I haven't seen this sort of data before and it's an interesting way of looking at job access, transit connectivity, and overall built form:

The above is a table from New Geography (using data from the University of Minnesota). And what it shows is how many more jobs, across the US, can be accessed within a 30-minute commute by car versus by transit. For example, what this data tells us is that, on average across the US, there are about 56x more jobs that can be quickly accessed by car versus by transit.

But there is also huge variation across the 50 largest cities in the US. On the top end is Detroit, where there about 130x more jobs that can be accessed by car (again within 30 minutes). This isn't at all surprising. Also not surprising is the fact that New York is on the lowest end with only 5.6x as many car-versus-transit jobs. This is one of the reasons why I spoke yesterday about NYC being such an ideal candidate for something like NYC 25x25.

What a lower number tells us is that the city is far less reliant on personal vehicles and almost certainly has a higher urban density. That's why you see cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago near the top of this list. And in my opinion, this is where you want to be. The goal should be to minimize this multiple.

I haven't seen a dataset like this before, but I'm now curious to see how it varies globally. It feels like something that more of us should be monitoring. Because we know that there are strong links between jobs access and the overall economic performance of a city.

There are over 8 million people living in New York City. And if you were to look at the modal split for these people -- that is, how they get to work and how they get around -- you'll see that other than Staten Island, the majority of New York City does not rely on cars.

They walk, bike, take transit, and probably use other things like electric scooters. And in Manhattan, the number of people who drive is particularly low.

So if you were tasked with coming up with an equitable way to allocate street space, one logical way to do it would be to allocate based on usage. If 5% of people are driving and 95% of people are doing things that require walking, maybe these are the numbers to use.

The problem, of course, is that cars take up a lot more space than humans and so the math gets a little more nuanced than just a straight 5/95 split.

And if you look at how most cities have decided to allocate space, this problem is reflected. In the case of New York City, about 75% of its street space is used for cars and the balance is for people to walk around and do stuff (see below chart from The Guardian).

Because of this mismatch, New York has just launched a new proposal called NYC 25x25.

The proposal is pretty simple. It is to take 25% of the space that is currently allocated to cars and convert it into space for walking, plazas, green spaces, bus lanes, and dedicated cycle paths (see above chart once more). And the plan is to get it all done by 2025, which seems entirely doable.

It's hard to think of a better North American candidate for a shift like this than New York City. It is a city that is already heavily reliant on transit and other forms of mobility. But of course, we shouldn't stop here.

Times Square in New York has, as we all know, a checkered past. For much of its history, it has served as an important civic gathering space for New Yorkers. But it has also alternated between being a place for New Year's Eve countdowns and being a place for salacious entertainment. This was the case as far as back as the late 19th century when prostitution from New York's entertainment and red light district (then known as the Tenderloin) started moving northward.

But it was also the case during the economic fallout of the Great Depression and again the case from the 1960s to 1990s when the area become a symbol for a more broadly decaying New York City. The area was seedy, dangerous, and according to tax records, fairly vacant, notwithstanding all the sex shops. Most would probably agree that this was not a high point for the area. As a rule, cities are generally better off when their buildings aren't vacant and decaying.

But are all red light districts bad and undesirable?

Last year, Amsterdam voted in favor of closing down its famed city center red light district and moving it to some kind of new "erotic center" on the outskirts of the city, in a location that is yet to be determined. Not surprisingly, this decision hasn't been without some controversy. Local sex workers seem to be generally against the idea and petitions are now circulating, such as this one here from Failed Architecture, asking the building industry not to participate in the build out of this new center.

In some ways Amsterdam has the opposite problem compared to what Times Square experienced between the 1960s and the early 1990s. Amsterdam is too popular. Back in 2019, prior to COVID, the city saw some 22 million unique annual visitors. And I am guessing that more than a few of these visitors probably got drunk, wandered through the narrow streets of De Wallen, and peed on the side of a few buildings. Is it unsafe? I don't know. I've never been. Is it immoral? Depends on who you ask. Is it annoying for locals? Probably.

The city has been clear in that it views this as over-tourism, and also the wrong kind of tourism. Rather than rely on sleaze, Amsterdam wants to "reset" its tourism approach and focus more on highbrow things like art and culture. This is an understandable objective. Because presumably the tourists who actively seek out art and culture attractions are, you know, a bit less reckless and a bit less likely to pee on the side of buildings. Of course, you never know.

But is this really the right city planning approach? Is there any cultural value to these historic uses? And what does this say about the city's famously liberal attitudes? More specifically, does wanting to move your red light district from the middle of the city to some less conspicuous location -- in an effort to dissociate your city brand -- a reflection that you're becoming maybe a little less tolerant towards the activities that take place in said district? It certainly seems like it.

But I don't know, maybe that isn't entirely the case. Maybe there's a tenuous argument that the city is just as liberal and permissive. After all, the city is still generally okay with this kind of debauchery. It just wants this debauchery to take place in a different area outside of the overcrowded city center. In other words, the activities themselves aren't the problem. It is arguably the negative externalities that come along with them that need to be managed. And a suburban "erotic center" is simply better for that.

What are your thoughts? And what would you do if you were the mayor of Amsterdam?

Photo by Joan Oger on Unsplash