It was not my intention to make this building code week on the blog, but for some reason that has happened. So let's continue. Here is an interesting guest essay -- about elevators -- written by Stephen Smith for the New York Times.
Stephen is the founder and executive director of a Brooklyn-based non-profit called the Center for Building in North America. And what they do is conduct research on building codes, specifically in the United States and Canada, and then advocate for reforms.
Here's what he thinks about elevators (taken from the above essay):
Elevators in North America have become over-engineered, bespoke, handcrafted and expensive pieces of equipment that are unaffordable in all the places where they are most needed. Special interests here have run wild with an outdated, inefficient, overregulated system. Accessibility rules miss the forest for the trees. Our broken immigration system cannot supply the labor that the construction industry desperately needs. Regulators distrust global best practices and our construction rules are so heavily oriented toward single-family housing that we’ve forgotten the basics of how a city should work.
Here's how the US compares to a few European countries:
Nobody is marveling at American elevators anymore. With around one million of them, the United States is tied for total installed devices with Italy and Spain. (Spain has one-seventh our population, 6 percent of our gross domestic product and fewer than half as many apartments.) Switzerland and New York City have roughly the same population, but the lower-rise alpine country has three times as many single-family houses as Gotham — and twice as many passenger elevators.
And here's a set of cost comparisons:
Behind the dearth of elevators in the country that birthed the skyscraper are eye-watering costs. A basic four-stop elevator costs about $158,000 in New York City, compared with about $36,000 in Switzerland. A six-stop model will set you back more than three times as much in Pennsylvania as in Belgium. Maintenance, repairs and inspections all cost more in America, too.
If you're interested in this topic, I would encourage you to give the full article a read. It's highly relevant to our ongoing discussions around missing middle housing. If cities, like Toronto, hope to build a lot more apartment buildings (especially smaller-scale ones), they are going to need affordable and plentiful elevator options.
We talk a lot about housing supply on this blog. And most of the time it is about creating more and better infill housing, In other words, housing that leverages existing infrastructure and uses previously developed land as efficiently possible.
But I suppose there are other options. You could, for instance, form an anonymous holding company, raise hundreds of a millions of dollars from leading venture capitalists in the Bay Area, spend $800 million on cheap agricultural land, and then just build an entirely new city about 60 miles northeast of San Francisco.
In 2017, Michael Moritz, the billionaire venture capitalist, sent a note to a potential investor about what he described as an unusual opportunity: a chance to invest in the creation of a new California city. The site was in a corner of the San Francisco Bay Area where land was cheap. Mr. Moritz and others had dreams of transforming tens of thousands of acres into a bustling metropolis that, according to the pitch, could generate thousands of jobs and be as walkable as Paris or the West Village in New York.
Here's the area; it's generally between Fairfield and Rio Vista in Solano County:
The real estate opportunity is an obvious one. The majority of the land in Solano County, roughly 62% of it, is zoned for agricultural uses. So it was and is relatively cheap to acquire. In isolation, I would imagine that it would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to rezone any of it for other uses. But if you buy enough of it and if you have the resources, then maybe you figure it out.
And if you do, it'll all be worth significantly more, which is why this group has been reportedly paying many multiples of market value over the last 5 years. Because here's the thing, paying $6,000 per acre instead of $1,500 per acre is almost certainly not going to move the needle considering the broader strategy. More important is that you get enough contiguous land to execute on the vision of a new city.
This will be an interesting one to watch. And from what I have read, it sounds like they're just now coming out of stealth acquisition mode and preparing to engage the broader community.
One conventional way to think about cities is that people migrate to urban areas in order to make more money. This remains true today and the data is pretty clear that, if you live in an urban area, you're likely to make more money than if you didn't -- even if you're just as educated. You're also likely to make even more money if the city is really big (there's a correlation between income and city size). And you probably also walk a little faster given that, you know, time equals money.
But there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city. And probably the biggest is that they can bring us pleasure. Back in 2001, Edward Glaeser, Jed Kook, and Albert Saiz published this paper called, "Consumer City", where they showed that high amenity cities have tended to grow faster than low amenity cities. They also went on to demonstrate that, in high amenity cities, urban rents have tended to increase faster than urban wages, suggesting that there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city beyond simply wage growth.
New York is undergoing a metamorphosis from a city dedicated to productivity to one built around pleasure. . . The economic future of the city that never sleeps depends on embracing this shift from vocation to recreation and ensuring that New Yorkers with a wide range of talents want to spend their nights downtown, even if they are spending their days on Zoom. We are witnessing the dawn of a new kind of urban area: the Playground City.
I saw City Observatory comment that they thought it was odd Glaeser didn't mention his previous work on the Consumer City. But I wonder if this is him not wanting to suggest that this was a trend decades in the making. Maybe instead, he wanted to position it as a dramatic and profound shift brought about by a pandemic. But how can you not ask this question: Is the Playground City truly something novel, or are we just following a trend line?
In my view, they're not all that different. The basic idea is that people like cities that are cool and fun, and so they will pay a premium to be in those kinds of places. This was true in 2001 and it's still true in 2023. The only difference today is that we now believe we have too much office space in some markets, and so we're trying to recalibrate around work vs. pleasure. But even with this, the work component of our cities isn't going to zero.
