132
We talk a lot about mobility and traffic congestion on this blog — particularly in the context of Toronto — and that's because it remains a problem and we continue to avoid any sort of big and meaningful moves. Instead, we like to politicize the problem and find scapegoats, such as bike lanes. So I think it's important to have regular reminders that we do actually know how to address this problem. It's a choice we and other cities can make.
Here are three examples and possible solutions:
Copenhagen: Over 60% of residents use a bicycle to commute to work or school. It is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world. You've probably heard this before and are prepared to say, "yeah, well, we're not Copenhagen." But it's important to point out that neither was Copenhagen. In the early-to-mid 70s, the modal split for bikes was somewhere between ~10-15%.
Singapore: This is one of my favorite examples. Singapore is home to the world's first congestion charge zone (1975). And it operates on a dynamic pricing model, meaning that traffic congestion is continually monitored and road prices are adjusted to ensure that traffic always flows at certain minimum speed. It's a highly effective tool and there's no shortage of global case studies. Here's Miami.
Zurich: Despite being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe, car ownership is relatively low (~40-45% of the population, compared to ~60-65% in Toronto). This is due to a great public transit system (Swiss trains and stuff) and because of strict parking policies, among other things.
Zurich has a hard cap on the number of parking spaces in the central part of the city. It is set at 1990 levels, which works out to about 7,600 total parking spaces. What this means is that if somebody, like a big bad developer, wants to build off-street parking, they need to simultaneously reduce the parking supply somewhere else. You can't exceed the cap.
This obviously discourages car usage and moderates the demand for city streets, but it also serves as a clever way to slowly replace on-street parking with better uses, such as an enhanced public realm. This policy has been in place since 1989 and it has had a dramatic effect on car usage. Between 2000 and 2021, the share of car trips in the city decreased from 40% to 29%.
I know that many of you will scoff at these solutions and think "yeah, there's no way." But this is how you make traffic better. You reduce demand and use our finite amount of road capacity more efficiently. So we can either make bold moves or we can continue to complain about traffic.
Cover photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash
There are countless rankings of cities out there. And most of them probably don't mean very much. But the concept of a "global city", as coined by Saskia Sassen in the early 90s, is still immensely fascinating to me. And that's because there is, in fact, an order. There are cities that are less and more important to the global economy.
To this end, Resonance Consulting has just released their annual ranking of the world's best cities. And this year, they've introduced something new to their methodology: perception data. For this, they partnered with Ipsos and asked more than 22,000 respondents across 30 countries the following three broad and open-ended questions:
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to live in someday?
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to visit in the next 12 to 24 months?
What 3 towns or cities do you believe currently offer the best job opportunities?
The intent with these questions was to not anchor people to a specific list of places, and to not necessarily anchor people to big global cities. Maybe the best job opportunities are believed to be in small towns that most people aren't thinking about. The result is that thousands of different towns and cities were mentioned during the survey period.
While this didn't necessarily impact the cities and usual suspects that you would expect to see in a ranking like this -- cities like London, New York, and Paris -- it did change certain things and offer some interesting insights. For example, the strong global perception of Sydney helped to move it into the top 10 for the first in the ten-year history of this report.
On the other end of the spectrum, negative sentiment (outside of China) toward Hong Kong caused the city's ranking to drop precipitously. It is now ranked 97th, behind cities like Naples (Italy), Birmingham (UK), and Rochester (US). Singapore, in case you're wondering, is ranked 5th:
Broadly speaking, the perception data also served to remind us that we continue to have a bias toward cities. When people are asked where they want to live, visit, and work, they still think of the world's biggest and most important places. So despite the rise of decentralizing technologies (i.e. Zoom) and the bad things that happened to cities as a result of the pandemic, big cities remain at the center of the global economy.
This is not at all surprising.
Cover photo by Aaron Gilmore on Unsplash
In other words, are tall buildings a prerequisite to competing in today's global economy? It's an interesting question. And Jason Barr -- professor of economics at Rutgers University-Newark -- does think they are an important ingredient. So much so that he wrote a book on the topic called, Cities in the Sky: The Quest to Build the World's Tallest Skyscrapers. While Jason does acknowledge that not every city needs them, he does suggest that not having them could hinder a global city:
If you look at Paris' global ranking in terms of its importance in the world economy, as measured by the size and number of international firms, it's falling. Paris in 2000 was ranked fourth, and by 2020, it was down to eight, losing out to skyscraper cities such as Singapore and Dubai.
In the last decade, Paris has shrunk by 122,000 residents. As reported by Forbes, "Many of those leaving are choosing either the suburbs or countryside around Paris, or they are relocating to France's smaller cities such as Bordeaux, Lyon, and Toulouse." By limiting its building stock, Paris is driving up housing prices, pushing out residents, and causing suburban sprawl.
While I agree that tall buildings are important "geography-shrinking machines", what we're really talking about is using land more intensely. We're talking about urban density. But you don't necessarily need tall buildings to have high population densities. Consider Barcelona, which is one of the densest cities in Europe, and consider this comparison between Paris (few tall buildings) and Vancouver (more tall buildings).
So is the argument simply that density is good for cities, and that tall buildings are one way to achieve that? Or is it that, now that cities like Paris are built out (albeit at very high densities), the only option for growth is to go up? I guess I'll have to read his book.