Michael Beach used to have a YouTube channel where he "looked at Google Maps a lot." Meaning, he would pan around various cities and comment on their planning and overall built form. Technically the channel still exists, but he stopped making new videos a few years ago. Here is one where he talks about Dubai being "an absolute mess" (3.8 million views) and here is one where he looks at North York (in Toronto) and asks: "why is it here?"
The most important point from his North York video is that it illustrates the deep divide that exists in Toronto (and other North American cities) between single-family "Neighbourhoods" (a defined planning term) and higher-density transit nodes, where things like tall buildings are allowed to go.
In the case of North York, this contrast is perhaps at its most stark. Even the street network is designed to stop these two urban forms from commingling with each other too much. There are ring roads that surround the transit-oriented density, and separate, more suburban streets on the other side of it:
This contrast is why there are so many people talking about the "missing middle." And I'm sure that if you started asking random people on the street, most would agree that it would be nice if we could build more moderately-scaled housing. You know, like those buildings you see in Paris.
The problem: Where should it go? Some people would probably suggest the left side of the above ring road. Just don't build as tall, okay? But this kind of land is already a scarce commodity in a city like Toronto. We need these tall buildings because most of the city is codified to look like the right side of the above ring road.
So if we have any chance of actually finding the missing middle, it is going to need to happen here, on the right side. Some progress has been made, not just in Toronto but across North America, with accessory dwellings (laneway suites). But it's not going to be enough.
This was simply a first step. It was us finding a solution to, "how can we add some more housing here without changing the look and feel and character of these residential streets in any way?" But even this small and incremental change has proven to be exceedingly controversial. People still react to new laneway suites like this:
https://twitter.com/evboyce/status/1624840523516182528?s=20&t=Q9gCZfTGLz51rVyupxJDPg
There are complex dynamics at play here.
If you're a homeowner that decides to create a new rental home at the rear of your property, you might be viewed as greedy. You are creating something (a home) that someone needs, and you intend to make a small margin on the transaction. It's like making and selling bread for a small margin, except that selling delicious bread to people is typically viewed in a positive light. On the other hand, ensuring that the value of your house remains as high as possible is generally good practice here. Greed doesn't factor in this way because, you know, single-family homes.
There is no surprise why the missing middle is missing. It is missing because we have decided that we want it to be. But hey, $2,145 per month seems like a very reasonable price for a 2-bedroom house.
There is a new book out right now about the United Arab Emirates called 50U. It has been fifty years since the confederation of the seven Gulf states was officially declared (December 2, 1971), and so the book is a celebration of that. The format is 50 portraits of people, places, and plants (yes, plants) that tell the story of the UAE.
Included in the book is an excerpt of a 2009 talk by architect Rem Koolhaas (of OMA) about his reading of Dubai. ArchDaily published an abridged version over here and I thought it was an interesting read. Few people think about cities as deeply as Koolhaas does, and few can express their thoughts in such a rational and Dutch-like way. Here's a snippet of the talk:
I came here first in 2004. We were asked to do a major building on the site which is marked by the flag. Then, two years ago it was the exact moment… I became increasingly nervous about the mission of architecture and the uses of architecture. And I really became almost desperate… that the incredible pressure of the market economy was forcing architecture itself into increasingly extravagant conditions. Seemingly, Dubai seemed to be the epicenter of that extravagance. So, I came with deeply ambivalent feelings. It seemed as if the idea of the city and the metropolis itself had been almost turned into a caricature, not a coherent entity but maybe a patchwork of theme parks. And those themes would become the bogus and increasingly bizarre characters that were perhaps partly mythical and partly real.
I've only been to Dubai once. It was back in 2008 or 2009. And to be honest, it wasn't my favorite city; I think primarily because I enjoy walking cities and Dubai is largely the opposite of that. It felt like a patchwork of theme parks that you had to drive around to -- ideally in an exotic car while being as flashy as possible.
Now if these theme parks were within walking distance (and the drinks were good), that would be an entirely different story.
https://youtu.be/5W-zPqrGQWA
Google Earth has a feature called Timelapse that combines millions of different satellite images to show you how the world has changed over the last 37 years -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. It's a feature that's been out for a few years, but they just made it available in 3D. Some of you may have also missed the feature if you don't normally use Google Earth. So here's an overly wondrous video (also embedded above) showing off the new feature, and here is a dedicated site that allows you to quickly try out Timelapse in 2D. Dubai's "coastal expansion" is one of the places you can quickly land on and its growth over the last few decades is always mind boggling to see. But of course, there are also many other important Timelapses that should be viewed. A number of them speak to our environmental impacts on the world.
