| 1. | Brandon Donnelly | 14M |
| 2. | 0xdb8f...bcfd | 4.5M |
| 3. | jcandqc | 4.1M |
| 4. | 0x65de...c951 | 2.1M |
| 5. | kualta.eth | 869.1K |
| 6. | Ev Tchebotarev | 170.5K |
| 7. | stefan333 | 81.7K |
| 8. | voltron | 81.5K |
| 9. | William Mougayar's Blog | 28.4K |
| 10. | Empress Trash | 19.8K |
| 1. | Brandon Donnelly | 14M |
| 2. | 0xdb8f...bcfd | 4.5M |
| 3. | jcandqc | 4.1M |
| 4. | 0x65de...c951 | 2.1M |
| 5. | kualta.eth | 869.1K |
| 6. | Ev Tchebotarev | 170.5K |
| 7. | stefan333 | 81.7K |
| 8. | voltron | 81.5K |
| 9. | William Mougayar's Blog | 28.4K |
| 10. | Empress Trash | 19.8K |
There are many ways to describe one of the prevailing urban forms emerging across the Greater Toronto Area. You could call it spiky urbanism. You could call it a collection of peaks and plains. Or -- as it is referred to in this recent article by Alex Bozikovic about "turning the suburb into the city" -- you could call it cruise ship urbanity:
These megaprojects are where Toronto has chosen to cram much of its new growth – “cruise ships of urbanity,” as Mr. Giannone told me, in a sea of houses. As such they provide an opportunity to create citylike density and activity.
What we are talking about is a dichotomous form of urbanism: high-density mixed-use nodes surrounded by low-rise car-oriented communities. And on many levels, this makes a lot of sense, especially if the cruise ship happens to be docked on top of a transit station. This is where density needs to go. If you have a transit station without much density, that should be addressed immediately.
But it also presents a great challenge. If transportation planning is necessarily land use planning, then we are dealing with two very different kinds of land use patterns and, therefore, two very different kinds of mobility demands. You can address this by making the cruise ship as self-sufficient and pleasant as possible, but eventually someone will want or need to get off the ship.
Does that mean they will then need a car?
You don't have this same problem with more consistent forms of urbanism. Consider, for example, cities like Paris and Barcelona. These are dense cities, but more importantly they are, for the most part, uniformly dense. Or at least, uniformly dense enough. Meaning that you can probably apply a more uniform transportation strategy. What works in one part of the city is likely to work in other parts too.
Of course, we could also apply a uniform transportation strategy to our urban cruise ships. Given that they exist in a sea of low-rise houses, we could simply say that each urban cruise ship resident should also have their own parking space (1:1 ratio). The solution: everyone drives! But this, to me, seems like an insane long-term solution.
In my view, the most impactful solution lies not in the ships themselves, but in the seas surrounding them. We need to look holistically at our entire city region and determine what it will take to turn suburb into city. And that likely means a whole host of things, ranging from leveraging the infrastructure we already have (i.e. upzoning around transit stations) to embracing autonomous vehicles.
In the end, I don't think we want cruise ships of urbanity. We need more density, everywhere.
These days, it is cool to be pro housing.
Unaffordability has apparently gotten so bad that we are now seeing a groundswell of support for increasing overall housing supply. So politicians are doing things. And this week, the Province of British Columbia proposed some new legislation related to transit hubs.
As proposed, the legislation will require BC municipalities to designate Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD Areas), mandate minimum heights and densities within certain radii (broadly 800m in the case of rapid transit stations), and remove parking minimums.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people are excited about this and, there's no question, that this is directionally the right thing to do. But I have two immediate thoughts.
The first is that the devil is always in the details. This all sounds good, but: Are the proposed minimum densities and heights going to be enough to stimulate development? For example, is 4 the right minimum FAR for 300m from a transit station?
The second thought has to do with the level of excitement surrounding this announcement. (I'm going strictly based on Twitter, which admittedly could just be my bubble). The fact that city builders are so excited about this announcement tells us a lot about the current state of affairs.
Because what this proposed legislation is more or less saying is the following: "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's build more housing around higher order transit and not force the market to build unnecessary parking."
Is this really something that should be considered novel? I thought this was just how cities should work.
What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don't require developers to build it, they won't build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments -- like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking -- one can't help but think: WTF!
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I'm even being generous with this timeline.
