68
If you're familiar with Toronto, you'll know that one ubiquitous feature of its urban landscape is street poles and overhead wires. They're everywhere. And even if you aren't acutely aware of their presence, they're probably impacting your experience in some way. It's one of the reasons why some streets just feel nicer than others.
As an example, here are two AI-generated images that show what the same street in Toronto might look like if you (1) removed the street poles/overhead wires, (2) added some trees, and (3) expanded the boulevard on one side. The AI images do look like AI — and that helps them appear broadly cleaner/nicer — but even still, the streetscape impact is dramatic.
As Toronto expands its Avenue network and works to rethink its Major Streets, we should also be thinking about bringing beauty and grandeur to our most important arteries. As it stands right now, many of our urban streets do not reflect the kind of global city that we have become.
Cover photo by Dmitry Gerasimenko on Unsplash
Cities should do what they can to allow the smallest of interventions.
What I mean by this is that -- when it comes to our urban environment -- small and granular is usually a good thing. It's why our historic main streets tend to be better urban streets than the ones we are creating today from scratch. They were built at a time when cities were more compact and it was more feasible to build small. Now, intuitively, we know this to be true. It's why planners will encourage things like "fine-grained retail" and impose maximum areas for each CRU (commercial-retail unit). It's to try and recreate how things were done before.
But at the same time, we (as cities) also do lots of things that make it more difficult to go small. Every hurdle means that you need that much bigger of a project in order to make it worth while for a developer or small-business owner. Take for example Toronto's current debate over allowing small-scale retail shops in residential neighborhoods. This is a perfect place for smaller businesses. The rents should be lower than on any major street. But only if we don't erect too many barriers.
To this end, here's a project and coffee shop in Córdoba, Argentina that I have liked since it was completed back in 2021. Designed by Estudio Rare, which is one of ArchDaily's Best New Practices for this year, the building is situated on a triangular piece of leftover land created by its orthogonal neighbors. The resulting footprint is only about 4 square meters, which is somewhere around half the size of a typical Toronto condominium bedroom. So it's the kind of "site" that could have been easily forgotten and left to collect garbage. And yet, the architect, client, and operator made something work.
Here's the ground floor plan:
And here's a street view image from May 2024:
Now, I don't know what hurdles the project team had to jump through to build and operate this coffee shop. Maybe there were very few or maybe there were many. If any of you are from Argentina and familiar with the planning landscape, maybe you can let me know. But for the purposes of this post, it doesn't really matter. The simple point is that these kind of small-scale developments are a positive thing for cities. It doesn't matter that the footprint is only half the size of a small bedroom. It's a place to stop for coffee and a place to linger on the street with others.
Images via Estudio Rare
We've spoken before about Saudi Arabia's "The Line" project. At first, I wasn't sure if it was real, but it is, and it's now under construction. We then spoke about whether a 170-kilometer line is an optimal urban form for a city, and the answer, according to this study, is that it's not. The problem with a line is that it actually maximizes the average distance between inhabitants. This makes sense because you could have two people living and working 170 kilometers apart.
On the other hand, if you maintain the same built-up area and take the opposite kind of geometry -- a circle -- you actually minimize the average distance between inhabitants. It's for this reason that older cities (the ones that weren't masterplanned) have tended to grow radially and not linearly (unless there were geographic features forcing it to grow in a certain way). So there is a strong argument to be made that The Line is a suboptimal plan for a new city.
But here's what's interesting: many cities already follow a somewhat similar approach. They don't do it as absolutely as The Line, but they do it in the way that they zone for higher densities and a mix of uses only on their main corridors. Example:
Concentrating density on just one street creates less livable neighborhoods.
Medium density projects should be spread over a bigger area.
This creates a similar kind of effect when it comes to walkability, ability to support higher-order transit, and overall agglomeration economies. All of the urban activity gets concentrated along one corridor, maximizing the distance between people. In extreme examples, you also get inhabitants that are forced into different mobility options. The corridor is supposed to be transit-oriented, but all of the surrounding areas are really only conducive to driving. This creates a mismatch that is less an ideal for everyone.
So this post is our regular reminder that, when it comes to planning cities and bringing people together, circles tend to be better than lines. This doesn't necessarily mean that you need to adopt some sort of radial street network, à la French model. (Although I'm now thinking about the effects of this vs. an orthogonal grid.) It just means that urban density works a lot better when it's clustered, especially around transit. And generally, circles make for better clusters.