Michael Beach used to have a YouTube channel where he "looked at Google Maps a lot." Meaning, he would pan around various cities and comment on their planning and overall built form. Technically the channel still exists, but he stopped making new videos a few years ago. Here is one where he talks about Dubai being "an absolute mess" (3.8 million views) and here is one where he looks at North York (in Toronto) and asks: "why is it here?"
The most important point from his North York video is that it illustrates the deep divide that exists in Toronto (and other North American cities) between single-family "Neighbourhoods" (a defined planning term) and higher-density transit nodes, where things like tall buildings are allowed to go.
In the case of North York, this contrast is perhaps at its most stark. Even the street network is designed to stop these two urban forms from commingling with each other too much. There are ring roads that surround the transit-oriented density, and separate, more suburban streets on the other side of it:
This contrast is why there are so many people talking about the "missing middle." And I'm sure that if you started asking random people on the street, most would agree that it would be nice if we could build more moderately-scaled housing. You know, like those buildings you see in Paris.
The problem: Where should it go? Some people would probably suggest the left side of the above ring road. Just don't build as tall, okay? But this kind of land is already a scarce commodity in a city like Toronto. We need these tall buildings because most of the city is codified to look like the right side of the above ring road.
So if we have any chance of actually finding the missing middle, it is going to need to happen here, on the right side. Some progress has been made, not just in Toronto but across North America, with accessory dwellings (laneway suites). But it's not going to be enough.
This was simply a first step. It was us finding a solution to, "how can we add some more housing here without changing the look and feel and character of these residential streets in any way?" But even this small and incremental change has proven to be exceedingly controversial. People still react to new laneway suites like this:
https://twitter.com/evboyce/status/1624840523516182528?s=20&t=Q9gCZfTGLz51rVyupxJDPg
There are complex dynamics at play here.
If you're a homeowner that decides to create a new rental home at the rear of your property, you might be viewed as greedy. You are creating something (a home) that someone needs, and you intend to make a small margin on the transaction. It's like making and selling bread for a small margin, except that selling delicious bread to people is typically viewed in a positive light. On the other hand, ensuring that the value of your house remains as high as possible is generally good practice here. Greed doesn't factor in this way because, you know, single-family homes.
There is no surprise why the missing middle is missing. It is missing because we have decided that we want it to be. But hey, $2,145 per month seems like a very reasonable price for a 2-bedroom house.
There is a new book out right now about the United Arab Emirates called 50U. It has been fifty years since the confederation of the seven Gulf states was officially declared (December 2, 1971), and so the book is a celebration of that. The format is 50 portraits of people, places, and plants (yes, plants) that tell the story of the UAE.
Included in the book is an excerpt of a 2009 talk by architect Rem Koolhaas (of OMA) about his reading of Dubai. ArchDaily published an abridged version over here and I thought it was an interesting read. Few people think about cities as deeply as Koolhaas does, and few can express their thoughts in such a rational and Dutch-like way. Here's a snippet of the talk:
I came here first in 2004. We were asked to do a major building on the site which is marked by the flag. Then, two years ago it was the exact moment… I became increasingly nervous about the mission of architecture and the uses of architecture. And I really became almost desperate… that the incredible pressure of the market economy was forcing architecture itself into increasingly extravagant conditions. Seemingly, Dubai seemed to be the epicenter of that extravagance. So, I came with deeply ambivalent feelings. It seemed as if the idea of the city and the metropolis itself had been almost turned into a caricature, not a coherent entity but maybe a patchwork of theme parks. And those themes would become the bogus and increasingly bizarre characters that were perhaps partly mythical and partly real.
I've only been to Dubai once. It was back in 2008 or 2009. And to be honest, it wasn't my favorite city; I think primarily because I enjoy walking cities and Dubai is largely the opposite of that. It felt like a patchwork of theme parks that you had to drive around to -- ideally in an exotic car while being as flashy as possible.
Now if these theme parks were within walking distance (and the drinks were good), that would be an entirely different story.
https://youtu.be/5W-zPqrGQWA
Google Earth has a feature called Timelapse that combines millions of different satellite images to show you how the world has changed over the last 37 years -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. It's a feature that's been out for a few years, but they just made it available in 3D. Some of you may have also missed the feature if you don't normally use Google Earth. So here's an overly wondrous video (also embedded above) showing off the new feature, and here is a dedicated site that allows you to quickly try out Timelapse in 2D. Dubai's "coastal expansion" is one of the places you can quickly land on and its growth over the last few decades is always mind boggling to see. But of course, there are also many other important Timelapses that should be viewed. A number of them speak to our environmental impacts on the world.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog