San Francisco Bay Blues by Stefano Termanini on 500px
I recently stumbled upon a great Treehugger article by Lloyd Alter called: The real triumph of the city will be seen in Buffalo (2014). The post is partially a response to economist Ed Glaeser’s popular book, Triumph of the City, which I’ve mentioned and cited many times before here on ATC.
Lloyd’s thesis is basically that Ed is wrong in arguing that reducing the barriers to building is the most effective way to maintain housing affordability; that cities are really made out of flesh, rather than bricks and mortar; and that urbanists need to move beyond the view that a city’s past should be preserved at all costs.
Lloyd then goes on to argue that rather than continuing to over-intensify cities like New York, San Francisco, and Toronto, we should be turning our attention to former powerhouses like Buffalo and trying to figure out how to reinvigorate those cities. The bones are already in place.
Now, I don’t disagree that there’s lots of potential in cities such as a Buffalo and Detroit. I’ve written a lot about Detroit and I’m genuinely rooting for the city. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it sounds to shift our attention, and I don’t agree with all of the critiques of Glaeser’s work.
As important as built form is, cities like Buffalo and Detroit remind us that architecture and buildings alone aren’t enough to build a city. There are countless masterpieces – such as Michigan Central Station in Detroit – that regrettably sit abandoned. You need people and communities.
There’s also a snowball effect.
As a city becomes more successful, there’s a natural tendency for more people to want to be there. It’s no different than the network effect experienced by a social network. A social network without people has no value. But the more people you add to it, the more valuable it becomes and the more difficult it becomes to replace.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people will put up with expensive real estate and small apartments just to live in cities like San Francisco. That’s where they want to be. And as long as the demand to live in those cities is increasing, I continue to believe that it makes sense to build more, not less, housing and to make it reasonably easy to do so.
At the same time, I believe whole heartedly in heritage preservation. As a trained architect, there’s a strong possibility that I would shed an actual tear should a building with heritage value be torn down in my city or in any city in the world.
And that’s why when I was on CBC radio last week I said that neighborhood investment needs to be a balance between preservation and progress. The Twittersphere later blasted me for using the term “progress”, but I think you get my position.
My interpretation of Glaeser’s work has never been that he supports completely erasing a city’s past in order to make way for the future. If that is his position, then I too disagree with it.
My interpretation has instead been that he supports removing unreasonable barriers to development so that cities are able to supply – or can at least try to supply – enough housing to meet growing demand. This also doesn’t exclusively mean high-rise intensification. It could mean removing the barriers in front of things like laneway housing. And I continue to believe that this is a good idea.
I don’t believe that this approach alone will solve all housing problems, but I do think it’s a great place to start.
Thank you Lloyd for the great post.
The Economist recently published an essay called, A Planet of Suburbs – The world is becoming ever more suburban, and the better for it. The argument is basically that the “great urbanization” that everyone loves to talk about these days is actually a misnomer. From Chicago to Chennai, it’s not the urban core that’s growing. It’s the suburbs. And so what we’re seeing should actually be called the great suburbanization.
The basis for this argument is that wealth fuels sprawl. As people become richer, they naturally consume more of everything – including space. It’s a natural market outcome.
Take for example, the path of many of Toronto’s ethnic groups. In the first half of the 20th century, College Street was the Little Italy. Then it shifted north and St. Clair Avenue West became the more authentic Little Italy. Today, many Italians now live north of the city in Woodbridge. In fact, last weekend I was on St. Clair West and was disappointed to learn that one of my favorite butchers had closed up shop and “moved to Woodbridge.”
However, there are also many supporters of the exact opposite outcome. From Edward Glaeser to Alan Ehrenhalt, many have argued that we’re in the midst of a “great inversion.” The suburbs are no longer a threat to urban centers. It’s the urban centers who are threatening the suburbs. The suburbs are dead. Long live the city.
So which is it?
Well, The Economist does cite two examples where true urbanization is actually taking place. It’s happening in Tokyo and London. In both cases, it’s the city center that is growing the fastest – not the suburbs. The explanation for Tokyo is its aging population. And the explanation for London is its restrictive greenbelt, which effectively stops the possibility of any further sprawl.
Here in Toronto – where there is also a greenbelt in place – we know that the population of the downtown core is growing at an incredible pace. A recent report by the city – called Comprehensive to the Core – revealed that the downtown core is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city.
But what about the suburbs?
If we look at the province of Ontario’s growth projections, it is indeed the suburbs which are expected to grow the fastest up until 2036. Here is a diagram showing percentage growth rates:
In absolute numbers, the city of Toronto alone is expected to add about 0.66 million people between 2012 and 2036, and the suburbs are expected to add almost 1.9 million.
