This recent Economist article makes the argument that, despite the recent (and sometimes annoying) proliferation of electric scooters across Europe, we probably shouldn't be that grouchy about them. And that's, "because the rise of the electric scooter is part of a broader and welcome phenomenon: the gradual retreat of the car from the European city." By way of one example, by next year, Paris will have grown its bike lane network by 50% in five years.
The article ends with the point that, while this may seem like a "revolution," it's actually a "reversion." European cities such as Paris and Antwerp (examples from the article) were both built before the advent of the car and were never really designed for it, although Haussmann's wide avenues certainly helped. All of this gets back to a point I tried to make over the weekend with this post about driving and parking, and the relevance of urban form.
Reversion is a lot easier than a revolution. And for most North American cities, a revolution is what's needed if we are in fact serious about a post-car future.
This recent NY Times article -- which makes the case that the current protests in Hong Kong are at least partially a result of inequality -- has a pair of interesting diagrams that speak to the city's tight housing market.
The first compares average living space per person in Hong Kong to Paris and New York City. New York City appears palatial compared to the illegally subdivided apartments that are discussed in the article.
The second looks at housing affordability as a multiple of median household income. Hong Kong is over 20x. I am curious what median incomes were used for each of the cities. A small denominator makes the multiples look worse.
In this chart, New York also includes the entire metropolitan area, which would help to improve its affordability ranking. So one could argue that this isn't really a fair comparison.
At the same time, none of this changes the fact that Hong Kong has some of, if not, the most expensive housing in the world.
Images: NY Times
Architect I.M. Pei died this week in New York City. He was 102. Being a centenarian is noteworthy enough. He was born in Hong Kong in 1917. I would love to join that club. Imagine how much change he experienced throughout his life. But, of course, Pei was also a celebrated Pritzker Prize winning architect. For those of you in Toronto, you can look to Commerce Court West to see an example of his work (Page & Steele was the local architect). Completed in 1972, it was the tallest building in Canada until 1976. But perhaps his most well known project is the Louvre Pyramid in Paris (pictured above). In reading some of his obituaries, I was intrigued -- but in no way surprised -- to learn that the Louvre Pyramid was deeply hated by Parisians at the time it was being proposed and built. Supposedly, for the first few years after completion, Pei couldn't walk the streets of Paris without people berating him. However, if you surveyed Parisians today, I would bet you that the approval rating of the Pyramid would be extremely high. And I would also argue that it has since become one of Paris' most globally recognizable symbols. (Parisians, please weigh in below in the comments.) All of this, once again, suggests to me that we're often not very good at evaluating the merits of things that are new to us. Pei's Pyramid, beyond being a new circulation strategy for the broader complex, was a radically different style of architecture. Appreciating that sometimes requires a bit of time. Photo by Uriel Soberanes on Unsplash