According to this recent report by Smart Growth America, which looked at "walkable urbanism" in the largest 35 metro areas in the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, built out in this way. Everything else needs to be driven.
But here's the thing. Humans seem to really enjoy walkable urbanism, and will usually pay more for it:
City dwellers will pay to live in a walkable location. Real estate in these areas averages a 34% price premium per square foot in for-sale housing and 41% for multifamily rental apartments.
Walkable neighborhoods in just those 35 metro areas account for 19.1% of the total US real GDP and 6.8% of the total US population, by the researchers’ calculations.
According to this recent report by Smart Growth America, which looked at "walkable urbanism" in the largest 35 metro areas in the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, built out in this way. Everything else needs to be driven.
But here's the thing. Humans seem to really enjoy walkable urbanism, and will usually pay more for it:
City dwellers will pay to live in a walkable location. Real estate in these areas averages a 34% price premium per square foot in for-sale housing and 41% for multifamily rental apartments.
Walkable neighborhoods in just those 35 metro areas account for 19.1% of the total US real GDP and 6.8% of the total US population, by the researchers’ calculations.
That's how density works. You get to do more, with less.
At the same time, not every place should be Midtown Manhattan (which the report labels as the highest walkable urban place with a floor area ratio of 40). There are a wide range of densities that will work, including modest ones (FARs between 1-3).
Here in Toronto, many of our single-family home neighborhoods have densities that are zoned for a maximum FAR of 0.6, which is quite restrictive if you're hoping to build something like a multi-unit building.
This is, of course, the point. But imagine what all could be done here with even an incremental change.
This is a great diagram from Smart Density comparing the urban and regional rail networks of Toronto, London, and Paris. All are at the same scale.
What immediately stands out to me — besides Toronto’s relatively miniscule network — is Paris’ compactness. I have said this before on the blog (here, here, and here), but I will say it again: There seems to be a tendency to fetishize the scale and height of Paris.
But building height is only one component of its ubiquitous built form. Unlike Toronto, we’re not talking about midrises built up against single-family homes. Paris is far more dense and its buildings are far closer together (usually with interior courtyards)
In fact, a big part of what I do for a living is imagining what things could be in the future. However, the bias that humans have toward the status quo has been well documented by people like Seth Godin, as well as many others. It is easier to defend that which already exists. Here's how Seth puts it:
All one has to do is take the thing we have now as a given (ignoring its real costs) and then challenge the defects and question the benefits of the new thing, while also maximizing the potential risk.
So as I was reading this recent blogTO article about the work of Stephen Velasco, I wasn't surprised to see some of the responses. Stephen has built an outstanding 3D model of all the towers that are currently planned or under construction in Toronto. Here's what that looks like:
For some of you, this is exciting. And for others, this may look like too much density. In both cases, we might think we are being fair and reasonable in our assessment, but the reality is that it's actually quite difficult to be a neutral judge. We are all guilty of poor logic and too much emotion.
But here's a good mental exercise, put forward by Seth, to test your logic: flip the story and then see if you still feel the same way.
In this particular case, imagine that all of the above proposed buildings are already built. This is the city that we all live, work, and play in. This is the status quo. Now consider an exciting new proposal being put forward to demolish many/most of these buildings, create more surface parking lots in the core, industrialize our waterfront, and
That's how density works. You get to do more, with less.
At the same time, not every place should be Midtown Manhattan (which the report labels as the highest walkable urban place with a floor area ratio of 40). There are a wide range of densities that will work, including modest ones (FARs between 1-3).
Here in Toronto, many of our single-family home neighborhoods have densities that are zoned for a maximum FAR of 0.6, which is quite restrictive if you're hoping to build something like a multi-unit building.
This is, of course, the point. But imagine what all could be done here with even an incremental change.
This is a great diagram from Smart Density comparing the urban and regional rail networks of Toronto, London, and Paris. All are at the same scale.
What immediately stands out to me — besides Toronto’s relatively miniscule network — is Paris’ compactness. I have said this before on the blog (here, here, and here), but I will say it again: There seems to be a tendency to fetishize the scale and height of Paris.
But building height is only one component of its ubiquitous built form. Unlike Toronto, we’re not talking about midrises built up against single-family homes. Paris is far more dense and its buildings are far closer together (usually with interior courtyards)
In fact, a big part of what I do for a living is imagining what things could be in the future. However, the bias that humans have toward the status quo has been well documented by people like Seth Godin, as well as many others. It is easier to defend that which already exists. Here's how Seth puts it:
All one has to do is take the thing we have now as a given (ignoring its real costs) and then challenge the defects and question the benefits of the new thing, while also maximizing the potential risk.
So as I was reading this recent blogTO article about the work of Stephen Velasco, I wasn't surprised to see some of the responses. Stephen has built an outstanding 3D model of all the towers that are currently planned or under construction in Toronto. Here's what that looks like:
For some of you, this is exciting. And for others, this may look like too much density. In both cases, we might think we are being fair and reasonable in our assessment, but the reality is that it's actually quite difficult to be a neutral judge. We are all guilty of poor logic and too much emotion.
But here's a good mental exercise, put forward by Seth, to test your logic: flip the story and then see if you still feel the same way.
In this particular case, imagine that all of the above proposed buildings are already built. This is the city that we all live, work, and play in. This is the status quo. Now consider an exciting new proposal being put forward to demolish many/most of these buildings, create more surface parking lots in the core, industrialize our waterfront, and