There are a number of potential explanations for this differential, but I think it’s largely because land is cheaper in the suburbs, it’s easier to add new housing supply, population densities are lower, and we’re talking about very different land areas.
The city of Toronto is 630 square kilometers. If you tack on the suburbs, the Greater Toronto Area is 7,124 square kilometers. That means Toronto makes up less than 9% of the total land area. And yet it is expected to contribute 25% of the region’s population growth.
Still, the suburbs are where the bulk of the population growth is expected to happen over the coming decades.
However, the “great inversion” that authors like Alan Ehrenhalt have been talking about should not really be interpreted as the death of the suburbs. What he’s instead talking about is a socioeconomic or demographic reversal: center cities used to be poor and now they’re becoming rich.
What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place.
In this context, we are still living through the great urbanization. We’re seeing a shift in consumer preference and a shift in where wealth is choosing to locate. That’s a profound change.
And while we’re obviously still suburbanizing, I don’t agree that we’re better for it. In fact, left unchecked, this demographic inversion could actually prove to be quite damaging to our suburbs.
Image: Flickr
One of the reasons New York is the city it is today is because of the superiority of its port. For a number of reasons, which are better explained here by urban economist Edward Glaeser, New York was almost destined to become “America’s port.” Of course, this phenomenon is something that has been repeated all throughout history. Being connected to the right body of water, in the right way, has meant all the difference in terms of economic success.
But with study after study demonstrating that our economic success is leading to severe climate change and to the melting of arctic ice sheets, those very same port cities are now being put at serious risk. How ironic. Hurricane Sandy was the largest storm surge in the history of New York. Prior to it occurring, the likelihood of such a storm would have been calculated at 0.1%. It was greater than a 1,000 year storm.
But if the research is correct, we’re going to see more storm surges and we’re going to see rising sea levels. This makes many, if not all, sea port cities a high risk zone for flooding, which is why cities, such as Boston, have prepared comprehensive reports on how to manage a rising tide. From adjustable parapet walls to multipurpose green spaces that can absorb excess water levels, cities around the world are looking for solutions.
But these are merely reactive solutions.
What need to also be looking at is how we can fundamentally improve our economy so that we’re operating in a sustainable way. Some of the research suggests that what we’ve done is irreversible, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to make it any worse. Part of the issue with this “wicked problem” is that it doesn’t seem immediate to most people, yet. It’s too easy to ignore. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Image: This Big City
San Francisco Bay Blues by Stefano Termanini on 500px
I recently stumbled upon a great Treehugger article by Lloyd Alter called: The real triumph of the city will be seen in Buffalo (2014). The post is partially a response to economist Ed Glaeser’s popular book, Triumph of the City, which I’ve mentioned and cited many times before here on ATC.
Lloyd’s thesis is basically that Ed is wrong in arguing that reducing the barriers to building is the most effective way to maintain housing affordability; that cities are really made out of flesh, rather than bricks and mortar; and that urbanists need to move beyond the view that a city’s past should be preserved at all costs.
Lloyd then goes on to argue that rather than continuing to over-intensify cities like New York, San Francisco, and Toronto, we should be turning our attention to former powerhouses like Buffalo and trying to figure out how to reinvigorate those cities. The bones are already in place.
Now, I don’t disagree that there’s lots of potential in cities such as a Buffalo and Detroit. I’ve written a lot about Detroit and I’m genuinely rooting for the city. But I don’t think it’s as simple as it sounds to shift our attention, and I don’t agree with all of the critiques of Glaeser’s work.
As important as built form is, cities like Buffalo and Detroit remind us that architecture and buildings alone aren’t enough to build a city. There are countless masterpieces – such as Michigan Central Station in Detroit – that regrettably sit abandoned. You need people and communities.
There’s also a snowball effect.
As a city becomes more successful, there’s a natural tendency for more people to want to be there. It’s no different than the network effect experienced by a social network. A social network without people has no value. But the more people you add to it, the more valuable it becomes and the more difficult it becomes to replace.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that people will put up with expensive real estate and small apartments just to live in cities like San Francisco. That’s where they want to be. And as long as the demand to live in those cities is increasing, I continue to believe that it makes sense to build more, not less, housing and to make it reasonably easy to do so.
At the same time, I believe whole heartedly in heritage preservation. As a trained architect, there’s a strong possibility that I would shed an actual tear should a building with heritage value be torn down in my city or in any city in the world.
And that’s why when I was on CBC radio last week I said that neighborhood investment needs to be a balance between preservation and progress. The Twittersphere later blasted me for using the term “progress”, but I think you get my position.
My interpretation of Glaeser’s work has never been that he supports completely erasing a city’s past in order to make way for the future. If that is his position, then I too disagree with it.
