This may sound crazy, but I’ve never been to Chicago. It’s on my list, but I just haven’t gotten around to it and I’ve never had a specific reason to go. Hopefully I can make it this summer.
Lately though, I’ve found myself reading more and more about the city. Given that it’s also a Great Lakes city and it’s of comparable size, Chicago is an interesting case study for Toronto. But one thing that seems to keep coming up, is the need for zoning reform.
About a month ago I wrote a post called “The tale of 2 Chicagos”, which was inspired by the blogging of Aaron Renn (The Urbanophile) and Daniel Hertz (City Notes). The discussion was around the prevalence of single-family zoning in most parts of Chicago and how it’s creating a supply constrained market (driving up prices).
But there’s another outcome. Here’s what Daniel Hertz recently argued:
When places in and around downtown become more desirable, developers build more housing, and more people get to live there. But when non-downtown neighborhoods become more desirable, developers can’t build more housing: it’s against the law. So instead, they profit by tearing down old two-flats and building mansions in their place. And as a result, fewer people get to live in those neighborhoods, even as more and more people want to.
Effectively, his argument is that gentrification leads to a loss of housing units. Developers can’t build more housing, so they replace housing. And it all stems from a restrictive zoning code that aims to maintain the character and scale of established neighborhoods. I get that, but you could easily argue that it exacerbates the negatives of gentrification.
It strikes me that Toronto and Chicago are in somewhat similar places in terms of their growth. Without any real natural barriers, both cities had the luxury of being able to develop through horizontal sprawl when they were younger.
But with people now returning to city centers, we’re faced with a series of difficult decisions: How do we balance preservation and growth? How do we balance low-density with high-density? How do we maintain the character of what people love while still creating an inclusive city?
It absolutely can be done, but it’s going to mean embracing a certain amount of change. And that’s not always an easy sell.
Yesterday news broke that Target is opening a two-storey, 145,000 square foot store at the base of a new mixed-use development in Toronto’s emerging South Core neighborhood. The site is at the north east corner of York Street and Harbour Street. And the larger development, called Harbour Plaza, will include a 35 storey office tower and 2 residential condominium towers at 65 and 69 storeys.
Here’s the location map:
And here’s the site looking east from York Street:
This is going to be huge for Target. The amount of current and proposed density within a short radius of the site is mind boggling. In addition to Harbour Plaza itself, look at what’s planned for 1 Yonge Street.
Plus with Union Station next door, I dare you to try and find a better connected mobility hub in the region. Now all of a sudden that retail radius gets even bigger. I can easily imagine suburbanites picking up a few things before they hop on a GO train (our regional rail system) and head home.
As of right now, they’re also the only game in town, as far as big box stores in the central core are concerned. But I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a competitor emerge alongside the 1 Yonge project. The site is big enough for one and Walmart isn’t going to want to get shut out of the area.
My only hope is that, from an urban design standpoint, the project is able to enliven and give back to Harbour Street. Right now it’s an arterial road with really no redeeming urban qualities. But with the York Street off-ramp being relocated and the park underneath it being expanded, now is the time to really transform the area.
Let’s hope Harbour Plaza does that.
Growing up, I had one of the best English teachers around. He was the kind of English teacher who would dim the lights, light incense and play Bob Marley in the midst of class. He had also previously taught in Jamaica, which might help to explain this behaviour.
I had him as a teacher in both elementary school and in high school. All in all, he probably taught me 3 or 4 years of English–excluding the fact that he was also the coach of my high school basketball team (which I was on).
But more than just being a cool guy, he drilled a number of important takeaways and life lessons into his students. Still to do this day I remember and try and follow them. And I know that many of my classmates do the same. So today, I’d like to share 3 of them with you.
1. Don’t say umm
We all say “umm” from time to time to fill in our sentences when we can’t think fast enough or we don’t know what to say, but it sounds awful. It also makes you sound indecisive and less clear about the message you’re trying to get across.
If we ever said “umm” in class he would make us repeat our sentence again and again until we said it without saying “umm.” He would literally stand there saying: “Start again. Start again. Start again.”
Similarly, he wouldn’t allow us to say “like”, unless we were using it to truly express that something had the same qualities as something else. But if you just said like for no reason, he would say: “Is it like that or is it that?” Again, it’s about being clear and precise in your language.
2. Don’t use very
By using adverbs such as very and extremely, you’re taking the easy way out. There’s always a better word or way to convey your message. Don’t say you’re very tired; say you’ve reached a point of debilitating exhaustion. Better yet, make up your own word (he never said that). Very is boring, lazy and uninventive.
3. Just do it
When we used to ask him how long he wanted our essays to be, he would always reply with the same thing: “As long as a piece of string.” And when we initially asked him how long a piece of string was, he would then say: “Just do it.” That was his message over and over again to us: when in doubt, just do it. We eventually stopped asking.
At the time, I never really understood how profound this simple message was. Initially I thought he just wanted us to get on with things but, in fact, he was saying so much more. He was telling us to stop relying on others for direction. Stop following orders, and take initiative. Just do it. Poke the box, dammit.
I’ve had this post sitting in my draft folder for a few months now. I don’t often deviate from city related topics, but I wanted to put this one out there. So if you’re reading this Mr. Mott-Trille, umm, like, thanks so very much! :)