We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.
At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it's to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.
Which is probably why there's a growing interest in building more of it. Here's a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here's a photo of Culdesac's new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn't look like the Arizona I know):
But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:
“Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”
This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.
I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.
However, it's going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating "walkable archipelagos" or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we'll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.
One of the great promises of autonomous vehicles is that, one day in the future, you'll be able to get into your car, fall asleep, and then wake up refreshed at your destination. This would be a nice luxury, and it would almost certainly reshape the geography of our cities.
But at the same time, it's worth a reminder that "sleeper cars", or bed carriages as they were originally called, are definitely not a new thing. Possibly the first example of a sleeper car was in England in the 1830s. Trains, of course, don't take you exactly where you want to go like a car, but a sleeper train does allow you to travel while you sleep.
And so it is interesting to see that sleeper trains are apparently seeing a resurgence in popularity across Europe. To the point that the trains are full and rail operators can't seem to get their hands on new carriages. I can't recall ever travelling in a sleeper train, but I have to say that this looks like a highly civilized way to move around:
If you drive around the Cottonwood Heights neighborhood in Salt Lake City, which I have done multiple times over the last year, you will invariably see lawn signs shouting for "no gondola!" And the reason for this is that last summer, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) came forward with its preferred solution to traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon: an eight-mile long gondola all the way up and into the mountains. If built, this would apparently be the longest and most expensive urban gondola in the world.
To try and explain why this is being recommended, I'll give the example of what happened to us when we were there last week. We drove into Little Cottonwood Canyon on Tuesday morning when it was not snowing. We left Park City around 8am, passed through the valley (Salt Lake City), and arrived at Snowbird (resort) in around 45 minutes. This is normally how long it takes. But on the way up it started snowing, and it didn't stop all day. (Nice!) So our drive home took significantly longer and looked like this (we were going 8-10 miles per hour all the way down):
We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.
At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it's to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.
Which is probably why there's a growing interest in building more of it. Here's a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here's a photo of Culdesac's new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn't look like the Arizona I know):
But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:
“Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”
This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.
I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.
However, it's going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating "walkable archipelagos" or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we'll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.
One of the great promises of autonomous vehicles is that, one day in the future, you'll be able to get into your car, fall asleep, and then wake up refreshed at your destination. This would be a nice luxury, and it would almost certainly reshape the geography of our cities.
But at the same time, it's worth a reminder that "sleeper cars", or bed carriages as they were originally called, are definitely not a new thing. Possibly the first example of a sleeper car was in England in the 1830s. Trains, of course, don't take you exactly where you want to go like a car, but a sleeper train does allow you to travel while you sleep.
And so it is interesting to see that sleeper trains are apparently seeing a resurgence in popularity across Europe. To the point that the trains are full and rail operators can't seem to get their hands on new carriages. I can't recall ever travelling in a sleeper train, but I have to say that this looks like a highly civilized way to move around:
If you drive around the Cottonwood Heights neighborhood in Salt Lake City, which I have done multiple times over the last year, you will invariably see lawn signs shouting for "no gondola!" And the reason for this is that last summer, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) came forward with its preferred solution to traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon: an eight-mile long gondola all the way up and into the mountains. If built, this would apparently be the longest and most expensive urban gondola in the world.
To try and explain why this is being recommended, I'll give the example of what happened to us when we were there last week. We drove into Little Cottonwood Canyon on Tuesday morning when it was not snowing. We left Park City around 8am, passed through the valley (Salt Lake City), and arrived at Snowbird (resort) in around 45 minutes. This is normally how long it takes. But on the way up it started snowing, and it didn't stop all day. (Nice!) So our drive home took significantly longer and looked like this (we were going 8-10 miles per hour all the way down):
Image: ÖBB (Austria's national rail operator)
This is what happens when it snows in the canyons. Which is why a wise bartender at one of the resorts advised us that, "on powder days, you need to leave the valley at 6AM. Because at some point, some asshole is going to think they can get up the canyon in a Tesla, and they will ruin it for everyone. It's better to nap in your car at the resort than white knuckle for 2-3 hours." During our drive home, we learned that he was not at all joking. This is what happens. And it is why UDOT wants to build one really long urban gondola.
