If you're a regular reader of this blog, you'll know that I have a thing for narrow streets. Which is why when I travel I sometimes (okay, oftentimes) bring a laser distance measuring device with me. I like measuring things so that I have dimensions that I can feed back into our own development projects. But perhaps most importantly, it allows me to appear as nerdy as humanly possible while traveling. Walking around with just a camera in hand isn't enough. You need to try harder than that. And so far the narrowest street that I have come across was in Noto, Sicily at just over 1.3m wide.

If you also like to fawn over narrow European streets, you may enjoy this recent video by City Beautiful. In it, Dave Amos compares European cities, like Rome, to US cities, like Salt Lake City and Philadelphia, and then asks: Can the US build European-style street networks? His immediate answer is, "probably not." And this is something that we have talked about before on the blog. Street networks tend to be really sticky. They're hard to change. However, there is another possible solution: create new smaller mid-block streets. And that's the focus of Dave's video:

But if you think about it, this condition already exists in a number of cities. Here in Toronto, we have somewhere around 300 kilometers of laneways, which tend to range in width from 4 to 6m. These are European-scaled streets and amazingly they're already in place! The only difference is that, today, they mostly serve a back-of-house function. They provide access to garages. However, that is quickly changing with the introduction of laneway suites. And so over a long enough time horizon, our laneways are going to inevitably flip from back-of-house to primarily residential.

Though maybe there's even more we could do with this asset. European cities manage to fit retail, restaurants, patios, and more within 6m. Why not do the same with some of our narrowest streets?

This short video by City Beautiful makes the case for multi-way boulevards. The way to generally think about a multi-way boulevard is that it is a really big street that has been subdivided into areas that move cars relatively quickly and into areas that are a bit more conducive to calmer traffic and doing things like cycling and walking. More specifically, they are streets that have local access lanes on either side.

And in this video, it is proposed as a possible fix for two kinds of situations: (1) as a solution for what to do when you take down an elevated highway and (2) as a solution for retrofitting suburban arterial roads. I thought this would be a good video to share given that I can think of an elevated highway that should come down and because I have written before about how challenging it can be to change streets after they've been built. They tend to be pretty sticky.

But beyond this, it's also a good primer on how suburban transportation approaches are highly effective at making cities that you can't walk around in.

We talk a lot on this blog about how best to intensify and add housing to our existing cities. But here's alternative approach: Why not just built entirely new cities? This way you don't have to worry about fixing any of the things that are currently broken in our existing cities or worry about messy things like community engagement.

Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson's argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you're going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that's not how things are generally done in the US.

However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It's easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, "but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?" The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that's why Canada is a largely urban country.

Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?

Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as "counter magnets", and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.

The fact that these cities are referred to as "counter magnets" speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven't been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.

So sooner or later, you'll need to fix what isn't working.

Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash