Subscribe
Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order:
I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.
There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.
But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention "people living in dense cities" (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?
Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer, I couldn't wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now, cycling.
On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself, and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.
So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it's going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.
Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash
Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order:
I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.
There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.
But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention "people living in dense cities" (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?
Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer, I couldn't wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now, cycling.
On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself, and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.
So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it's going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.
Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash
Summit County Council is holding a special meeting this week to vote on the acquisition of an 8,576-acre property next to Jeremy Ranch and around the corner from Parkview Mountain House.
The County Manager has recommended approval of the deal and these are the terms:
- $55 million total purchase price (about $6,413 per acre)
- Structured through a $15 million three-year option to purchase, with a right to extend for another year for an additional $5 million (option fees to be applied toward the purchase price)
- During the option period, the County will have control of the property and pay $5,000 per month in rent
Another way to look at this deal is that Summit County needs to initially come up with $15 million of equity. This is because they are getting seller financing for the remaining $40 million. (Implied loan-to-value of about 73%.)
After 3 years, they will have to put in another $5 million, which lowers the implied LTV to about 64%. But in both cases, and assuming the $5k per month is all the County needs to pay, there’s effectively no interest on this 4-year “financing”. ($60k per year on $40-45 million.)
The purchase price is also only ~$6k per acre, which should tell you that this is not development land. Its value is what you see here:
And this is exactly what Summit County intends to do with the land: conserve it. As one of the last contiguous mountain ranches in the area that is privately owned, this sure seems like a win for the community. It’s a pretty good deal, too.
Images: Summit County, Utah
We poured the concrete footings/foundations for Parkview Mountain House this week. Above is a photo of the pour. We're about two weeks behind schedule because of delays related to site works and excavation. (We're building into the side of a mountain.) But I'm hopeful we can make it up once we finish concrete work and move on to wood framing next month.
For those of you who like details, here's a section showing the footing and retaining wall on the back of the property facing the slope of the mountain:
Our tallest retaining wall is going to be 15 feet high, which, as I understand it, is more or less the maximum we could have done here without getting into more elaborate structural solutions (such as tiebacks). So the team spent a lot of time solving a design puzzle that involved the height of this retaining wall, the maximum allowable zoning height for the site, and our choice of established grade.
Onward. More concrete to come and then we move to wood. It's a race to get "closed in" before the snow starts up again.
Summit County Council is holding a special meeting this week to vote on the acquisition of an 8,576-acre property next to Jeremy Ranch and around the corner from Parkview Mountain House.
The County Manager has recommended approval of the deal and these are the terms:
- $55 million total purchase price (about $6,413 per acre)
- Structured through a $15 million three-year option to purchase, with a right to extend for another year for an additional $5 million (option fees to be applied toward the purchase price)
- During the option period, the County will have control of the property and pay $5,000 per month in rent
Another way to look at this deal is that Summit County needs to initially come up with $15 million of equity. This is because they are getting seller financing for the remaining $40 million. (Implied loan-to-value of about 73%.)
After 3 years, they will have to put in another $5 million, which lowers the implied LTV to about 64%. But in both cases, and assuming the $5k per month is all the County needs to pay, there’s effectively no interest on this 4-year “financing”. ($60k per year on $40-45 million.)
The purchase price is also only ~$6k per acre, which should tell you that this is not development land. Its value is what you see here:
And this is exactly what Summit County intends to do with the land: conserve it. As one of the last contiguous mountain ranches in the area that is privately owned, this sure seems like a win for the community. It’s a pretty good deal, too.
Images: Summit County, Utah
We poured the concrete footings/foundations for Parkview Mountain House this week. Above is a photo of the pour. We're about two weeks behind schedule because of delays related to site works and excavation. (We're building into the side of a mountain.) But I'm hopeful we can make it up once we finish concrete work and move on to wood framing next month.
For those of you who like details, here's a section showing the footing and retaining wall on the back of the property facing the slope of the mountain:
Our tallest retaining wall is going to be 15 feet high, which, as I understand it, is more or less the maximum we could have done here without getting into more elaborate structural solutions (such as tiebacks). So the team spent a lot of time solving a design puzzle that involved the height of this retaining wall, the maximum allowable zoning height for the site, and our choice of established grade.
Onward. More concrete to come and then we move to wood. It's a race to get "closed in" before the snow starts up again.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
