This recent Streetsblog article about the possibility of turning the M Ocean View line in San Francisco into a kind of subway is a good reminder about the always important connection between transit investment and density. The question I always pose to myself is, "If I were a private company deciding where to spend the money on a new and expensive subway line, what would I look for?" Most of us recognize that population and employment densities would be near, if not at, the top of the list.
Of course, if the company were fully private, then we would run the risk of low-density / unprofitable areas of the city not being serviced by transit. For a variety of reasons, that's not an ideal outcome, which is why transit operators are mostly subsidized. The challenge is that the way we plan transit in most -- or all? -- cities has become so highly politicized today. That's how we end up with the wrong transit technologies in areas that don't have the density to properly support them.
Now, I don't know the specifics of the M Ocean View line. (Maybe some of you do and will provide those thoughts in the comments below.) So this is not a post about what may or may not be appropriate in this particular instance. But it is a commentary on the importance of fiscal prudence and sound transportation planning.
Photo by Lance Anderson on Unsplash
Barcelona is one of the densest cities in Europe. And Márton Mogyorósy's recent photo series, called Barcelona from above, does an excellent job of demonstrating that. My favorite photo is this one here, showing La Barceloneta neighborhood adjacent to the beach:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsa78llAC2c/
None of the buildings are particularly tall (maybe 6 or 7 storeys at the most), but the streets are probably only about 6m wide, including sidewalks. This is one way that you can achieve density without height and it is a good example of what I was getting at in my post, European-style height, but not density.
As I wrote about last month in this pithy post, the relationship between building height and density are often misunderstood. They mean different things and so the implications for our cities can also be vastly different.
I woke up this morning to a couple of tweets by John Michael McGrath that I think hit the nail on the end with respect to this duality. If you can't see them below, click here.
https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath/status/1105500872979742720
Paris is known, and largely celebrated, for its "European-scaled" mid-rise buildings. But as John points out, these buildings often line narrow streets (see above). They are typically also built across large blocks with compact internal courtyards and with few setbacks and/or stepbacks. The combined result is that Paris is one of the densest cities in Europe. It has mid-rise at scale.
The North American context is quite different. The large majority of our land is usually reserved for low density housing. (Here in Toronto this land has been nicknamed the "Yellowbelt.") We have a policy context that only allows intensification in select places, and that can create pressures to build up. It's a bit like squeezing a closed tube of toothpaste.
In 2012, Eurostat ranked Paris as the densest city in Europe with an average population density of approximately 21,516 people per square kilometer. Whereas, according to Wikipedia, the population density of metro Toronto was around 5,905 people per square kilometer in 2016.
What is it, again, that we love so much about Paris?
This recent Streetsblog article about the possibility of turning the M Ocean View line in San Francisco into a kind of subway is a good reminder about the always important connection between transit investment and density. The question I always pose to myself is, "If I were a private company deciding where to spend the money on a new and expensive subway line, what would I look for?" Most of us recognize that population and employment densities would be near, if not at, the top of the list.
Of course, if the company were fully private, then we would run the risk of low-density / unprofitable areas of the city not being serviced by transit. For a variety of reasons, that's not an ideal outcome, which is why transit operators are mostly subsidized. The challenge is that the way we plan transit in most -- or all? -- cities has become so highly politicized today. That's how we end up with the wrong transit technologies in areas that don't have the density to properly support them.
Now, I don't know the specifics of the M Ocean View line. (Maybe some of you do and will provide those thoughts in the comments below.) So this is not a post about what may or may not be appropriate in this particular instance. But it is a commentary on the importance of fiscal prudence and sound transportation planning.
Photo by Lance Anderson on Unsplash
Barcelona is one of the densest cities in Europe. And Márton Mogyorósy's recent photo series, called Barcelona from above, does an excellent job of demonstrating that. My favorite photo is this one here, showing La Barceloneta neighborhood adjacent to the beach:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsa78llAC2c/
None of the buildings are particularly tall (maybe 6 or 7 storeys at the most), but the streets are probably only about 6m wide, including sidewalks. This is one way that you can achieve density without height and it is a good example of what I was getting at in my post, European-style height, but not density.
As I wrote about last month in this pithy post, the relationship between building height and density are often misunderstood. They mean different things and so the implications for our cities can also be vastly different.
I woke up this morning to a couple of tweets by John Michael McGrath that I think hit the nail on the end with respect to this duality. If you can't see them below, click here.
https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath/status/1105500872979742720
Paris is known, and largely celebrated, for its "European-scaled" mid-rise buildings. But as John points out, these buildings often line narrow streets (see above). They are typically also built across large blocks with compact internal courtyards and with few setbacks and/or stepbacks. The combined result is that Paris is one of the densest cities in Europe. It has mid-rise at scale.
The North American context is quite different. The large majority of our land is usually reserved for low density housing. (Here in Toronto this land has been nicknamed the "Yellowbelt.") We have a policy context that only allows intensification in select places, and that can create pressures to build up. It's a bit like squeezing a closed tube of toothpaste.
In 2012, Eurostat ranked Paris as the densest city in Europe with an average population density of approximately 21,516 people per square kilometer. Whereas, according to Wikipedia, the population density of metro Toronto was around 5,905 people per square kilometer in 2016.
What is it, again, that we love so much about Paris?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog