Tokyo is a city of contrasts. It is both hyper-modern and steeped in tradition. It is known for art, architecture, design, and fashion, yet it's also a city that — through its built form — makes the argument that architecture is irrelevant.
While the city certainly has countless examples of remarkable architecture, the vast majority of its buildings are arguably just that — buildings. They are a nondescript part of the urban fabric that give back through their siting, scale, rhythm, and mix of uses rather than their raw architectural qualities. Sometimes you may not even be able to see the building past all the signage.
If you were looking for a city to support the argument that urbanism matters more than architecture, I think Tokyo would be a good place to start.
What Tokyo does so successfully is ground-up urbanism (as opposed to top-down master planning). Flexible permissions, mixed-use zones by default, and an orientation around rail have allowed Tokyo to organically evolve into one of the most livable global cities on the planet.
In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any city of this magnitude that is simultaneously this livable. Which makes me wonder: Are we spending too much time worrying about architecture?
It is common for big cities to have design review processes. These typically consist of a panel of experts who evaluate new development proposals based on their architectural and urban design qualities. The comments that come back might suggest that a long facade be visually "broken up," or that additional stepbacks be introduced in order to mitigate the impact on the street and improve sky views. It's a process that can be lengthy.
But what Tokyo tells us is that, while architecture matters a great deal, it may not be the most important thing to focus on from a city-building standpoint. What matters more is the space and relationship between these buildings, the uses and permissions granted to their occupants, and the overall relationship to transit infrastructure. Here, urbanism is more critical than architecture.
If you buy this argument, then design review panels aren't actually our most pressing priority. Instead, what we should have is a kind of urbanism review panel. But rather than react to new developments, its job would be to go out and proactively identify and fix bad urbanism: this street is too narrow, this street is too wide, OMG what were we thinking here, and so on.
Then, when a new development proposal comes along, this panel would get out of the way and let the market decide what it wants to be. It would trust that it had done its job and laid the right preconditions for good urbanism to emerge.
Sounds weird and unsettling, doesn't it? Except, we might be pleasantly surprised by what it would lead to.
Cover photo by Fred Nassar on Unsplash
It was a beautiful weekend in Toronto. Yesterday, I cycled another 50 km for Bike for Brain Health. So as far as I'm concerned, it's still summer. And one of the themes for this summer — at least on this blog — is the urban swimming movement. Here's a post I wrote saying that Toronto could use a (stronger) summer bathing culture. And here's a post I wrote called The urban swimming renaissance.
In that last post, I also mentioned that Globizen had applied to be a signatory to the Swimmable Cities alliance. Well, now it's official. We were admitted in the last round and now join nearly 200 organizations, spanning 100 cities and towns in 34 countries. Other signatories include the City of Paris, the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, Sid Lee Architecture (Montréal), Gehl Studio (Copenhagen), and many others. (The full list can be found here.)
As a city-building group focused on creating better places, it only made sense for Globizen to join this alliance. It’s clear that the urban swimming movement is gaining momentum around the world — and pretty soon, we believe it will be the norm. Cities that don’t adhere to these principles will be left behind.
Logo: Swimmable Cities
Here's a new opinion piece from the Globe and Mail talking about the importance of "early wins" when it comes to building better cities. And whoever wrote it is right.
One of the examples that is given is New York's congestion pricing program. We've talked a lot about this initiative since the beginning of the year, and one of its important features is that it pretty much started working immediately.
Travel times, in some cases, dropped by as much as 48% and, in the first two months of its operation, it brought in over $100 million of new revenue for the city. Less congestion and more money. That's what congestion pricing does.
Because of this, support for the program has risen. In December 2024, which is before the pricing went into effect, some polls suggested that around 51% of New Yorkers were opposed to the charge.
But by March 2025, more New York City residents seemed to support the program than oppose it. And again, this is almost certainly because its positive effects were felt right away.
City building doesn't always work this quickly. Many or most things take too long. But finding ways to post early wins is good practice. It also provides a quick feedback loop just in case things need to be changed.
