There's a narrative out there that all developers are uncreative and greedy, and if only they would start being more creative and generous, we could solve the housing affordability problem that is plaguing many (if not all) global cities. In other words, the solution to increasing the supply of low and middle incoming housing is simply a psychological reframing on the part of developers.
The problem with this mental model is that it ignores reality. Development happens on the margin. The market is competitive. It's difficult to find developable sites. And it's a challenge to make projects work. More often than not, you have to say no as a developer. No I can't buy this land. No I can't build housing here. And no the market will not support new office space here. Sorry, but no. (See cost-plus pricing.)
Development needs to give back. On the blog we usually call this city building. And that's because it implies a greater sense of civic responsibility. Developers aren't just building one-off buildings, they're building a city. I believe wholeheartedly in this. But the belief that projects can be saddled with an endless array of government fees and civic contributions is a problematic one. There are limits -- because markets have limits.
There's a narrative out there that all developers are uncreative and greedy, and if only they would start being more creative and generous, we could solve the housing affordability problem that is plaguing many (if not all) global cities. In other words, the solution to increasing the supply of low and middle incoming housing is simply a psychological reframing on the part of developers.
The problem with this mental model is that it ignores reality. Development happens on the margin. The market is competitive. It's difficult to find developable sites. And it's a challenge to make projects work. More often than not, you have to say no as a developer. No I can't buy this land. No I can't build housing here. And no the market will not support new office space here. Sorry, but no. (See cost-plus pricing.)
Development needs to give back. On the blog we usually call this city building. And that's because it implies a greater sense of civic responsibility. Developers aren't just building one-off buildings, they're building a city. I believe wholeheartedly in this. But the belief that projects can be saddled with an endless array of government fees and civic contributions is a problematic one. There are limits -- because markets have limits.
Last week I went for a tour of Sidewalk Labs' "307" workshop here in Toronto. In it they have a generative urban design tool that allows you to toggle things like density, building shape, building height, the amount of green space, the distribution of green space, and so on.
Perhaps some of you have seen it or used it before. The controls look like this:
Last week I went for a tour of Sidewalk Labs' "307" workshop here in Toronto. In it they have a generative urban design tool that allows you to toggle things like density, building shape, building height, the amount of green space, the distribution of green space, and so on.
Perhaps some of you have seen it or used it before. The controls look like this:
One of my favorite things about Lisbon is the way in which life seems to happen publicly right on the street and in public squares. Its kiosks (or quiosque), like the one you see pictured above, play a major role in that. They are tiny; usually only run by one person. But they embody old world charm; usually with a dark green finish and some wrought iron flourishes. Supposedly these street anchors fell away during Portugal's authoritarian period (Estado Novo), as there was concern that this sort of urban fraternizing might lead to new, potentially radical, ideas. (That's usually a feature of cities.) Thankfully, Lisbon's kiosks have returned and they're as charming as ever. I like to think that city builders can workaround any type of climate. But the weather here certainly helps this public life. Lisbon is one of the sunniest cities in Europe.
After you're done playing around with the dials, you are then able to provide feedback on the design that you've birthed through two very simple feedback buttons. One is a happy face. And the other is a sad face. (I wonder if the placement of these two buttons has any impact on responses.)
What I like about this tool is that it immediately imposes a certain degree of reality and it forces you, the participant, to acknowledge the various trade-offs that need to be considered when you're designing and planning a city.
For example, if you want lots of parks and public spaces, but you want to hold population density constant -- perhaps because you're trying to make use of an investment made in transit infrastructure -- well then you'll need to accept taller buildings.
A very similar thought process goes into each and every development pro forma as we all try and manage the myriad of competing interests. But I guess this is also true of life in general. There are gives and there are takes.
One of my favorite things about Lisbon is the way in which life seems to happen publicly right on the street and in public squares. Its kiosks (or quiosque), like the one you see pictured above, play a major role in that. They are tiny; usually only run by one person. But they embody old world charm; usually with a dark green finish and some wrought iron flourishes. Supposedly these street anchors fell away during Portugal's authoritarian period (Estado Novo), as there was concern that this sort of urban fraternizing might lead to new, potentially radical, ideas. (That's usually a feature of cities.) Thankfully, Lisbon's kiosks have returned and they're as charming as ever. I like to think that city builders can workaround any type of climate. But the weather here certainly helps this public life. Lisbon is one of the sunniest cities in Europe.
After you're done playing around with the dials, you are then able to provide feedback on the design that you've birthed through two very simple feedback buttons. One is a happy face. And the other is a sad face. (I wonder if the placement of these two buttons has any impact on responses.)
What I like about this tool is that it immediately imposes a certain degree of reality and it forces you, the participant, to acknowledge the various trade-offs that need to be considered when you're designing and planning a city.
For example, if you want lots of parks and public spaces, but you want to hold population density constant -- perhaps because you're trying to make use of an investment made in transit infrastructure -- well then you'll need to accept taller buildings.
A very similar thought process goes into each and every development pro forma as we all try and manage the myriad of competing interests. But I guess this is also true of life in general. There are gives and there are takes.
