Friday was a busy day at Junction House.
In the morning, we gave a hard hat tour to Toronto's City Planning Division. They are currently revisiting the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards, and so this was an opportunity to see what these standards translate to when you're on site trying to actually build a mid-rise building.
It was great to see the group so highly engaged and looking for ways to improve the delivery of this housing typology. Thanks for taking the time to visit Junction House.
Then we had the "official lighting ceremony" for the placemaking art. And by official lighting ceremony, I mean that there were a handful of us playing around with a drone and trying to get cool pictures on our phones. However, did we have one actual videographer, so stay tuned for some proper video footage of the installation.
https://videopress.com/v/QcsJGPFo?resizeToParent=true&cover=true&preloadContent=metadata&useAverageColor=true
Finally, in the evening after sunset, we got to see it illuminated for the very first time. And it was everything we had hoped for! An idea turned into reality, many years later. Shout out to the Urban Toronto community for spotting one of our earlier prototypes online and then encouraging us to make some design changes. We are happy we listened.
But what do you all think? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.
I was in the mood for some light reading before bed earlier this week, and so I pulled out this comparative critique of Euclidean zoning. Many of you are probably familiar with how single-use zoning works. It is the dominant form of zoning in North America and it is predicated on the idea of "everything in its place." Meaning, land uses are best off when they are segregated and put into distinct zones: commercial here, industrial over there, residential in these areas, and so on.
But there are a whole host of arguments for why this is bad cities. Among other things, it makes them less sustainable, because typically you need to drive between zones when you want to do things. It makes them less resilient, because you've now created monocultures. And it also encourages segregation, because if this zone is only for 2-acre single-family lots, then only people who can afford a 2-acre lot get to live there.
I'm sure that many of you are already aware of these arguments. So what I found most interesting from this light bedtime reading was the comparison to the French model of urbanism. One of the key differences in cities such as Paris is that the French have historically preferred to zone for structures over uses. In other words, aesthetics and how buildings look have long been a priority, but what happens inside of them has been less of one.
The result is an incredible mix of uses that makes the city what it is today. And this is perhaps the great irony of Paris. Its visual harmony might make you believe that "everything is in its place." But really things are often all over the place -- as they should be in a city. Adding to this irony is the fact that many single-use cities do not actually appear very orderly, even though they're kind of supposed to by design.
I thought this was an interesting way of looking at these two different models of urbanism. It makes the case that not everything needs to be in its place; maybe it just needs to look that way and the rest will figure itself out.
The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.
The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it's an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City's current strategic plan -- which includes things like "creating homes for all of us" and "championing sustainability."
The final draft community plan won't be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here's what Scenario A looks like:
Friday was a busy day at Junction House.
In the morning, we gave a hard hat tour to Toronto's City Planning Division. They are currently revisiting the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards, and so this was an opportunity to see what these standards translate to when you're on site trying to actually build a mid-rise building.
It was great to see the group so highly engaged and looking for ways to improve the delivery of this housing typology. Thanks for taking the time to visit Junction House.
Then we had the "official lighting ceremony" for the placemaking art. And by official lighting ceremony, I mean that there were a handful of us playing around with a drone and trying to get cool pictures on our phones. However, did we have one actual videographer, so stay tuned for some proper video footage of the installation.
https://videopress.com/v/QcsJGPFo?resizeToParent=true&cover=true&preloadContent=metadata&useAverageColor=true
Finally, in the evening after sunset, we got to see it illuminated for the very first time. And it was everything we had hoped for! An idea turned into reality, many years later. Shout out to the Urban Toronto community for spotting one of our earlier prototypes online and then encouraging us to make some design changes. We are happy we listened.
But what do you all think? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.
I was in the mood for some light reading before bed earlier this week, and so I pulled out this comparative critique of Euclidean zoning. Many of you are probably familiar with how single-use zoning works. It is the dominant form of zoning in North America and it is predicated on the idea of "everything in its place." Meaning, land uses are best off when they are segregated and put into distinct zones: commercial here, industrial over there, residential in these areas, and so on.
But there are a whole host of arguments for why this is bad cities. Among other things, it makes them less sustainable, because typically you need to drive between zones when you want to do things. It makes them less resilient, because you've now created monocultures. And it also encourages segregation, because if this zone is only for 2-acre single-family lots, then only people who can afford a 2-acre lot get to live there.
I'm sure that many of you are already aware of these arguments. So what I found most interesting from this light bedtime reading was the comparison to the French model of urbanism. One of the key differences in cities such as Paris is that the French have historically preferred to zone for structures over uses. In other words, aesthetics and how buildings look have long been a priority, but what happens inside of them has been less of one.
The result is an incredible mix of uses that makes the city what it is today. And this is perhaps the great irony of Paris. Its visual harmony might make you believe that "everything is in its place." But really things are often all over the place -- as they should be in a city. Adding to this irony is the fact that many single-use cities do not actually appear very orderly, even though they're kind of supposed to by design.
I thought this was an interesting way of looking at these two different models of urbanism. It makes the case that not everything needs to be in its place; maybe it just needs to look that way and the rest will figure itself out.
The University area is one of 53 community planning areas in the City of San Diego. And this one, as the name suggests, houses the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which is at the northern end of the blue transit line.
The last time the University Community Plan was updated was in 1987, and so it's an old plan and it is currently being redone to better align with the City's current strategic plan -- which includes things like "creating homes for all of us" and "championing sustainability."
The final draft community plan won't be available until later this year, but there are two draft scenarios available for download. Here's what Scenario A looks like:
The "T" circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are "urban villages" with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.
Now let's put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we're talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre -- more than what is proposed here.
In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called "Honks against housing":
(I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)
This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.
These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.
Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.
In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, "this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?" It should be, "how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?"
If you'd like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I'm told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.
The "T" circles are transit stops on the Blue Line (which runs south to downtown and then to the Mexico border), the olive green areas are institutional (UCSD, hospital, etc.), and the purple areas are "urban villages" with densities that go as high as 218 dwelling units per acre (darkest purple). For the other areas, please refer to the legend.
Now let's put this residential density into some sort of context. One acre = 43,560 square feet. So we're talking about 218 homes on every 43,560 square feet of land. For context, our mid-rise Junction House project is 151 homes and our site area is approximately 22,000 square feet (about 0.5 acres). That puts us at roughly 302 homes per acre -- more than what is proposed here.
In total the revised plan could allow for somewhere between 35,000 to 56,000 new homes in the University City area. Not surprisingly, the community has reacted by organizing rallies, such as this one, here, called "Honks against housing":
(I used a screenshot because embedded tweets don’t seem to show up properly in my email newsletter.)
This is, again, not unexpected. And all of the typical things could be said about incumbent residents opposing new homes on top of an existing transit line, next to a major university. But what stands out to me about this protest is its format.
These residents are worried that high-rises will destroy their community. So presumably they are looking to get the word out to as many people as possible. And one of the ways they have decided to do that is stand on the side of a busy road and appeal to people in their cars.
Ironically, I think this actually reinforces the need for an updated Community Plan. Because it speaks to the car-oriented nature of this community and the need for better land use planning around its existing transit stations.
In my view, the line of thinking here should not be, "this is going to destroy our community. How will our roads ever accommodate 35,000 new homes?" It should be, "how do we better plan this community so that our next generation of residents have the luxury not to have to drive everywhere?"
If you'd like to offer constructive feedback on this plan, I'm told that you can email Nancy Graham at nhgraham@sandiego.gov.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog