Recent US Census Bureau data has once again confirmed that there’s a growing preference for living in urban cores. More specifically:

It finds that population growth has been shifting to the core counties of the USA’s 381 metro areas, especially since the economic recovery began gaining steam in 2010. Basically, the USA’s urban core is getting denser, while far-flung suburbs watch their growth dwindle.

To put numbers to these statements, core counties in the US grew approximately 2.7% and outlying counties grew approximately 1.9% from 2010-2013. Most of the growth came from net migration, as opposed to higher birth rates.

The two big factors at play–which will be obvious to readers of this blog–appear to be both a desire to live in amenity rich and walkable communities and a continuing trend towards marrying and having kids later in life, which can often be the trigger for moving to the suburbs.

But the big question is whether or not this trend is here to stay or if it’s an ephemeral fad caused by a bunch of over-educated and under-employed Millennials refusing to grow up. I would argue that it’s not a fad.

If there’s a clear consumer preference for urban neighborhoods, then I don’t think people are just going to pick up and leave overnight. As long as there’s adequate housing within the means of growing families, I think they’re going to stay in or go to the areas in which they truly want to live.

There are also many other macroeconomic trends reinforcing this shift. Just yesterday, Richard Florida wrote an article in Atlantic Cities talking about how venture capital investment is shifting away from the suburbs, towards city centers and walkable communities. These companies (receiving investment) are the next generation of employers and they’re starting in core areas.

I’ll take that as a leading indicator.

I’ve been a big fan of MIT’s Senseable City Lab since I was a grad student at Penn. Their work sits at the intersection of cities and technology, and so I’ve always found it incredibly fascinating.

Recently, the lab examined data from all of New York’s 13,586 registered cabs and looked for ways that technology and mobile tech could potentially optimize the way the system works today. In particular, they were interested in examining instances where people were heading to the same place at the same time, and were within no more than a 3 minute walk of each at the start of the trip.

What they found was that, of the 150 million taxi rides taken in New York City during 2011, almost 80% of them could have been shared.

That is, 80% of the time, there was an overlap in both time and route. That’s an hugely interesting stat because it starts to show just how much waste and inefficiency there currently is in the system. Think about all the trips and carbon emissions that could be potentially eliminated through optimization.

Here’s a video they produced on the project. Click here if you can’t see it below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyq_Zr96uzs?rel=0]

It’s a great example of how technology is and will continue to creep into every segment of the economy. It’s exactly what I was talking about in my post, “Disrupting everything.”

Last week I argued that the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway (Jarvis Street over to the Don Valley Expressway) should be torn down and replaced by an enlarged Lake Shore Boulevard.

To quickly summarize, here’s why I support removing the Gardiner East:

• Now is the time to do it (before we develop the surrounding area and it becomes both more expensive and more difficult to do it).

• It would go a long way to stitching our disconnected downtown back to the lake and realizing our ambitions for the revitalization of the waterfront.

• Unlocking the full potential of our waterfront is hugely important.

• In my opinion, the only way to build a big, well functioning city, is on the backbone of public transportation. And this—the tearing down of the Gardiner East—could represent that paradigm shift.

• It is a portion of the Expressway that has relatively low traffic volumes.

• It’s the cheapest option on the table.

Somewhat surprisingly though, a lot of people disagreed with me. They told me that adding anything to our already long commutes would be simply unconscionable and that they would not support it, no matter how much it improved our waterfront.

So in the spirit of avoiding confirmation bias (that is, only seeking out things that reinforce an already established belief), I thought I would share the following article: “Like It or Not, Most Urban Freeways Are Here to Stay.” It’s from Atlantic Cities and there are 3 key take-aways that I’d like to point out.

First, I thought it was interesting that the interstate system in the United States was, from the onset, always conceived of as a solution to urban congestion. I always thought it was about connecting the country, but that, apparently, was a secondary goal.

Second, cities all across North America are engaging in the same debate about what to do with their aging highways. Detroit is debating. New Orleans is debating. And so is Syracuse. Toronto is not alone. But we could be alone in taking the lead on this issue.

Third, the author basically acknowledges that, while not ideal, we’re stuck for the time being with all these freeways and that the better solution is going to be a really tough slog:

"This is not an easy assignment, seeing as how cars are purchases we make with our hearts, more than our heads. Logic won’t convince Americans to change their ways. What will? Maybe, over time, prohibitive fuel prices and withering tolls, and, most importantly, investment in useful and convenient public transit. Only when the carrot is irresistible, and the stick stings too sharply to bear, will the shift begin, and it will take years to play out."

And while I would agree that it’s not going to be easy, that’s par for the course with anything truly worthwhile. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. But they’re not. And that’s why there are leaders and there are followers.

People in Toronto like to talk about how our City sometimes lacks vision. Well, here’s our chance. I’m not worrying about what the commute is going to be like tomorrow, because I know there’s an even better solution for that problem. I’m worried about something even bigger. I’m worried about the kind of city we’re all going to leave behind to our children.