Cover photo by Murat Onder on
Tokyo is a city of contrasts. It is both hyper-modern and steeped in tradition. It is known for art, architecture, design, and fashion, yet it's also a city that — through its built form — makes the argument that architecture is irrelevant.
While the city certainly has countless examples of remarkable architecture, the vast majority of its buildings are arguably just that — buildings. They are a nondescript part of the urban fabric that give back through their siting, scale, rhythm, and mix of uses rather than their raw architectural qualities. Sometimes you may not even be able to see the building past all the signage.
If you were looking for a city to support the argument that urbanism matters more than architecture, I think Tokyo would be a good place to start.
What Tokyo does so successfully is ground-up urbanism (as opposed to top-down master planning). Flexible permissions, mixed-use zones by default, and an orientation around rail have allowed Tokyo to organically evolve into one of the most livable global cities on the planet.
In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any city of this magnitude that is simultaneously this livable. Which makes me wonder: Are we spending too much time worrying about architecture?
It is common for big cities to have design review processes. These typically consist of a panel of experts who evaluate new development proposals based on their architectural and urban design qualities. The comments that come back might suggest that a long facade be visually "broken up," or that additional stepbacks be introduced in order to mitigate the impact on the street and improve sky views. It's a process that can be lengthy.
But what Tokyo tells us is that, while architecture matters a great deal, it may not be the most important thing to focus on from a city-building standpoint. What matters more is the space and relationship between these buildings, the uses and permissions granted to their occupants, and the overall relationship to transit infrastructure. Here, urbanism is more critical than architecture.
If you buy this argument, then design review panels aren't actually our most pressing priority. Instead, what we should have is a kind of urbanism review panel. But rather than react to new developments, its job would be to go out and proactively identify and fix bad urbanism: this street is too narrow, this street is too wide, OMG what were we thinking here, and so on.
Then, when a new development proposal comes along, this panel would get out of the way and let the market decide what it wants to be. It would trust that it had done its job and laid the right preconditions for good urbanism to emerge.
Sounds weird and unsettling, doesn't it? Except, we might be pleasantly surprised by what it would lead to.
Cover photo by Fred Nassar on Unsplash
It was a beautiful weekend in Toronto. Yesterday, I cycled another 50 km for Bike for Brain Health. So as far as I'm concerned, it's still summer. And one of the themes for this summer — at least on this blog — is the urban swimming movement. Here's a post I wrote saying that Toronto could use a (stronger) summer bathing culture. And here's a post I wrote called The urban swimming renaissance.
In that last post, I also mentioned that Globizen had applied to be a signatory to the Swimmable Cities alliance. Well, now it's official. We were admitted in the last round and now join nearly 200 organizations, spanning 100 cities and towns in 34 countries. Other signatories include the City of Paris, the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, Sid Lee Architecture (Montréal), Gehl Studio (Copenhagen), and many others. (The full list can be found here.)
As a city-building group focused on creating better places, it only made sense for Globizen to join this alliance. It’s clear that the urban swimming movement is gaining momentum around the world — and pretty soon, we believe it will be the norm. Cities that don’t adhere to these principles will be left behind.
Logo: Swimmable Cities
Here's a new opinion piece from the Globe and Mail talking about the importance of "early wins" when it comes to building better cities. And whoever wrote it is right.
One of the examples that is given is New York's congestion pricing program. We've talked a lot about this initiative since the beginning of the year, and one of its important features is that it pretty much started working immediately.
Travel times, in some cases, dropped by as much as 48% and, in the first two months of its operation, it brought in over $100 million of new revenue for the city. Less congestion and more money. That's what congestion pricing does.
Because of this, support for the program has risen. In December 2024, which is before the pricing went into effect, some polls suggested that around 51% of New Yorkers were opposed to the charge.
But by March 2025, more New York City residents seemed to support the program than oppose it. And again, this is almost certainly because its positive effects were felt right away.
City building doesn't always work this quickly. Many or most things take too long. But finding ways to post early wins is good practice. It also provides a quick feedback loop just in case things need to be changed.
Cover photo by Murat Onder on
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
