I received an email this week from a senior real estate executive who was sharing the fact that, in response to COVID, he had decided to give up driving completely. He was now cycling everywhere -- whether for work or for personal errands. And it was doing wonders for his health and his overall well-being.
Indeed, this feels like some sort of golden era for urban cycling. Back in May I wrote about how Toronto City Council had just approved the largest ever one-year expansion of bike lanes. Some 40 km. When have we ever moved this quickly and without months (okay, years) of painful debate? Probably never.
Of course, it's not just Toronto. This is happening all over the world. Here are some of the numbers (taken from this recent Journal article):
Paris added 400 miles of pop-up bike lanes across the region -- all of which didn't exist before the pandemic - some of the streets being tracked have seen a doubling in usage
I received an email this week from a senior real estate executive who was sharing the fact that, in response to COVID, he had decided to give up driving completely. He was now cycling everywhere -- whether for work or for personal errands. And it was doing wonders for his health and his overall well-being.
Indeed, this feels like some sort of golden era for urban cycling. Back in May I wrote about how Toronto City Council had just approved the largest ever one-year expansion of bike lanes. Some 40 km. When have we ever moved this quickly and without months (okay, years) of painful debate? Probably never.
Of course, it's not just Toronto. This is happening all over the world. Here are some of the numbers (taken from this recent Journal article):
Paris added 400 miles of pop-up bike lanes across the region -- all of which didn't exist before the pandemic - some of the streets being tracked have seen a doubling in usage
Oakland closed almost 10% of its streets to cars
Montreal is adding an additional 70 miles of pedestrian and cycle paths
Bogota is the midst of planning for 47 miles of temporary bike lanes
The UK has fast tracked over $315 million in capital spending for bike infrastructure -- referring to this as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity
New York's bike share service (Citi Bike) saw year-over-year usage surge 67% in the first 10 days of March alone -- before any shelter-in-place rules were even imposed
There are obvious reasons for this rush to build out cycling infrastructure. We're in the midst of a global health crisis and people are staying away from public transit in big numbers. But I think it's also important to keep in mind that in many / most cases, there is really no other viable mobility solution. You cannot take all the people that used to ride the tube in London and plop them into cars. There isn't enough space.
So cities all around the world are doing the sensible thing and acting fast to make sure that it's safer for people to move about on bikes. But as we all know, humans tend to have a bias toward the status quo. And so when this is all said and done, I suspect that many of these pop-ups will end up sticking around. And that will be a good thing for cities.
This week, RBC Economics published a study on Canada's rental market where they argued that the pace of new supply needs to at least double in markets like Toronto in order to meet future housing demand and balance the market. Similar things, I'm sure, could be said about many other housing markets around the world.
The report pegs the current rental housing deficit in Toronto at about 9,100 units:
A colleague of mine sent me this Bloomberg article today and said, "Here's an article about things you already know." The article cites a recent report by Altus Group that compared government-related fees on new housing across Canada and the U.S. What they discovered will not surprise any of you who are in the industry: Toronto has some of the highest government-imposed charges on new homes.
For new condo apartments, the report found that government charges can add up to as much as C$124,582 per unit. That's about 50% higher than the average unit in the U.S. and about 30% higher than the average unit in Canada (see above chart for the list of cities). While all of us in the industry can appreciate this, I don't think most homeowners and tenants understand this. Hopefully they're reading this post.
Montreal is adding an additional 70 miles of pedestrian and cycle paths
Bogota is the midst of planning for 47 miles of temporary bike lanes
The UK has fast tracked over $315 million in capital spending for bike infrastructure -- referring to this as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity
New York's bike share service (Citi Bike) saw year-over-year usage surge 67% in the first 10 days of March alone -- before any shelter-in-place rules were even imposed
There are obvious reasons for this rush to build out cycling infrastructure. We're in the midst of a global health crisis and people are staying away from public transit in big numbers. But I think it's also important to keep in mind that in many / most cases, there is really no other viable mobility solution. You cannot take all the people that used to ride the tube in London and plop them into cars. There isn't enough space.
So cities all around the world are doing the sensible thing and acting fast to make sure that it's safer for people to move about on bikes. But as we all know, humans tend to have a bias toward the status quo. And so when this is all said and done, I suspect that many of these pop-ups will end up sticking around. And that will be a good thing for cities.
This week, RBC Economics published a study on Canada's rental market where they argued that the pace of new supply needs to at least double in markets like Toronto in order to meet future housing demand and balance the market. Similar things, I'm sure, could be said about many other housing markets around the world.
The report pegs the current rental housing deficit in Toronto at about 9,100 units:
A colleague of mine sent me this Bloomberg article today and said, "Here's an article about things you already know." The article cites a recent report by Altus Group that compared government-related fees on new housing across Canada and the U.S. What they discovered will not surprise any of you who are in the industry: Toronto has some of the highest government-imposed charges on new homes.
For new condo apartments, the report found that government charges can add up to as much as C$124,582 per unit. That's about 50% higher than the average unit in the U.S. and about 30% higher than the average unit in Canada (see above chart for the list of cities). While all of us in the industry can appreciate this, I don't think most homeowners and tenants understand this. Hopefully they're reading this post.
And because they believe that the cost of ownership is pushing more people into rentals, the number of renter households is expected to grow at an average rate of 22,200 units per year in Toronto.
If you take 22,200 units per year over the next two years, and add in the current deficit of 9,100 rental units, you get to a total count of 53,500 rental units. This is what RBC Economics believes must be delivered to the market in order to restore equilibrium, and decrease the upward pressure on rents.
Rental units are, of course, delivered to the market in two main ways. There's purpose-built rentals and there are for-sale units that end up as rental housing. But even if you amalgamate both of these tenures, we are not building enough housing.
Against this backdrop, I find it curious that developers are so often vilified. Earlier this week, I saw Jennifer Keesmaat tweet out that -- as we ready for this fall's federal election -- any sensible housing plan must move away from our current for profit housing delivery model.
Who, then, will build these 53,500 rental units? That part wasn't clear to me.
And because they believe that the cost of ownership is pushing more people into rentals, the number of renter households is expected to grow at an average rate of 22,200 units per year in Toronto.
If you take 22,200 units per year over the next two years, and add in the current deficit of 9,100 rental units, you get to a total count of 53,500 rental units. This is what RBC Economics believes must be delivered to the market in order to restore equilibrium, and decrease the upward pressure on rents.
Rental units are, of course, delivered to the market in two main ways. There's purpose-built rentals and there are for-sale units that end up as rental housing. But even if you amalgamate both of these tenures, we are not building enough housing.
Against this backdrop, I find it curious that developers are so often vilified. Earlier this week, I saw Jennifer Keesmaat tweet out that -- as we ready for this fall's federal election -- any sensible housing plan must move away from our current for profit housing delivery model.
Who, then, will build these 53,500 rental units? That part wasn't clear to me.