Recent US Census Bureau data has once again confirmed that there’s a growing preference for living in urban cores. More specifically:

It finds that population growth has been shifting to the core counties of the USA’s 381 metro areas, especially since the economic recovery began gaining steam in 2010. Basically, the USA’s urban core is getting denser, while far-flung suburbs watch their growth dwindle.

To put numbers to these statements, core counties in the US grew approximately 2.7% and outlying counties grew approximately 1.9% from 2010-2013. Most of the growth came from net migration, as opposed to higher birth rates.

The two big factors at play–which will be obvious to readers of this blog–appear to be both a desire to live in amenity rich and walkable communities and a continuing trend towards marrying and having kids later in life, which can often be the trigger for moving to the suburbs.

But the big question is whether or not this trend is here to stay or if it’s an ephemeral fad caused by a bunch of over-educated and under-employed Millennials refusing to grow up. I would argue that it’s not a fad.

If there’s a clear consumer preference for urban neighborhoods, then I don’t think people are just going to pick up and leave overnight. As long as there’s adequate housing within the means of growing families, I think they’re going to stay in or go to the areas in which they truly want to live.

There are also many other macroeconomic trends reinforcing this shift. Just yesterday, Richard Florida wrote an article in Atlantic Cities talking about how venture capital investment is shifting away from the suburbs, towards city centers and walkable communities. These companies (receiving investment) are the next generation of employers and they’re starting in core areas.

I’ll take that as a leading indicator.

I’ve been a big fan of MIT’s Senseable City Lab since I was a grad student at Penn. Their work sits at the intersection of cities and technology, and so I’ve always found it incredibly fascinating.

Recently, the lab examined data from all of New York’s 13,586 registered cabs and looked for ways that technology and mobile tech could potentially optimize the way the system works today. In particular, they were interested in examining instances where people were heading to the same place at the same time, and were within no more than a 3 minute walk of each at the start of the trip.

What they found was that, of the 150 million taxi rides taken in New York City during 2011, almost 80% of them could have been shared.

That is, 80% of the time, there was an overlap in both time and route. That’s an hugely interesting stat because it starts to show just how much waste and inefficiency there currently is in the system. Think about all the trips and carbon emissions that could be potentially eliminated through optimization.

Here’s a video they produced on the project. Click here if you can’t see it below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyq_Zr96uzs?rel=0]

It’s a great example of how technology is and will continue to creep into every segment of the economy. It’s exactly what I was talking about in my post, “Disrupting everything.”

Last week I argued that the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway (Jarvis Street over to the Don Valley Expressway) should be torn down and replaced by an enlarged Lake Shore Boulevard.

To quickly summarize, here’s why I support removing the Gardiner East:

• Now is the time to do it (before we develop the surrounding area and it becomes both more expensive and more difficult to do it).

• It would go a long way to stitching our disconnected downtown back to the lake and realizing our ambitions for the revitalization of the waterfront.

• Unlocking the full potential of our waterfront is hugely important.

• In my opinion, the only way to build a big, well functioning city, is on the backbone of public transportation. And this—the tearing down of the Gardiner East—could represent that paradigm shift.

• It is a portion of the Expressway that has relatively low traffic volumes.

• It’s the cheapest option on the table.

Somewhat surprisingly though, a lot of people disagreed with me. They told me that adding anything to our already long commutes would be simply unconscionable and that they would not support it, no matter how much it improved our waterfront.

So in the spirit of avoiding confirmation bias (that is, only seeking out things that reinforce an already established belief), I thought I would share the following article: “Like It or Not, Most Urban Freeways Are Here to Stay.” It’s from Atlantic Cities and there are 3 key take-aways that I’d like to point out.

First, I thought it was interesting that the interstate system in the United States was, from the onset, always conceived of as a solution to urban congestion. I always thought it was about connecting the country, but that, apparently, was a secondary goal.

Second, cities all across North America are engaging in the same debate about what to do with their aging highways. Detroit is debating. New Orleans is debating. And so is Syracuse. Toronto is not alone. But we could be alone in taking the lead on this issue.

Third, the author basically acknowledges that, while not ideal, we’re stuck for the time being with all these freeways and that the better solution is going to be a really tough slog:

"This is not an easy assignment, seeing as how cars are purchases we make with our hearts, more than our heads. Logic won’t convince Americans to change their ways. What will? Maybe, over time, prohibitive fuel prices and withering tolls, and, most importantly, investment in useful and convenient public transit. Only when the carrot is irresistible, and the stick stings too sharply to bear, will the shift begin, and it will take years to play out."

And while I would agree that it’s not going to be easy, that’s par for the course with anything truly worthwhile. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. But they’re not. And that’s why there are leaders and there are followers.

People in Toronto like to talk about how our City sometimes lacks vision. Well, here’s our chance. I’m not worrying about what the commute is going to be like tomorrow, because I know there’s an even better solution for that problem. I’m worried about something even bigger. I’m worried about the kind of city we’re all going to leave behind to our children.