There are many ways to describe one of the prevailing urban forms emerging across the Greater Toronto Area. You could call it spiky urbanism. You could call it a collection of peaks and plains. Or -- as it is referred to in this recent article by Alex Bozikovic about "turning the suburb into the city" -- you could call it cruise ship urbanity:
These megaprojects are where Toronto has chosen to cram much of its new growth – “cruise ships of urbanity,” as Mr. Giannone told me, in a sea of houses. As such they provide an opportunity to create citylike density and activity.
What we are talking about is a dichotomous form of urbanism: high-density mixed-use nodes surrounded by low-rise car-oriented communities. And on many levels, this makes a lot of sense, especially if the cruise ship happens to be docked on top of a transit station. This is where density needs to go. If you have a transit station without much density, that should be addressed immediately.
But it also presents a great challenge. If transportation planning is necessarily land use planning, then we are dealing with two very different kinds of land use patterns and, therefore, two very different kinds of mobility demands. You can address this by making the cruise ship as self-sufficient and pleasant as possible, but eventually someone will want or need to get off the ship.
Does that mean they will then need a car?
You don't have this same problem with more consistent forms of urbanism. Consider, for example, cities like Paris and Barcelona. These are dense cities, but more importantly they are, for the most part, uniformly dense. Or at least, uniformly dense enough. Meaning that you can probably apply a more uniform transportation strategy. What works in one part of the city is likely to work in other parts too.
Of course, we could also apply a uniform transportation strategy to our urban cruise ships. Given that they exist in a sea of low-rise houses, we could simply say that each urban cruise ship resident should also have their own parking space (1:1 ratio). The solution: everyone drives! But this, to me, seems like an insane long-term solution.
In my view, the most impactful solution lies not in the ships themselves, but in the seas surrounding them. We need to look holistically at our entire city region and determine what it will take to turn suburb into city. And that likely means a whole host of things, ranging from leveraging the infrastructure we already have (i.e. upzoning around transit stations) to embracing autonomous vehicles.
In the end, I don't think we want cruise ships of urbanity. We need more density, everywhere.
These days, it is cool to be pro housing.
Unaffordability has apparently gotten so bad that we are now seeing a groundswell of support for increasing overall housing supply. So politicians are doing things. And this week, the Province of British Columbia proposed some new legislation related to transit hubs.
As proposed, the legislation will require BC municipalities to designate Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD Areas), mandate minimum heights and densities within certain radii (broadly 800m in the case of rapid transit stations), and remove parking minimums.
Not surprisingly, a lot of people are excited about this and, there's no question, that this is directionally the right thing to do. But I have two immediate thoughts.
The first is that the devil is always in the details. This all sounds good, but: Are the proposed minimum densities and heights going to be enough to stimulate development? For example, is 4 the right minimum FAR for 300m from a transit station?
The second thought has to do with the level of excitement surrounding this announcement. (I'm going strictly based on Twitter, which admittedly could just be my bubble). The fact that city builders are so excited about this announcement tells us a lot about the current state of affairs.
Because what this proposed legislation is more or less saying is the following: "Hey, here's a great idea! Let's build more housing around higher order transit and not force the market to build unnecessary parking."
Is this really something that should be considered novel? I thought this was just how cities should work.
What is the case for having parking minimums? (i.e. Mandating a certain number of parking spaces in new developments.) I guess the argument is that if you don't require developers to build it, they won't build enough. And then people will not have parking and so they will be forced to park on the street somewhere. This might annoy the incumbent residents, who will in turn complain, and so it is best and safest to just to build a lot of parking.
This is pretty much the only reason that I can think of for why a city might want to maintain parking minimums. Because, what's the worst thing that could happen if you didn't build enough parking? In the best case scenario, the developer builds fewer parking spaces and people are fine with it. This is ideal because it means people are getting around in other ways: walking, cycling, taking transit, and/or using car share. So it is the most sustainable outcome!
A bad scenario would be that the developer builds too few parking spaces, nobody will rent the spaces, and then goes bankrupt. This would be very bad for the developer; however, it would be a lot less of a concern for the city. The developer is the one who screwed up. Too bad for them. So when I see new transit-adjacent developments -- like this one here in Burnaby, BC with 14 levels of below-grade parking -- one can't help but think: WTF!
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the developer. I don't do that sort of thing on this blog. This is a criticism of parking minimums. They are so last decade. And I'm even being generous with this timeline.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog