Lots of cities around the world, including Toronto, have (at least partially) what is called a combined sewer system. If the sewer system was built prior to the 1940s and it hasn't been replaced, there's a good chance that it could be a combined system. About a quarter of Toronto and about 60% of New York City still run on combined systems.

What this means is that both stormwater and sewage run in the same pipes. Most of the time this is fine, but if there's a heavy precipitation event and the system backs up, then you have poop getting diverted into rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water. In Toronto, this happens in places like the Don River and the inner harbor, and in Paris it happens in places like the Seine.

I was recently reading something suggesting that sewage generally gets dumped into the Seine about 12x per year as result of major rain events. This is why it's such a difficult and expensive task to make these bodies of water swimmable, which is something that Paris wants to do before it hosts the Olympics next year.

Thankfully, Toronto also wants to do the same. And in 2018, it started construction on the largest stormwater management program in the city's history. The overall budget is about $3 billion. Once complete, it should more or less eliminate combined sewer overflows, meaning our waters will become a lot cleaner and more swimmable.

This certainly isn't the sexiest capital project to announce and talk about. It largely happens behind the scenes. But it is going to lead to a significant quality of life upgrade for the cities willing to take it on -- one that will pay dividends well into the future.

Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash

This is one of my Christmas gifts. And it is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that gets me excited. Thank you Bianca. You clearly know me.

I am endlessly fascinated by cities. I keep a running list of places I want to explore (everywhere from São Paulo to Shanghai). And frankly, I consider it to be an important part of my job to think about how to make our cities better.

As I was flipping through the book this morning, I was reminded of something that I have been saying for years on this blog. Toronto could use a floating public pool like the Badeschiff ("bathing ship") in Berlin:

Constructed from the hull of an old cargo vessel, the Badeschiff opened in 2004. The Spree itself is too polluted to swim in (or at least that was the case back in 2004), and so this has become an important swimming outlet for the city.

Paris is in a similar situation with the Seine, but it's looking to clean it up in time for the Olympics.

The real benefit of a floating pool is that you're mostly in a big body of water, but now you can also heat it. In the winter, the Badeschiff is covered and turned into a spa/sauna. This would be particularly useful in a place like Toronto.

It's easy to bring people to water in the summer. Apparently Summer-Badeschiff even has a bar and regular DJ sets (presumably all techno given this is Berlin).

The real challenge is in the winter. And if you've ever read an RFP involving a public space in Canada, you'll know that this question invariably comes up: So, how do we, like, get people to come here when it's 10 below?

Hot water, nice views, and a little food & drink. I promise that's all you need.

There is an ongoing debate about the value of cities hosting the Olympic Games. And that's because this is usually how it works: You, the host, spend a lot of money (Tokyo 2021 was over $25 billion), it feels really good during the games while the world is watching you on TV, and then everyone leaves and you have a big bill to pay.

As I understand it, this has generally been the case for almost all of the games. One rare exception is Los Angeles in 1984, which supposedly managed to make over $230 million from hosting. In pretty much every other case, the rough value was, at least in theory, things like exposure, ego, and hopefully a bunch of assets that will remain useful to other people once the games are done.

But as I have argued a few times before, perhaps the most important hard-to-quantify benefit is this: Hosting the Olympics creates an immutable city-building deadline. Because, what could be worse than not being ready when your global guests show up?

A perfect example of this is what Paris is now trying to do with the Seine ahead of the 2024 Olympics. The goal is to clean up the Seine so that it's actually safe enough for the athletes to compete in it. That would obviously be really cool for the games, but it would also be a wonderful legacy for Paris.

Would Paris still be doing this if it weren't hosting the games? Perhaps. Paris has a habit of doing some obviously good things. But I bet it wouldn't be moving nearly as quickly.

Lots of cities around the world, including Toronto, have (at least partially) what is called a combined sewer system. If the sewer system was built prior to the 1940s and it hasn't been replaced, there's a good chance that it could be a combined system. About a quarter of Toronto and about 60% of New York City still run on combined systems.

What this means is that both stormwater and sewage run in the same pipes. Most of the time this is fine, but if there's a heavy precipitation event and the system backs up, then you have poop getting diverted into rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water. In Toronto, this happens in places like the Don River and the inner harbor, and in Paris it happens in places like the Seine.

I was recently reading something suggesting that sewage generally gets dumped into the Seine about 12x per year as result of major rain events. This is why it's such a difficult and expensive task to make these bodies of water swimmable, which is something that Paris wants to do before it hosts the Olympics next year.

Thankfully, Toronto also wants to do the same. And in 2018, it started construction on the largest stormwater management program in the city's history. The overall budget is about $3 billion. Once complete, it should more or less eliminate combined sewer overflows, meaning our waters will become a lot cleaner and more swimmable.

This certainly isn't the sexiest capital project to announce and talk about. It largely happens behind the scenes. But it is going to lead to a significant quality of life upgrade for the cities willing to take it on -- one that will pay dividends well into the future.

Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash

This is one of my Christmas gifts. And it is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that gets me excited. Thank you Bianca. You clearly know me.

I am endlessly fascinated by cities. I keep a running list of places I want to explore (everywhere from São Paulo to Shanghai). And frankly, I consider it to be an important part of my job to think about how to make our cities better.

As I was flipping through the book this morning, I was reminded of something that I have been saying for years on this blog. Toronto could use a floating public pool like the Badeschiff ("bathing ship") in Berlin:

Constructed from the hull of an old cargo vessel, the Badeschiff opened in 2004. The Spree itself is too polluted to swim in (or at least that was the case back in 2004), and so this has become an important swimming outlet for the city.

Paris is in a similar situation with the Seine, but it's looking to clean it up in time for the Olympics.

The real benefit of a floating pool is that you're mostly in a big body of water, but now you can also heat it. In the winter, the Badeschiff is covered and turned into a spa/sauna. This would be particularly useful in a place like Toronto.

It's easy to bring people to water in the summer. Apparently Summer-Badeschiff even has a bar and regular DJ sets (presumably all techno given this is Berlin).

The real challenge is in the winter. And if you've ever read an RFP involving a public space in Canada, you'll know that this question invariably comes up: So, how do we, like, get people to come here when it's 10 below?

Hot water, nice views, and a little food & drink. I promise that's all you need.

There is an ongoing debate about the value of cities hosting the Olympic Games. And that's because this is usually how it works: You, the host, spend a lot of money (Tokyo 2021 was over $25 billion), it feels really good during the games while the world is watching you on TV, and then everyone leaves and you have a big bill to pay.

As I understand it, this has generally been the case for almost all of the games. One rare exception is Los Angeles in 1984, which supposedly managed to make over $230 million from hosting. In pretty much every other case, the rough value was, at least in theory, things like exposure, ego, and hopefully a bunch of assets that will remain useful to other people once the games are done.

But as I have argued a few times before, perhaps the most important hard-to-quantify benefit is this: Hosting the Olympics creates an immutable city-building deadline. Because, what could be worse than not being ready when your global guests show up?

A perfect example of this is what Paris is now trying to do with the Seine ahead of the 2024 Olympics. The goal is to clean up the Seine so that it's actually safe enough for the athletes to compete in it. That would obviously be really cool for the games, but it would also be a wonderful legacy for Paris.

Would Paris still be doing this if it weren't hosting the games? Perhaps. Paris has a habit of doing some obviously good things. But I bet it wouldn't be moving nearly as quickly.