Last week Oliver Moore of the Globe and Mail announced that Toronto mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack transit plan is evolving to feel less like SmartTrack and more like what Metrolinx had been planning all along.
Here’s the map from the Globe and Mail:
The 3 big changes are as follows (and numbered accordingly on the above map):
1.
The western end of the line will be replaced by an extension of the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT (currently under construction) running from Mount Dennis to Pearson Airport. This is what was originally proposed.
2.
The “U” running from Mount Dennis in the west, down through downtown, and up to Kennedy in the east is what remains of the original SmartTrack line and will operate as some sort of “heavy rail” service on existing GO Transit lines. The original election campaign plan was to run trains every 15 minutes, but that was deemed too infrequent to attract riders, so now Metrolinx and everyone is trying to figure out how to get it down to every 5-10 minutes and feel more like subway.
3.
The extension north of Eglinton Avenue to suburban Markham (in the northeast) is being pushed out and will be dealt with sometime in the future. Keeping the first phase of SmartTrack south of Eglinton on both ends is beneficial in avoiding the issue of SmartTrack and the Scarborough subway extension cannibalizing each other. (In my opinion, this issue is a perfect example of what happens when transit planning becomes too political.)
The net result is a plan that is looking less and less like the original SmartTrack. I’m not complaining though because I have never been a big supporter of SmartTrack. I have always thought we should be focusing on the downtown relief subway line and on allowing Metrolinx to just execute on its regional express rail (RER) strategy.
For more on this topic, check out Steve Munro’s post, SmartTrack: Now You See It, Now You Don’t! He’s far more of an expert than I am on these sorts of issues.
On Thursday night I spoke at an Urbanism Lab event in Ottawa put on by the National Capital Commission.
The event was all about the interconnection between the online world of blogging and social media, and the offline world of tangible city building.
More specifically, one of the goals was to help inspire institutions, such as the National Capital Commission, to better leverage these new channels in order to get their message out.
Social media and blogging may be ubiquitous, but lots of organizations are still getting their heads around it.
So today I thought I would do my part and share something with all of you that, truthfully, I didn’t know was underway until I visited Ottawa.
But first, how many of you (Canadians) are exactly aware of what the National Capital Commission does?
The NCC is a federal Crown corporation that is focused on 3 specific mandates:
They are the long-term urban planner of federal lands in Canada’s Capital Region. They are also the largest landowner in the region.
They are the principal steward of nationally significant public spaces and buildings, including the Capital’s six “official residences.” Residences such as 24 Sussex Drive.
And they are a “creative partner” on initiatives that tie into both development and conservation.
To this end, the NCC is now working on a Plan for Canada’s Capital, 2017-2067. This is a 50-year plan that will outline what they do with federal lands, buildings, parks and other symbolic spaces in the Capital. And it will identity which projects would best craft and represent our national identity, as well as strengthen Canada’s influence in the world.
This is all pretty important and interesting stuff. But unfortunately I didn’t know it was underway. And I also didn’t know what they were looking for “big ideas” from Canadians. These are ideas that will directly shape the 50-year plan.
So if you have an idea – big or small – for the National Capital Commission, I would encourage you to click here and share it with them. Not only is this city building in the Capital, it’s also nation building.
Please also feel free to copy and paste your idea(s) in the comment section of this post. These ideas definitely deserve a fulsome discussion. I will post mine once I write it.
Daniel Hertz over at City Observatory just published a post talking about why land costs are so important when it comes to home prices. More specifically though, his post is intended to refute a claim that multifamily housing is always going to be more expensive than single family housing.
The key concept here – which is critical to understanding urban real estate economics – is that home values are essentially made up of two things: the land and the improvements (i.e. the building).
When home prices rapidly appreciate, as has been the case in cities like Vancouver (see below) and Toronto, it’s not the building, but the land that’s really driving the price up.
And as you can see from the chart below (which Daniel shared in his post), it is possible for multifamily housing to be less expensive than single family housing.
So why was someone arguing that multifamily housing is more expensive?
Well if you look at just construction costs, then this is generally true. Single family housing is typically wood frame construction, whereas multifamily housing is usually reinforced concrete or some other material that allows you to build up. In these latter cases, the price per square foot to build is going to be higher.
But Daniel’s argument is that when you build multifamily housing, you also begin to amortize the cost of the land over more housing units. So you begin to use land more efficiently and that offsets the higher construction costs.
However, two thoughts come to mind.
First, the value of a piece of land is entirely dependent on what you can build on it. And the more you can build on it, the more the land is worth. So as densities increase, so do land prices.
Second, a big part of why condominiums are so much more affordable is that they’re smaller. In 2014, the average condo size in Metro Vancouver was estimated to be 840 square feet. I couldn’t find the average size of a detached house in the city, but let’s assume for a second that it’s 2,500 sf.
If that were the case, then a detached house, despite being more expensive overall, would still be cheaper on a per square foot basis. You would be paying less for every square foot of livable space. True that doesn’t make the house more affordable, but I think it’s a bit unfair to compare apples (small condo) to oranges (large house).
So what I would really like to see is a graph of all-in low-rise and high-rise per square foot prices over time and for various cities. Because I would be curious to see at what point – if ever – they intersect.