I love change.
In fact, a big part of what I do for a living is imagining what things could be in the future. However, the bias that humans have toward the status quo has been well documented by people like Seth Godin, as well as many others. It is easier to defend that which already exists. Here's how Seth puts it:
All one has to do is take the thing we have now as a given (ignoring its real costs) and then challenge the defects and question the benefits of the new thing, while also maximizing the potential risk.
So as I was reading this recent blogTO article about the work of Stephen Velasco, I wasn't surprised to see some of the responses. Stephen has built an outstanding 3D model of all the towers that are currently planned or under construction in Toronto. Here's what that looks like:
https://twitter.com/FutureModelTO/status/1463171733687394304?s=20
For some of you, this is exciting. And for others, this may look like too much density. In both cases, we might think we are being fair and reasonable in our assessment, but the reality is that it's actually quite difficult to be a neutral judge. We are all guilty of poor logic and too much emotion.
But here's a good mental exercise, put forward by Seth, to test your logic: flip the story and then see if you still feel the same way.
In this particular case, imagine that all of the above proposed buildings are already built. This is the city that we all live, work, and play in. This is the status quo. Now consider an exciting new proposal being put forward to demolish many/most of these buildings, create more surface parking lots in the core, industrialize our waterfront, and reduce our overall population density.
Photo from the 1940s:
Photo from the 1960s:
Is this a better proposal?
Joe Berridge's recent opinion piece in the Globe and Mail is a good reminder -- in the face of a whole lot of uncertainty -- about the resiliency of our cities.
Those previous decades saw a surge of people and jobs locating downtown, with consequent escalation in rents and prices of offices and housing. Why? Partly demographic, as the well-educated children of the baby boom reached adulthood, and partly lifestyle and work style. Young people go to big cities not just to work and live, but for sex, style, money and power. For ambition and anonymity. And for risk. All in the petri dish of downtown density. These drives have always been as powerful as their subsequent search for suburban security and community.
The structure of the modern megalopolis is not an accident – the dramatic rise of tech employment, two-earner families, the decline of manufacturing, the later date of marriage, smaller households, lifestyle consumerism, teamwork cultures, serial re-education and training – none of these societal trends looks to be diminished by COVID-19. All of them seem to prefer high-density, high-interaction environments.
For those of us in Toronto, it's also important to remember just how quickly this city region was growing pre-COVID-19. That is unlikely to change on the other side of this.
“This book is a love story of cities. It is so well observed -- the places, the people, the history and what the future holds. Joe tells a very personal and beautifully written story direct from the front line. An absolute must read for everyone who cares about, and wants to understand, what makes cities and their citizens tick.” – Dame Alison Nimmo, Chief Executive of the Crown Estate
Joe Berridge, of Urban Strategies, has a new book coming out called, Perfect City: An Urban Fixer's Global Search for Magic in the Modern Metropolis. Perfect may be the enemy of good (as they say), but Joe argues that all great cities have moments of perfection that we can learn from. I just preordered a copy. If you're interested, you can
I love change.
In fact, a big part of what I do for a living is imagining what things could be in the future. However, the bias that humans have toward the status quo has been well documented by people like Seth Godin, as well as many others. It is easier to defend that which already exists. Here's how Seth puts it:
All one has to do is take the thing we have now as a given (ignoring its real costs) and then challenge the defects and question the benefits of the new thing, while also maximizing the potential risk.
So as I was reading this recent blogTO article about the work of Stephen Velasco, I wasn't surprised to see some of the responses. Stephen has built an outstanding 3D model of all the towers that are currently planned or under construction in Toronto. Here's what that looks like:
https://twitter.com/FutureModelTO/status/1463171733687394304?s=20
For some of you, this is exciting. And for others, this may look like too much density. In both cases, we might think we are being fair and reasonable in our assessment, but the reality is that it's actually quite difficult to be a neutral judge. We are all guilty of poor logic and too much emotion.
But here's a good mental exercise, put forward by Seth, to test your logic: flip the story and then see if you still feel the same way.
In this particular case, imagine that all of the above proposed buildings are already built. This is the city that we all live, work, and play in. This is the status quo. Now consider an exciting new proposal being put forward to demolish many/most of these buildings, create more surface parking lots in the core, industrialize our waterfront, and reduce our overall population density.
Photo from the 1940s:
Photo from the 1960s:
Is this a better proposal?
Joe Berridge's recent opinion piece in the Globe and Mail is a good reminder -- in the face of a whole lot of uncertainty -- about the resiliency of our cities.
Those previous decades saw a surge of people and jobs locating downtown, with consequent escalation in rents and prices of offices and housing. Why? Partly demographic, as the well-educated children of the baby boom reached adulthood, and partly lifestyle and work style. Young people go to big cities not just to work and live, but for sex, style, money and power. For ambition and anonymity. And for risk. All in the petri dish of downtown density. These drives have always been as powerful as their subsequent search for suburban security and community.
The structure of the modern megalopolis is not an accident – the dramatic rise of tech employment, two-earner families, the decline of manufacturing, the later date of marriage, smaller households, lifestyle consumerism, teamwork cultures, serial re-education and training – none of these societal trends looks to be diminished by COVID-19. All of them seem to prefer high-density, high-interaction environments.
For those of us in Toronto, it's also important to remember just how quickly this city region was growing pre-COVID-19. That is unlikely to change on the other side of this.
“This book is a love story of cities. It is so well observed -- the places, the people, the history and what the future holds. Joe tells a very personal and beautifully written story direct from the front line. An absolute must read for everyone who cares about, and wants to understand, what makes cities and their citizens tick.” – Dame Alison Nimmo, Chief Executive of the Crown Estate
Joe Berridge, of Urban Strategies, has a new book coming out called, Perfect City: An Urban Fixer's Global Search for Magic in the Modern Metropolis. Perfect may be the enemy of good (as they say), but Joe argues that all great cities have moments of perfection that we can learn from. I just preordered a copy. If you're interested, you can
But Berridge does also point out some of the potential fallouts from this pandemic. The economics of urban transit, for example, could remain a problem for quite some time. This will strain public purses. (Car usage rebounded quickly, but transit ridership has not.)
We are also likely to see increased traffic congestion as a result of people eschewing transit (and probably a bunch of other factors). Like Berridge, I am a supporter of road/congestion pricing, and have been writing about that on this blog for many years.
The best things to tax/price are things that are generally viewed as bad and where demand is largely inelastic. That is, even if you increase the price, many or most people will probably still do it anyway. Think of things like smoking.
Up until now, Toronto hasn't had the moxie to make difficult (political) decisions like this one. Perhaps this pandemic will leave us no other choice.
But Berridge does also point out some of the potential fallouts from this pandemic. The economics of urban transit, for example, could remain a problem for quite some time. This will strain public purses. (Car usage rebounded quickly, but transit ridership has not.)
We are also likely to see increased traffic congestion as a result of people eschewing transit (and probably a bunch of other factors). Like Berridge, I am a supporter of road/congestion pricing, and have been writing about that on this blog for many years.
The best things to tax/price are things that are generally viewed as bad and where demand is largely inelastic. That is, even if you increase the price, many or most people will probably still do it anyway. Think of things like smoking.
Up until now, Toronto hasn't had the moxie to make difficult (political) decisions like this one. Perhaps this pandemic will leave us no other choice.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog