One of the debates that is happening in cities all around the world right now is about whether or not it makes sense to redistribute public space in order to help with current social distancing measures. We are all being told to stay at home as much as possible, but as we venture out for food and/or sanity walks, many have started noticing that a lot of our sidewalks are in fact too small if you're trying to stay 2m away from other humans. So with vehicular traffic way down, the question becomes: Should we start borrowing some of that space for pedestrians?

Here in Toronto the official position is no. Closing down streets and lanes to car traffic is usually referred to as creating an "open street." And the intent of these open streets is typically to bring people together for public life, which, of course, is the exact opposite of what we're trying to do right now. What this implies, however, is that there's a belief that additional space for pedestrians would induce demand, similar to what is believed to happen when you add additional lanes on a highway.

Lewis Mumford probably had it best when he allegedly said, "Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity." So on the one hand, if you believe that more lanes doesn't solve traffic congestion, you might also be inclined to believe that more and bigger sidewalks isn't going to dampen the anxiety we currently feel when other humans get anywhere near us. The additional space would simply get filled with more bodies.

But maybe you could argue that this is a little bit of a different situation. We're in a global pandemic for God's sake and most of us have the better sense to stay home unless it's absolutely necessary. Perhaps in this case, demand would not increase and the greater supply would simply better serve the demand that is already there. Perhaps. I don't have a strong stance on this, but I'm fairly certain that technology could help with this decision.

What do you think?

Photo by Jason Blackeye on Unsplash

I’m in the midst of reading Ben Horowitz’s new book called “The Hard Thing About Hard Things.” You may have noticed all of the random quotes I’m posting over on my tumblog. It’s good stuff.

At one point, he talks about two types of metaphorical debt: technical debt and management debt. Technical debt is when you write shitty (computer) code that addresses the short-term, but eventually needs to be rewritten in the future. Similarly, management debt is when you make bad and short-term management decisions that don’t serve you well in the longer term. In both cases, the debt compounds and, when you eventually pay for it, it’s got a lot of interest on it.

This got me thinking: Is there an equivalent for cities? Is there such a thing as urban debt? I figured there must be since we’re an impatient society obsessed with instant gratification.

I then remembered a great quote that I saw either on Twitter or Tumblr that I think can be credited to Lewis Mumford:

Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.

Neither solution is sustainable and eventually you’re going to have to pay the consequences. In the case of cities, I think the answer is transit.

And transit (disinvestment) is actually a really good example of what might be considered urban debt, because it requires long term planning—something that often conflicts with our political system. Politicians want quick wins.

But I think it’s important to keep in mind that when we fail to make the hard decisions today, they only become more costly to deal with tomorrow. Quick wins might make for good politics, but they often don’t make for great city building. 

One of the debates that is happening in cities all around the world right now is about whether or not it makes sense to redistribute public space in order to help with current social distancing measures. We are all being told to stay at home as much as possible, but as we venture out for food and/or sanity walks, many have started noticing that a lot of our sidewalks are in fact too small if you're trying to stay 2m away from other humans. So with vehicular traffic way down, the question becomes: Should we start borrowing some of that space for pedestrians?

Here in Toronto the official position is no. Closing down streets and lanes to car traffic is usually referred to as creating an "open street." And the intent of these open streets is typically to bring people together for public life, which, of course, is the exact opposite of what we're trying to do right now. What this implies, however, is that there's a belief that additional space for pedestrians would induce demand, similar to what is believed to happen when you add additional lanes on a highway.

Lewis Mumford probably had it best when he allegedly said, "Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity." So on the one hand, if you believe that more lanes doesn't solve traffic congestion, you might also be inclined to believe that more and bigger sidewalks isn't going to dampen the anxiety we currently feel when other humans get anywhere near us. The additional space would simply get filled with more bodies.

But maybe you could argue that this is a little bit of a different situation. We're in a global pandemic for God's sake and most of us have the better sense to stay home unless it's absolutely necessary. Perhaps in this case, demand would not increase and the greater supply would simply better serve the demand that is already there. Perhaps. I don't have a strong stance on this, but I'm fairly certain that technology could help with this decision.

What do you think?

Photo by Jason Blackeye on Unsplash

I’m in the midst of reading Ben Horowitz’s new book called “The Hard Thing About Hard Things.” You may have noticed all of the random quotes I’m posting over on my tumblog. It’s good stuff.

At one point, he talks about two types of metaphorical debt: technical debt and management debt. Technical debt is when you write shitty (computer) code that addresses the short-term, but eventually needs to be rewritten in the future. Similarly, management debt is when you make bad and short-term management decisions that don’t serve you well in the longer term. In both cases, the debt compounds and, when you eventually pay for it, it’s got a lot of interest on it.

This got me thinking: Is there an equivalent for cities? Is there such a thing as urban debt? I figured there must be since we’re an impatient society obsessed with instant gratification.

I then remembered a great quote that I saw either on Twitter or Tumblr that I think can be credited to Lewis Mumford:

Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.

Neither solution is sustainable and eventually you’re going to have to pay the consequences. In the case of cities, I think the answer is transit.

And transit (disinvestment) is actually a really good example of what might be considered urban debt, because it requires long term planning—something that often conflicts with our political system. Politicians want quick wins.

But I think it’s important to keep in mind that when we fail to make the hard decisions today, they only become more costly to deal with tomorrow. Quick wins might make for good politics, but they often don’t make for great city building.