There are, however, some very good reasons why urban gondolas aren't really that common. Portland has one. Medellín has one. And apparently both are quite successful. But other than these examples, they generally aren't thought of as the most effective tool in the transportation arsenal:
Gondolas are low-capacity vehicles that quickly get cramped if turned into high capacity ones. They don’t work well for multiple stops. As a result, they are a point-to-point transportation method with low capacity. They are also expensive, especially relative to how many people they might serve, making them financially unattractive options for most applications. At their best, gondolas work when traversing difficult terrain with a consistent but low ridership, which is why they’re most often deployed on ski resorts.
But this situation is maybe a bit unique. It's kind of urban transport, but really it's for people to get up the canyon and shred deep powder. Here's more on how it might work:
The Cottonwood Canyon gondola would be a hybrid of sorts between urban transportation solution and resort-based gondola. The proposal is to build a massive 2,500-spot parking garage at the base of the canyon, about 20 miles from downtown and the airport, where people will park. They will then ride the gondola for 27 minutes to Snowbird or 37 minutes to Alta, a trip duration which has no parallel in the urban or resort gondola scene (the Snowbird tram, one of the most famous in the world, fits more than 100 people per tram but takes less than 10 minutes to ride). Even though the gondola would serve two ski resorts, it belongs more to the urban gondola concept because it is being proposed and recommended by the state’s transportation department as a solution to a recurring traffic problem.
As a snowboarder, this sounds great. But it is, of course, complicated. Conservation groups are objecting, and some/many taxpayers don't want to pay for a gondola that will largely benefit two ski resorts. Especially one that doesn't permit snowboarders (I made this part up). So we'll see. A final decision is expected by UDOT this summer. In the meantime, if you're interested in urban gondolas, check out this recent article in Vice Magazine by Aaron Gordon (quoted above). He does a good job explaining both sides of this debate. And if you are interested in this topic, I'd be curious to hear whether you think this is a good idea or not.
Image: ÖBB (Austria's national rail operator)
This is what happens when it snows in the canyons. Which is why a wise bartender at one of the resorts advised us that, "on powder days, you need to leave the valley at 6AM. Because at some point, some asshole is going to think they can get up the canyon in a Tesla, and they will ruin it for everyone. It's better to nap in your car at the resort than white knuckle for 2-3 hours." During our drive home, we learned that he was not at all joking. This is what happens. And it is why UDOT wants to build one really long urban gondola.
There are, however, some very good reasons why urban gondolas aren't really that common. Portland has one. Medellín has one. And apparently both are quite successful. But other than these examples, they generally aren't thought of as the most effective tool in the transportation arsenal:
Gondolas are low-capacity vehicles that quickly get cramped if turned into high capacity ones. They don’t work well for multiple stops. As a result, they are a point-to-point transportation method with low capacity. They are also expensive, especially relative to how many people they might serve, making them financially unattractive options for most applications. At their best, gondolas work when traversing difficult terrain with a consistent but low ridership, which is why they’re most often deployed on ski resorts.
But this situation is maybe a bit unique. It's kind of urban transport, but really it's for people to get up the canyon and shred deep powder. Here's more on how it might work:
The Cottonwood Canyon gondola would be a hybrid of sorts between urban transportation solution and resort-based gondola. The proposal is to build a massive 2,500-spot parking garage at the base of the canyon, about 20 miles from downtown and the airport, where people will park. They will then ride the gondola for 27 minutes to Snowbird or 37 minutes to Alta, a trip duration which has no parallel in the urban or resort gondola scene (the Snowbird tram, one of the most famous in the world, fits more than 100 people per tram but takes less than 10 minutes to ride). Even though the gondola would serve two ski resorts, it belongs more to the urban gondola concept because it is being proposed and recommended by the state’s transportation department as a solution to a recurring traffic problem.
As a snowboarder, this sounds great. But it is, of course, complicated. Conservation groups are objecting, and some/many taxpayers don't want to pay for a gondola that will largely benefit two ski resorts. Especially one that doesn't permit snowboarders (I made this part up). So we'll see. A final decision is expected by UDOT this summer. In the meantime, if you're interested in urban gondolas, check out this recent article in Vice Magazine by Aaron Gordon (quoted above). He does a good job explaining both sides of this debate. And if you are interested in this topic, I'd be curious to hear whether you think this is a good idea or not.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog