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

Last week we spoke about parking space dimensions. And my point was that these dimensions can dramatically change parking designs in new developments. In the comment section of this post, you'll now find a number of examples of how these dimensions vary by city.

But the reality is that cars do keep getting bigger -- at least in this part of the world. In the 1970s, SUVs and trucks made up less than a quarter of new car sales in the US. Today, this number is greater than 80%. It has become the standard kind of car.

So this week, let's touch on why this has happened.

One argument might be that this was just what consumers inherently wanted. But there's lots of evidence to suggest that this wasn't really the case; it was instead encouraged by government policy.

One specific example is the creation of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (also known as CAFE). This was first introduced in the 1970s, but importantly, it was done with two different fuel economy standards: one for cars and one for light trucks.

Since the light truck standard was less onerous (see above chart), this created a strong incentive for car makers to just make and sell more light trucks. And curiously enough, that's exactly what they did.

For much more on this topic, check out this comprehensive Vox article by David Zipper.

Louvre, Paris