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?
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1515024945578921989?s=20&t=US_deKgC2QqKTo9v6Wsdtw
The big news this week for Toronto city builders is that the city has put forward a proposal to substantially increase development charges. Here's a tweet storm that I published earlier today on the topic, and here's a summary of what the new fees might look like:
To translate this into a specific example, let's assume that you're building a 300 unit apartment building with 180 one bedroom suites and 120 two bedroom suites.
Under these proposed DC rates, this would translate into charges of about $9.6mm for the one bedroom suites and $9.8mm for the two bedroom suites, totaling over $19.4mm in DCs alone. But keep in mind that there would be other charges on top of this for parkland dedication, community benefits, and a bunch of other things.
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?
https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/1515024945578921989?s=20&t=US_deKgC2QqKTo9v6Wsdtw
The big news this week for Toronto city builders is that the city has put forward a proposal to substantially increase development charges. Here's a tweet storm that I published earlier today on the topic, and here's a summary of what the new fees might look like:
To translate this into a specific example, let's assume that you're building a 300 unit apartment building with 180 one bedroom suites and 120 two bedroom suites.
Under these proposed DC rates, this would translate into charges of about $9.6mm for the one bedroom suites and $9.8mm for the two bedroom suites, totaling over $19.4mm in DCs alone. But keep in mind that there would be other charges on top of this for parkland dedication, community benefits, and a bunch of other things.
When our cost consultant ran the numbers back in 2019, the estimate was that about a quarter of the price of a new condominium in Toronto was going to government fees and taxes. But with the above increase and with the introduction of policies like inclusionary zoning, I am sure that the number is higher today.
These are easy fees to hide. Most people don't know they exist. And a lot of people don't seem to like new development and new housing. Property taxes on the other hand are highly visible and highly sensitive. So that tax tends to be left alone, especially by comparison.
But these increases are hugely impactful. It means that developers across the city will now need to start looking at increasing rents and prices in order to try and offset it. If they can't, they won't build. And if they can, it will mean that the housing that does ultimately get built will be that much more expensive.
Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson's argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you're going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that's not how things are generally done in the US.
However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It's easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, "but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?" The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that's why Canada is a largely urban country.
Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?
Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as "counter magnets", and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.
The fact that these cities are referred to as "counter magnets" speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven't been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.
So sooner or later, you'll need to fix what isn't working.
Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash
When our cost consultant ran the numbers back in 2019, the estimate was that about a quarter of the price of a new condominium in Toronto was going to government fees and taxes. But with the above increase and with the introduction of policies like inclusionary zoning, I am sure that the number is higher today.
These are easy fees to hide. Most people don't know they exist. And a lot of people don't seem to like new development and new housing. Property taxes on the other hand are highly visible and highly sensitive. So that tax tends to be left alone, especially by comparison.
But these increases are hugely impactful. It means that developers across the city will now need to start looking at increasing rents and prices in order to try and offset it. If they can't, they won't build. And if they can, it will mean that the housing that does ultimately get built will be that much more expensive.
Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson's argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you're going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that's not how things are generally done in the US.
However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It's easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, "but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?" The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that's why Canada is a largely urban country.
Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?
Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as "counter magnets", and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.
The fact that these cities are referred to as "counter magnets" speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven't been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.
So sooner or later, you'll need to fix what isn't working.
Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog