As you know, Northern Virginia is now referred to as "data center alley." It has, by far, the largest agglomeration of data centers in the world. The latest figures are somewhere around 200 completed facilities and some 49 million square feet, with a lot more in the pipeline.
Here's the global top 10 list via Bloomberg:
And here's a map of existing (blue) and proposed (purple) data centers via Loudoun County, Virginia:
This has been an economic boon for Virginia. It's estimated that the data center industry contributes up to 74,000 jobs and $9.1 billion in GDP to the state each year. But along with these benefits come some trade-offs, one of which has to do with the region's built environment.
Here are two zoom-ins of an area to the west of Dulles International Airport:
These maps raise a question that is only going to become more important as time goes on: What's the best way to insert large insular boxes into the fabric of a city or suburb? Of course, in some ways, this is not a new phenomenon. The suburbs are no stranger to this kind of built form.
But it's unique in that these boxes are not meant to be experienced in real life. They're a physical manifestation of our online activities, juxtaposed against our offline lives. It's two different worlds colliding. And already, it may be more appropriate to ask our question in the opposite direction: What's the best way to plan a city or suburb around data centers?
Yesterday afternoon, our team had a productive in-person meeting with senior planning staff at the City of Toronto. The purpose of the meeting was to talk about the challenges associated with delivering infill missing middle housing and to brainstorm the possible solutions.
Some of the key topics that we discussed: Type-G loading / garbage requirements, amenity space requirements, right-sizing the Site Plan Control process, single-stair exiting, the cost of connecting to Toronto Hydro, the challenges with assembling small lots, specifics of the Major Street Study, and a bunch of other things. So many of the things that we regularly talk about on this blog.
We also walked everyone through the site we had under contract but eventually dropped because the margins were just too thin. This included opening up our pro forma, projecting it onto the screen, and going through it line-by-line. We are happy to do this because we think this transparency helps everyone truly understand the obstacles.
What's clear is that we all want to see more family-friendly housing lining our avenues and major streets. And so there's a real feeling of collaboration during meetings like the one we had yesterday. We're all at the stage of "what is it going to take? Let's figure it out!" This can-do attitude makes me feel optimistic that we are going to get there. And once we do, Toronto will be that much better for it.
It was also nice having an in-person meeting back at City Hall. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I did that. But it used to be standard operating procedure. We'd all arrive early, huddle in the cafe at the bottom of the building for a pre-meeting, and then look around to see what other teams/projects were also on deck with the city. It made me feel nostalgic — and older.
Enjoy the weekend, everyone.
Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail wrote an excellent piece talking about what I wrote about last week in Old Toronto, and then the rest. Here are some of the zingers:
And Mayor Olivia Chow? She barely spoke. She ultimately supported the compromise, but she declined to stand up for a bolder vision. For a mayor elected with a mandate to address housing and equity, that silence was striking.
Meanwhile, the opposition – led by suburban councillors – offered little beyond incoherent panic. “We are risking suburban alienation,” said Parthi Kandavel of Scarborough Southwest, as though allowing modest apartment buildings might rupture the civic fabric. “A one-size-fits-all approach does not fit the bill.”
For Mr. Kandavel, as for a thousand politicians before him, one-size-fits-all is fine as long as that “one size” gives the loudest homeowners exactly what they want – and preserves economic segregation by keeping tenants away from where they don’t belong.
He goes on:
In Mr. Kandavel’s ward, at least 52 per cent of residents lived in apartments as of 2021. Nearly half are renters. To speak as if tenants are invaders is to insult the very people he represents.
If the federal government decides to withhold that $60-million, it would be entirely justified. A city that won’t allow a sixplex – a building the size of a large house – is not serious about housing, about urbanism, or about its own future.
Cover photo by Julian Gentile on
As you know, Northern Virginia is now referred to as "data center alley." It has, by far, the largest agglomeration of data centers in the world. The latest figures are somewhere around 200 completed facilities and some 49 million square feet, with a lot more in the pipeline.
Here's the global top 10 list via Bloomberg:
And here's a map of existing (blue) and proposed (purple) data centers via Loudoun County, Virginia:
This has been an economic boon for Virginia. It's estimated that the data center industry contributes up to 74,000 jobs and $9.1 billion in GDP to the state each year. But along with these benefits come some trade-offs, one of which has to do with the region's built environment.
Here are two zoom-ins of an area to the west of Dulles International Airport:
These maps raise a question that is only going to become more important as time goes on: What's the best way to insert large insular boxes into the fabric of a city or suburb? Of course, in some ways, this is not a new phenomenon. The suburbs are no stranger to this kind of built form.
But it's unique in that these boxes are not meant to be experienced in real life. They're a physical manifestation of our online activities, juxtaposed against our offline lives. It's two different worlds colliding. And already, it may be more appropriate to ask our question in the opposite direction: What's the best way to plan a city or suburb around data centers?
Yesterday afternoon, our team had a productive in-person meeting with senior planning staff at the City of Toronto. The purpose of the meeting was to talk about the challenges associated with delivering infill missing middle housing and to brainstorm the possible solutions.
Some of the key topics that we discussed: Type-G loading / garbage requirements, amenity space requirements, right-sizing the Site Plan Control process, single-stair exiting, the cost of connecting to Toronto Hydro, the challenges with assembling small lots, specifics of the Major Street Study, and a bunch of other things. So many of the things that we regularly talk about on this blog.
We also walked everyone through the site we had under contract but eventually dropped because the margins were just too thin. This included opening up our pro forma, projecting it onto the screen, and going through it line-by-line. We are happy to do this because we think this transparency helps everyone truly understand the obstacles.
What's clear is that we all want to see more family-friendly housing lining our avenues and major streets. And so there's a real feeling of collaboration during meetings like the one we had yesterday. We're all at the stage of "what is it going to take? Let's figure it out!" This can-do attitude makes me feel optimistic that we are going to get there. And once we do, Toronto will be that much better for it.
It was also nice having an in-person meeting back at City Hall. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I did that. But it used to be standard operating procedure. We'd all arrive early, huddle in the cafe at the bottom of the building for a pre-meeting, and then look around to see what other teams/projects were also on deck with the city. It made me feel nostalgic — and older.
Enjoy the weekend, everyone.
Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail wrote an excellent piece talking about what I wrote about last week in Old Toronto, and then the rest. Here are some of the zingers:
And Mayor Olivia Chow? She barely spoke. She ultimately supported the compromise, but she declined to stand up for a bolder vision. For a mayor elected with a mandate to address housing and equity, that silence was striking.
Meanwhile, the opposition – led by suburban councillors – offered little beyond incoherent panic. “We are risking suburban alienation,” said Parthi Kandavel of Scarborough Southwest, as though allowing modest apartment buildings might rupture the civic fabric. “A one-size-fits-all approach does not fit the bill.”
For Mr. Kandavel, as for a thousand politicians before him, one-size-fits-all is fine as long as that “one size” gives the loudest homeowners exactly what they want – and preserves economic segregation by keeping tenants away from where they don’t belong.
He goes on:
In Mr. Kandavel’s ward, at least 52 per cent of residents lived in apartments as of 2021. Nearly half are renters. To speak as if tenants are invaders is to insult the very people he represents.
If the federal government decides to withhold that $60-million, it would be entirely justified. A city that won’t allow a sixplex – a building the size of a large house – is not serious about housing, about urbanism, or about its own future.
Cover photo by Julian Gentile on
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
