The MIT Senseable City Lab recently asked: How does urban morphology affect the solar potential of cities? If you assume that transparent photovoltaic cells are on the way and that building facades are soon going to become a place where we generate solar energy, then this is actually a pretty interesting question. Are some built environments naturally better suited than others?
To answer this question, they looked at the "urban surfaces" of ten cities, including New York, Singapore, Toronto (pictured above), Hong Kong, Paris, as well as others. These surfaces included roofs, facades, and ground planes.
What they, not surprisingly, discovered is that you need a lot of exposed facades to get the numbers up. And so the cities that come out on top in terms of annual solar irradiation are cities like New York and Singapore. They have a lot of tall buildings, but they also fluctuate in height, giving greater exposure to the facades.
All of this is potentially relevant because -- if building facades become a big deal for solar -- it could start to inform how we plan our cities. In fact, I would go so far as to bet that, over the long-term, solar energy will have a greater impact on urban morphologies than this current pandemic.
Image: MIT Senseable City Lab
Many of us are now working out from home. The Financial Times just reported that Peloton experienced its highest level of participation last week. Some 23,000 people tuned in for one of its streamed classes. Naturally, anything that was possible to go online has gone online.
I've never really been a class guy, but I've been a regular at a gym since high school and it's one of the things I'm most looking forward to getting back to as things subside. For many, the gym is a kind of third place. Though I would imagine it's not the best place to hangout during a pandemic.
According to FT, the fitness industry was among the first to suffer in the UK (~£5.1bn industry), showing signs of decline even before any government lockdown. The UK also had one of the most profitable fitness industries in Europe. Here's an interesting chart comparing gym penetration to revenue per club.
The MIT Senseable City Lab recently asked: How does urban morphology affect the solar potential of cities? If you assume that transparent photovoltaic cells are on the way and that building facades are soon going to become a place where we generate solar energy, then this is actually a pretty interesting question. Are some built environments naturally better suited than others?
To answer this question, they looked at the "urban surfaces" of ten cities, including New York, Singapore, Toronto (pictured above), Hong Kong, Paris, as well as others. These surfaces included roofs, facades, and ground planes.
What they, not surprisingly, discovered is that you need a lot of exposed facades to get the numbers up. And so the cities that come out on top in terms of annual solar irradiation are cities like New York and Singapore. They have a lot of tall buildings, but they also fluctuate in height, giving greater exposure to the facades.
All of this is potentially relevant because -- if building facades become a big deal for solar -- it could start to inform how we plan our cities. In fact, I would go so far as to bet that, over the long-term, solar energy will have a greater impact on urban morphologies than this current pandemic.
Image: MIT Senseable City Lab
Many of us are now working out from home. The Financial Times just reported that Peloton experienced its highest level of participation last week. Some 23,000 people tuned in for one of its streamed classes. Naturally, anything that was possible to go online has gone online.
I've never really been a class guy, but I've been a regular at a gym since high school and it's one of the things I'm most looking forward to getting back to as things subside. For many, the gym is a kind of third place. Though I would imagine it's not the best place to hangout during a pandemic.
According to FT, the fitness industry was among the first to suffer in the UK (~£5.1bn industry), showing signs of decline even before any government lockdown. The UK also had one of the most profitable fitness industries in Europe. Here's an interesting chart comparing gym penetration to revenue per club.
It's interesting to note some of the outliers. Latin America has low penetration and low average revenue per club. And parts of Asia -- notably Hong Kong and China -- have relatively high average revenue per club, but still have fairly low penetration percentages. Do only rich people go to the gym in Hong Kong?
This chart maybe makes it seem like nobody in Latin America is working out. But if you, instead, look at the number of fitness clubs in each country, the data looks vastly different. In this case, there are two very clear outliers: the United States and Brazil. (The below chart is from Statista and is based on 2017 data.)
But Brazil also happens to be the most populous country in Latin America with around 209 million people. So let's consider this chart on a per capita basis against, oh I don't know, the US (~328 million), the UK (~67 million), and Canada (~38 million). Once again, the ranking switches. Brazil and Canada now come out on top with around 16 fitness clubs per 100,000 people. (I guess we're just as body conscious as the Brazilians.) This is in comparison to 12 per for the US and 10 per for the UK.
So what does this all mean for our post-COVID-19 world? Who knows. But I'll sure as hell be at the gym.
I am surprised, although maybe I shouldn't be, by how quickly many seem to be allegedly turning their back on cities. According to the New York Times, cities were "losing their allure" well before this pandemic, and this might just be the tipping point. The underlying argument: Density is bad. We should probably all move somewhere bucolic, where the cost of housing is less and work isn't so stressful. Zoom only when necessary.
But as the chief economist for Indeed, Jed Kolko, rightly points out in the article, how people behave (and think) during a global pandemic is probably not a great indicator for how they will want to live their lives when this is all over. It's also not clear that urban density is really the contributor of spread. Hyper-dense cities such as Seoul and Hong Kong have been performing relatively well. (Joe Cortright has some thoughts on this.)
Once we get to the other side, we will see the data and we will get a better understanding of this current situation. And then in hindsight, we will find ways to rationalize the outcomes to ourselves. In the interim, I'm not about to bet against cities. Here's how Paul Romer, professor at New York University, put it in this recent interview in City Journal:
"I think the underlying economic reality is that there is tremendous economic value in interacting with people and sharing ideas. There’s still a lot to be gained from interaction in close physical proximity because such interaction is a large part of how we establish trust. So I think that, for the rest of my life, cities are going to continue to be where the action is."
It's interesting to note some of the outliers. Latin America has low penetration and low average revenue per club. And parts of Asia -- notably Hong Kong and China -- have relatively high average revenue per club, but still have fairly low penetration percentages. Do only rich people go to the gym in Hong Kong?
This chart maybe makes it seem like nobody in Latin America is working out. But if you, instead, look at the number of fitness clubs in each country, the data looks vastly different. In this case, there are two very clear outliers: the United States and Brazil. (The below chart is from Statista and is based on 2017 data.)
But Brazil also happens to be the most populous country in Latin America with around 209 million people. So let's consider this chart on a per capita basis against, oh I don't know, the US (~328 million), the UK (~67 million), and Canada (~38 million). Once again, the ranking switches. Brazil and Canada now come out on top with around 16 fitness clubs per 100,000 people. (I guess we're just as body conscious as the Brazilians.) This is in comparison to 12 per for the US and 10 per for the UK.
So what does this all mean for our post-COVID-19 world? Who knows. But I'll sure as hell be at the gym.
I am surprised, although maybe I shouldn't be, by how quickly many seem to be allegedly turning their back on cities. According to the New York Times, cities were "losing their allure" well before this pandemic, and this might just be the tipping point. The underlying argument: Density is bad. We should probably all move somewhere bucolic, where the cost of housing is less and work isn't so stressful. Zoom only when necessary.
But as the chief economist for Indeed, Jed Kolko, rightly points out in the article, how people behave (and think) during a global pandemic is probably not a great indicator for how they will want to live their lives when this is all over. It's also not clear that urban density is really the contributor of spread. Hyper-dense cities such as Seoul and Hong Kong have been performing relatively well. (Joe Cortright has some thoughts on this.)
Once we get to the other side, we will see the data and we will get a better understanding of this current situation. And then in hindsight, we will find ways to rationalize the outcomes to ourselves. In the interim, I'm not about to bet against cities. Here's how Paul Romer, professor at New York University, put it in this recent interview in City Journal:
"I think the underlying economic reality is that there is tremendous economic value in interacting with people and sharing ideas. There’s still a lot to be gained from interaction in close physical proximity because such interaction is a large part of how we establish trust. So I think that, for the rest of my life, cities are going to continue to be where the action is."
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
