Yesterday afternoon and evening was a series of interesting discussions about city building in Toronto. First, I met with Jeff Ranson of Northcrest Developments for a tour of YZD. This is the 370-acre former Downsview Airport lands that is now the biggest urban redevelopment project in North America.
The tour also involved the two of us e-scootering around the property, which was timely given yesterday's post about not hating on them so much. Jeff is up next on Globizen's Global City Builder series, so stay tuned for that.
After that I was on Ben Myers' Toronto Under Construction podcast. After 80+ episodes, he finally invited me to join (wink wink). It was a great discussion with Rob Spanier of the Spanier Group and Ilana Altman of The Bentway. When the link comes out, I'll be sure to share it on the blog.
But one of the common threads across both discussions, that I'm now thinking about, is about how city builders can better provision for flexibility in new urban projects. Flexibility is an important feature because cities need to be able to grow and adapt over time.
Consider some of the older main streets in Toronto where it's very clear that the shop or restaurant you're in used to be someone's home that has now been converted. This is a very good outcome. It's the city iterating.
But this isn't always possible with newer developments. Condominium corporations, land use restrictions, and a variety of other factors can make this largely impossible. It's for this reason that I'm always drawn to things like live/work suites. They already contemplate a greater degree of flexibility.
Two specific examples that come to mind are the live/work suites fronting onto Fort York Boulevard (in CityPlace), which have over time become more retail oriented, and loft buildings like 90 Sumach Street, which is known for housing a lot of creative professionals.
Cities are at their best when they are able to change and adapt. So I think it behooves us to spend more time thinking about how we can encourage greater flexibility through different design approaches, flexible land use permissions, legal carveouts, and whatever else might be necessary to fully unlock the potential of our cities.
Toronto never adopted a shared e-scooter program. And as far as I know, e-scooters in general are technically illegal to use on our public roads, though this illegality seems to be minimally enforced. But today, more cities around the world seem to be following suit.
Paris — which had become the leading scooter market in Europe — voted to ban them in 2023 (albeit with an extremely low voter turnout). Shared e-scooters are now also banned in Madrid, Malta, and in all of the Netherlands.
But I continue to think that this is a shame. I first tried a shared e-scooter in Lisbon in 2019. And at the time, I wrote "I now know what all the fuss is about!" It was a lot of fun. I used it to ride out to the Museum of Art, Architecture, and Technology. I also said that they would be arriving in Toronto imminently. Nope.
The main concerns seem to be around urban clutter and riders using them irresponsibly. But I think you could say the exact same thing about cars, and we're not going to ban those anytime soon.
So I agree with what Karen Vancluysen says in this recent CityLab interview: Keep e-scooters on the menu and give people as many transportation alternatives as possible. They're not going to work for everyone, but that's okay. They're one option in a broader mobility network.
Cover photo by Kseniia PENKOVA on Unsplash
The autonomous vehicle narrative has historically gone something like this: remove the labor component of rides (i.e. drivers) and rides will become significantly cheaper. Then, people won't need or want to own a car anymore. They'll just Uber or Waymo or whatever around.
But as Waymo provides in and around 250,000 paid trips per week in the 4 cities in which it operates, the opposite has proven to be true — at least so far. A recent report by Obi (an app that aggregates real-time ride pricing) has just revealed the following for San Francisco during the period of March 25 to April 25, 2025:
In other words, Waymo is more expensive than Uber and Lyft, especially for shorter distances. Is this right? Well, Waymo may not have to pay drivers, but they do own and operate their own cars. Uber and Lyft do not. This represents a very different cost structure.
They also have a more inelastic supply base, meaning they have cars whether demand is high or not. Whereas in the case of Uber and Lyft, supply can be variable. That's the idea behind "surge pricing" — to induce more drivers onto the road when it's needed the most.
Fewer Waymos also means that wait times are going to be longer and that their cars are probably spending more time driving around without paying passengers. That's a cost.
Whatever the reasons, lots of people seem to be willing to pay the premium. Part of this almost certainly has to do with the novelty of riding in an autonomous vehicle. I'd pay more if they were in Toronto today. But another reason seems to be that people really appreciate being in the car alone. I guess it's akin to driving your own car.
It, of course, remains to be seen how Waymo's cost structure and pricing model will evolve over time, but I have no doubt that privacy will remain a feature people are willing to pay something for. In the modern world, we are all going to have at least two places of solitude: bathrooms and Waymos.
Cover photo by gibblesmash asdf on Unsplash