My interpretation has instead been that he supports removing unreasonable barriers to development so that cities are able to supply – or can at least try to supply – enough housing to meet growing demand. This also doesn’t exclusively mean high-rise intensification. It could mean removing the barriers in front of things like laneway housing. And I continue to believe that this is a good idea.
I don’t believe that this approach alone will solve all housing problems, but I do think it’s a great place to start.
Thank you Lloyd for the great post.
The Economist recently published an essay called, A Planet of Suburbs – The world is becoming ever more suburban, and the better for it. The argument is basically that the “great urbanization” that everyone loves to talk about these days is actually a misnomer. From Chicago to Chennai, it’s not the urban core that’s growing. It’s the suburbs. And so what we’re seeing should actually be called the great suburbanization.
The basis for this argument is that wealth fuels sprawl. As people become richer, they naturally consume more of everything – including space. It’s a natural market outcome.
Take for example, the path of many of Toronto’s ethnic groups. In the first half of the 20th century, College Street was the Little Italy. Then it shifted north and St. Clair Avenue West became the more authentic Little Italy. Today, many Italians now live north of the city in Woodbridge. In fact, last weekend I was on St. Clair West and was disappointed to learn that one of my favorite butchers had closed up shop and “moved to Woodbridge.”
However, there are also many supporters of the exact opposite outcome. From Edward Glaeser to Alan Ehrenhalt, many have argued that we’re in the midst of a “great inversion.” The suburbs are no longer a threat to urban centers. It’s the urban centers who are threatening the suburbs. The suburbs are dead. Long live the city.
So which is it?
Well, The Economist does cite two examples where true urbanization is actually taking place. It’s happening in Tokyo and London. In both cases, it’s the city center that is growing the fastest – not the suburbs. The explanation for Tokyo is its aging population. And the explanation for London is its restrictive greenbelt, which effectively stops the possibility of any further sprawl.
Here in Toronto – where there is also a greenbelt in place – we know that the population of the downtown core is growing at an incredible pace. A recent report by the city – called Comprehensive to the Core – revealed that the downtown core is growing at 4 times the rate of the rest of the city.
But what about the suburbs?
If we look at the province of Ontario’s growth projections, it is indeed the suburbs which are expected to grow the fastest up until 2036. Here is a diagram showing percentage growth rates:
In absolute numbers, the city of Toronto alone is expected to add about 0.66 million people between 2012 and 2036, and the suburbs are expected to add almost 1.9 million.
There are a number of potential explanations for this differential, but I think it’s largely because land is cheaper in the suburbs, it’s easier to add new housing supply, population densities are lower, and we’re talking about very different land areas.
The city of Toronto is 630 square kilometers. If you tack on the suburbs, the Greater Toronto Area is 7,124 square kilometers. That means Toronto makes up less than 9% of the total land area. And yet it is expected to contribute 25% of the region’s population growth.
Still, the suburbs are where the bulk of the population growth is expected to happen over the coming decades.
However, the “great inversion” that authors like Alan Ehrenhalt have been talking about should not really be interpreted as the death of the suburbs. What he’s instead talking about is a socioeconomic or demographic reversal: center cities used to be poor and now they’re becoming rich.
What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place.
In this context, we are still living through the great urbanization. We’re seeing a shift in consumer preference and a shift in where wealth is choosing to locate. That’s a profound change.
And while we’re obviously still suburbanizing, I don’t agree that we’re better for it. In fact, left unchecked, this demographic inversion could actually prove to be quite damaging to our suburbs.
Image: Flickr
One of the reasons New York is the city it is today is because of the superiority of its port. For a number of reasons, which are better explained here by urban economist Edward Glaeser, New York was almost destined to become “America’s port.” Of course, this phenomenon is something that has been repeated all throughout history. Being connected to the right body of water, in the right way, has meant all the difference in terms of economic success.
But with study after study demonstrating that our economic success is leading to severe climate change and to the melting of arctic ice sheets, those very same port cities are now being put at serious risk. How ironic. Hurricane Sandy was the largest storm surge in the history of New York. Prior to it occurring, the likelihood of such a storm would have been calculated at 0.1%. It was greater than a 1,000 year storm.
But if the research is correct, we’re going to see more storm surges and we’re going to see rising sea levels. This makes many, if not all, sea port cities a high risk zone for flooding, which is why cities, such as Boston, have prepared comprehensive reports on how to manage a rising tide. From adjustable parapet walls to multipurpose green spaces that can absorb excess water levels, cities around the world are looking for solutions.
But these are merely reactive solutions.
What need to also be looking at is how we can fundamentally improve our economy so that we’re operating in a sustainable way. Some of the research suggests that what we’ve done is irreversible, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to make it any worse. Part of the issue with this “wicked problem” is that it doesn’t seem immediate to most people, yet. It’s too easy to ignore. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Image: This Big City
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog