Richard Florida has a three-part essay over on Bloomberg CityLab about the forces that are currently shaping American cities. In part three, he argues that this pandemic will likely accelerate many of the trends that were already underway -- families will continue to like the suburbs and young people and businesses will continue to cluster in dominant global cities. At the same time, he argues that we will see a kind of "urban reset." A window of opportunity where we just might be able to rebuild our cities to be more affordable, more inclusive, and more productive. Could this be the moment where we commit to transforming our suburbs into more walkable mixed-use communities? Could this crisis actually strengthen our cities, as I have argued before on the blog? At this point in time, the only thing I really know for sure is that most of our predictions will be wrong.

Nicole Gelinas' recent piece in CityLab is a good reminder that -- despite all of the debates around COVID-19 and urban density -- New York City is actually a really healthy place to live. Part of this obviously has to do with the city's investments in public health. But the biggest factor, Nicole argues, is the city's transit network. Six million people move around New York City each day without a car. That translates into a meaningfully lower traffic fatality rate. New York State's rate is about 4.8 per 100,000, whereas Florida's is 14.7 deaths per 100,000. Taking transit (and having an urban morphology that supports taking transit) also brings along with it other benefits, such as increased walking. And I have to believe that is an important factor. The obesity rate in New York City is thought to be about 22%, compared to a shocking 42% for the country. All of this rolls up into a life expectancy of about 81.2 years for New Yorkers, as of 2017. This is compared to 78.6 years for the US as a whole.

For more on the health of New Yorkers, check out this 2017 Summary of Vital Statistics. (It's the source of the above chart.)

Feargus O’Sullivan's CityLab series on European housing typologies started in London, but has since gone on to cover Berlin's mid-rise tenements -- called Mietskasernen -- and Amsterdam's canal houses. The series is exactly the sort of thing that I like to geek out about. In fact, I can see a book on this topic staring at me from my bookshelf.

If you end up taking the time to read the articles, you'll be reminded of a couple of things about the way cities work. One, the way we use buildings changes over time. Two, the kind of architecture we pursue is always a reflection of the socioeconomic milieu at that particular moment in time. And three, the way we perceive buildings also changes over time.

In the case of Amsterdam's canal houses, their original function was live/work. They were residences, but they were also warehouses. Amsterdam's maritime dominance meant that it was more profitable to store things, instead of just house people. (Sometimes as much as half of the house was dedicated to storage.) Trade patterns had moved from the Mediterranean up to the North Atlantic, and that worked out pretty well for the Dutch in the 17th century.

In the case of Berlin, their typical mid-rise "rental barracks" went from reviled to coveted as the buildings aged, elevators made the penthouses desirable, and people started to appreciate some of their idiosyncrasies. It's an example of what I was getting at when I spoke to the CBC for this article about Toronto's skyscraper boom. Some things, including buildings, take time. They need to settle in.