked cool and that it would make for good propaganda.

  To be fair, there was probably also some hope that it would spur demand and attract foreign investment. But it’s still a case of just building whatever you want.

  2023.01.25

• Development is slow

  Whenever we submit a development application for a new project, we typically get a ton of inbounds from people who are looking to sell us something, partner in some way, or buy/rent space in the development. These can be positive connections and we have completed deals based on these sorts of inbounds.

  But what is clear to me is that many people do not understand the development process and how long it takes to actually bring a new building to fruition. By the time a development application is filed, it is not uncommon for the developer to have already been working on the project for at least a year, and oftentimes longer in the case of more complicated projects.

  And after the application is filed, it is not uncommon (at least in this city region) for the approvals process to take another few years. We have projects that are on year 7 and we still can’t put shovels in the ground. This is a bit of a unique situation, but even still, when it’s all said and done, a “typical” mid-rise or high-rise project could take 7-10 years from beginning to end. And sometimes longer.

  A decade is a long time. So it’s no wonder that low-rise sprawling cities with permissive land-use policies tend to have more elastic housing supply. Quicker builds. And quicker approvals.

  I say all this not because I expect everyone to understand how the development process works. I’m saying it because maybe if more people knew how long everything takes, they’d be more open to streamlining the delivery process and to encouraging the construction of more missing middle housing.

  2023.01.24

• What we value the most

  One natural response to yesterday’s post about (housing) affordability vs. beauty is to think that I put forward a false dichotomy. Why can’t we have both? Why does it need to be a zero-sum game? Surely there’s a middle ground. Our cities should be both inclusive and beautiful. And of course, I don’t disagree.

  What I was trying to do with the post was force a thought exercise. There are lots of things that we do as city builders which serve to increase the cost/price of housing. Going to a design review panel adds time/cost. Deciding to use that really nice material from Europe adds cost (and maybe time). And even adding a simple building stepback adds time/cost.

  So in doing these things, we are in effect deciding that these are more important that just building cheaper and lowering the resulting rents/sales prices. We can certainly debate the right balance and how much should be spent on things like design and/or sustainability, but it doesn’t change the fact that, for better or for worse, we are saying, “it is important that we spend the money on this particular item.”

  Now, there is also a common counter argument that none of this really matters, because developers will always price new housing at whatever the market will bear (i.e. the maximum possible price). But as I have tried to argue many times before on this blog, this is not always true. Pushing prices too far increases risk and slows absorption.

  It also ignores the fact that in any given city there are going to be sites that are infeasible to develop with new housing. That is, when you look at all the costs and, yes, what the market will bear, the numbers just don’t work. And so what can happen when you reduce development costs is that you now unlock more sites for new housing, increasing overall supply.

  None of this is to say that our cities shouldn’t be beautiful or that we shouldn’t strive for creative design solutions. This is exactly what we should be doing! Instead, this post (and yesterday’s) is simply a reminder that time and things do cost money, and that the decisions we make are rarely benign. In fact, they usually speak to what we value the most.

  2023.01.23

• Affordable vs. beautiful

  If you had to pick one, would you say that it’s more important for new housing to be affordable or to be beautiful? Many of you are probably thinking that it should be both. And while it is true that good and thoughtful design doesn’t always need to be more expensive, nice things do often cost money. And sometimes, doing as little as humanly possible costs even more money.

  Let’s consider two development scenarios. In scenario A, the developer has well-oiled machine that delivers relatively affordable, but identical rental housing all across the country. The buildings are functional and there’s virtually no vacancy, but the architecture is undoubtedly bland and it certainly doesn’t respond to its local context. Standardization and efficiency trumps all, including aesthetics.

  In scenario B, the developer is similarly building new rental housing, but she instead invests heavily in custom designs. Each building is unique. And each building goes through a “design review panel”, after which extensive changes are made in order to ensure that the design is truly beautiful and that it responds to its local context. As a result, there is a real price premium to these homes.

  These are perhaps extreme examples. Usually, the goal is some sort of balance between affordability and beauty. But I do think it speaks to some of the tensions that our industry faces. So if you had to choose one, which one would it be? What kind of new homes do our cities really need more of? And if your answer is scenario B, does it change after a certain premium?

  2023.01.22