Subscribe
It has been mild and wet in Toronto over the last week, but normally at this time of the year, the entire city looks like as if it was just hit by some sort of apocalyptic chalk storm. Everything is white. And that's because we rely on rock salt and liquid salt brine to keep our roads and sidewalks free of snow and ice. Each winter, the city uses upwards of 130,000 tones of salt to maintain its service levels.
This is the tool of choice because it is both reasonably effective and cheap. However, the trade-off is that it does horrible things to the environment. It also ruins perfectly good shoes, which should tell you something about what it's doing to the environment. So it's a balancing act: Yeah, it's terrible for the environment, but we want usable roads and sidewalks. People slipping and falling is also a liability problem.
That said, when I was in Montreal over the weekend, I did notice a greater use of gravel:
This causes its own set of problems in the spring when it all needs to be tidied up. But in the interim, it did allow me to wear my neon Nike Air Max 90s without the fear of them disintegrating on my feet. Sometimes there's also no choice. Road salts only work down to a certain temperature and then they become ineffective. So there are lots of examples of cities using sand and/or gravel to improve traction.
This is not the case in Toronto. We rely on rock salt. And part of the reason for this is that our winter service levels dictate "bare pavement" on highways and arterial roads. Gravel doesn't get you bare pavement. Salt does. Also, Ontario doesn't require snow tires, whereas Quebec does. So there is an argument that, because of this, we are all ill-equipped to deal with anything besides bare streets. (Though have you seen our sidewalks and bike lanes?)
I am not a salt management expert. I opted out of that fascinating elective in University. But in my opinion, the goal should be to use as little rock salt as possible. Maybe that means we need to rethink our service levels and our priorities. And maybe that means we need to do things like mandate winter tires.
We don't like coal today, but it certainly transformed Victorian-era architecture:
“It is the biggest transition in the history of our species, with the possible exception of starting to use fire at all in the first place,” says Barnabas Calder, author of the groundbreaking study “Architecture: From Prehistory to Climate Emergency.” Fireplaces had to be redesigned for coal, smaller, and more efficient, and could now be distributed throughout the house, warming a sequence of smaller rooms that contained heat more efficiently. Brick, which also requires substantial amounts of energy to produce, became affordable. And glass, too, was accessible to ordinary people. “Coal affects the way you can achieve comfort conditions in a building, and it is a very affordable way of producing a significant amount of warmth, which allows for bigger windows. Even more significant is that it opens up a series of new building materials.”
But as new technologies transformed how we thought about it architecture, they also transformed how we thought about climate. Buildings used to have to be carefully "tuned" to their local environment. You had to think about where the sun was coming in, how you were going to trap it during the winter months, and how you were going to release it during the summer months, among many other things.
Eventually though, this stopped mattering.
We had building systems that could take care of these matters, which then meant that we were free to aspire to build the exact same architecture in Phoenix as in London. But we now know that that this doesn't make much sense. And this recent architectural tour from the Washington Post, which starts in 16th century England, is a good reminder that the lessons learned many centuries ago are in fact still relevant today.
Maybe even more so.
On-street electric vehicle charging points are starting to roll out across Toronto. Here is one that I came across this morning in the Junction on Annette Street. The stations are from Flo.
At its core, this is, of course, a great thing. Ubiquitous charging points are a critical component of overall EV adoption. But at the same time, it was a good reminder that (1) above-grade electrical wires are ugly (this is the typical Toronto approach) and that (2) on-street EV charging is a design challenge that is going to need to be solved.
In the above example, the charging stations were mounted to an existing electrical pole and two bright yellow bollards were installed on either side to make sure nobody smashes into said charging stations while they're parking and/or trying to watch TikTok videos on their phone.
But what happens when nearly everyone has an EV? There are only so many electrical poles, so we will need to move on to standalone stations at some point, and that is obviously already being done. But if we're going to have charging points practically everywhere, how should they work and what should they look like?
I am sure that lots of very smart people are already thinking about this. But as someone who is not directly involved in this space, it feels like we need to think about these in a similar way to street lights. Because they are going to be just as ubiquitous, if not more so. That means there is a strong cause for making them both functional and beautiful.
In fact, this feels like a real city branding opportunity.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog