Category: Urbanism

• The case for bottom-up planning

  

  Many of you probably didn’t click through on this link in yesterday’s post, but it was a link to a book called Emergent Tokyo — Designing the Spontaneous City. What this book is largely about is the idea that Tokyo — usually considered to be the largest urban region in the world — is more the result of bottom-up actions than top-down actions. In other words, it is a kind of complex and self-organizing system.

  Some of you may be reading this and thinking that the result would be chaos. But the opposite is, in fact, true. Despite being the largest urban agglomeration in the world, Tokyo is consistently viewed as one of the most livable big cities in the world. How is that possible?

  One topic that we’ve been talking about on this blog recently is the planning approach of mandating ground-floor retail in new developments. While certainly good intentioned, this is one example of top-down planning. We are saying, “retail needs to go here because.”

  The problem, as we have talked about, is that the market may not want it. It may not actually be viable or desirable. Of course, it is a delicate situation. Because if you don’t provision for it, then you might block it from ever being possible on sites where it clearly makes sense. (We spoke specifically about this, here.)

  There is also the opposite question of: where are we not allowing retail?

  Maybe there are places where retail activity would be viable today, except it’s currently not permitted. One concrete example of this is Toronto’s laneways. Right now, we only allow residential (throughout our “Neighbourhoods”). But there many people, including myself and planner Blair Scorgie, who have been arguing that they should be mixed-use:

  

  Would office and retail uses actually work in Toronto’s residential laneways? I frankly don’t know. Because they’re not allowed today, it’s largely impossible to know. If we allowed these uses and nothing happened, then we’d have a better idea that there’s little demand for it. (I say a better idea because there still could be other obstacles in the way.)

  On the other hand if we decided to mandate non-residential uses in our laneways and nobody did anything, two things might then happen. One, we’d be similarly led to believe that there’s little to no demand. And two, we’d probably be sacrificing the residential use, for which we can say today there is clear demand.

  There are also the considerations that demand will almost certainly change over time and be inconsistent across different locations. For instance, maybe retail doesn’t work in this laneway, but it will work in that laneway. Can we actually plan for this?

  Top-down approaches generally assume that we know all or many of the answers. It presumes that we know that this street should have ground-floor retail and this street should not. It’s also about control. More bottom-up approaches admit that it’s impossible to plan for everything and that there could be latent potential that we’re not even thinking about.

  Of course, there is something naturally unsettling about this approach because it is, by definition, unknowable. And it relinquishes a certain amount of control. Maybe a restaurant will appear here or maybe it won’t. Maybe someone will open a small office in this laneway or maybe they won’t. Either way, the potential for change exists.

  But I think this should be seen as empowering, transparent, and highly efficient. It is a way of reducing the barriers to entry and allowing more urban creativity and ambition to shrine through. I believe, for example, that if we made it easier, cheaper, and possible to open a small restaurant (perhaps in a laneway), we would have more and overall better restaurants in the city.

  And as we have seen in the case of Tokyo, the result of more flexibility is not necessarily chaos. It can be a highly livable city that has people wondering, “how did they manage to plan such a large city so well?”

  Photo by Kentaro Toma on Unsplash

  2023.10.14

• We’re getting fatter

  I know I know this, but this is still an alarming chart:

  

  This is saying that, as of 2016, over 36% of Americans were considered to be obese. In Canada, the number was just under 30%. And in the UK, it was just under 28%, which is the highest rate in Europe.

  We often talk about the health benefits of living in a walkable community. And there’s lots of research to back up that this is in fact the case: obesity rates tend to be inversely correlated with higher prevalences of active transportation (walking, cycling, and so on).

  But we also can’t ignore diet. And here’s what has happened in the UK, as well as in other Western countries:

  An increased reliance on cheap, ultra-processed food, which accounts for 57 per cent of what Britons eat according to a 2019 study conducted by researchers at the University of São Paulo, suggests that the health crisis is unlikely to change anytime soon without intervention, argue campaigners.

  It can be hard to eat healthy, especially if you don’t have a lot of money and you live a busy life. But in my view, we need to change the course of this graph. And two very good places to start looking would be (1) our built environment and (2) the Japanese diet.

  Actually, now that I think of it, Japanese cities would be a good place to look as well.

  Chart: FT

  2023.10.13

• What makes cities grow faster?

  In may ways, this recent article by Brian Potter about how fast cities can grow, feels intuitive: Small cities tend to grow faster than big cities (on a percentage basis) and, as cities get bigger, their growth rates tend to decline. It is, however, still interesting to see the data behind this intuition:

  A city of less than 100,000 might be able to have growth rates of 10-20% or more, and cities of up to 3-400,000 can potentially have growth rates in the neighborhood of 10-15%. Potential growth rates tend to fall as cities grow larger, and cities above 1 million people almost all grow at less than 10% per year, and usually less than 5% per year. The US, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America all seem to have followed this basic pattern, assuming the data is reliable.

  It is also a good reminder just how much of an outlier China is:

  Unsurprisingly, since 1950, Chinese cities have mostly exhibited higher growth rates than US cities. Only around 12% of US data points are above a 5% growth rate, whereas for China this is close to 50%. China also has 2.5x the fraction of cities growing above 10% per year, and 3.3x the fraction of cities growing above 15% per year.

  And some cities are outliers even within China. The most notable here is Shenzhen, which saw enormous growth after it became China’s first special economic zone in 1980. At a population of around 200,000, Shenzhen was growing at 35% annually, and it was still growing at over 20% annually when its population crossed 2 million.

  Just imagine these numbers compounded. Even small variances can result in significantly different outcomes over time:

  New York’s growth rate, however, declined less than Los Angeles or Chicago as the city grew larger. At around 3.5 million people, New York was still growing at over 3% per year, compared to less than 1% for LA and Chicago. This may not sound like much, but it’s the difference between doubling in size every 23 years vs. every 70 years.

  Now here’s what I’m wondering after reading the article: Should we be thinking of city size as the single most important factor in determining urban growth? Because my mind immediately went to population densities, zoning controls, and other factors that might constrain or encourage growth.

  But the data seems to suggest that, for many cities, this doesn’t seem to matter over the long run. It is as simple as saying, “this city has X number of people and so it’s more than likely growing at somewhere around Y% per year.”

  That said, what’s up with China? What is it that allows a city of 2 million people to still grow at over 20%? Is it the sheer influx of people migrating from rural to urban areas? Or is it that you need a one-party authoritarian state to really clear the way for growth?

  As cities get bigger there does appear to be a natural tendency toward slower growth. Part of this is the low base effect. But the declines are not always consistent and there are meaningful outliers. I am now curious to know what, for the most part, causes these differences.

  2023.10.12

• That cool coffee shop in the bottom of your building

  As an add-on to yesterday’s post about ground floor retail in mixed-use developments, I thought I would provide a few illustrative and real-world examples to demonstrate some of the challenges that I was trying to describe.

  Note that this post is not meant to be critical of any specific projects; instead, it’s intended to further explain some of the challenges facing developers, architects, policy makers, and everyone else involved in the built environment.

  Let’s start in Toronto. Below is an aerial photo of Ossington Avenue. For those of you who aren’t familiar, this is one of the most desirable and coolest main streets in city. I mean, check out this recently completed office/retail building at 12 Ossington by Hullmark.

  

  However, when the above townhouse complex was built (circa 2005), Ossington was not the street that it is today. In fact, it used to be pretty scuzzy. When I moved to the US for grad school in 2006, I don’t recall anyone going out on Ossington. Then when I returned in 2009, suddenly, everyone was going to restaurants and bars on Ossington.

  So when this project was being planned, residential directly on the street, was probably the highest-and-best use, which is why that’s what was built. But looking at it today, it feels like a suboptimal outcome for one of the most desirable retail streets in the city. And now that it has been built, it’s unlikely to change anytime soon. Should retail have been mandated?

  Here is another example from Toronto. This is the north side of High Park. In this case, the street (Bloor Street) is not a great retail street. It’s single-sided because of the park. There’s only a scattering of restaurants and small businesses. There are a lot of single-use buildings. And even some of the newish developments don’t have any ground floor retail.

  

  In this particular instance, it’s certainly more of a stretch to force retail. But at the same time, I think there’s an argument to be made that the edges of Toronto’s primary urban park should do more. The buildings should be taller. The street walls should be more defined. And yes, maybe there should be more retail.

  Now here’s a counter example from Paris:

  

  This is the 7th and there’s absolutely no ground floor retail in sight and pretty much only blank and non-active facades. It’s hard to imagine retail opening up here today or anytime in the future — and that’s okay. The streets are still narrow and walkable. And the buildings are just what you’d expect from the capital. The point here: ground floor retail can’t and doesn’t need to go everywhere.

  Finally, let’s return to Salt Lake City:

  

  This is maybe the antithesis of our Paris example. 300 W is a wide street clearly designed for Toyota 4Runners. It’s hard to imagine a lot of people walking around here. Even though it’s relatively close to the central business district and it’s on the edge of the emerging and very cool Granary District. (This is The Post District.) But you know what, retail seems to work just fine here:

  

  You just need to think about it in the right way. SLC’s wide streets and large blocks may not make for a broadly walkable environment. But they do give you the room to create your own internal street network and, of course, build a bunch of parking. And that’s what was done and needed here.

  I also find it interesting to think at this sub-block level and consider how it might become a new network and layer to the city over time. Maybe Salt Lake needs its own version of Barcelona’s superblocks. And maybe this has already been considered.

  So once again, ground floor retail is good. Everyone wants that cool coffee shop in the bottom of their building. But sometimes we miss the boat. Sometimes it’s unclear what we should do. Sometimes it’s not necessary or viable. And sometimes we get it just right. That’s, I guess, retail.

  If you find yourself on 300 W, check out Urban Sailor Coffee.

  Site Plan: Post District

  2023.10.07

• Ground floor retail is good, but not always viable

  Earlier this year, Salt Lake City enacted new policy called the Downtown Heights and Street Activation Ordinance. As the name suggests, the ordinance addresses building heights, allows for taller buildings in the city, and works to improve ground floor animation. This is among other things.

  If you’d like to read through the ordinance (because why not), you can do that here. But even if you don’t feel like doing that, I think it raises an interesting set of questions around ground floors, namely: Should ground floor retail be mandated in all/some urban areas? And if yes, how should we go about it?

  We all recognize that blank walls (at street level) are suboptimal for urban vibrancy. But the thing about retail is that it doesn’t work everywhere. Even if we really want it everywhere, that may not be possible, at least in the short-term. Retail is usually a lagging indicator. The demand typically needs to be already in place for it to do well.

  That said, in really central areas, the correct decision could be to just mandate it everywhere. And that is what SLC has done in its central business district:

  

  However, things get trickier in transitional or emerging areas where you’re kind of just hoping that retail might someday work. From a development perspective, if we weren’t convinced that the retail would work and if we were being forced to build it, we would underwrite it very conservatively. This might mean applying zero (or even negative) value to it. This way if we can’t lease the space and it remains empty, at least it isn’t fatal. But it does mean that the rest of the project needs to carry this loss.

  Of course, now you still have a ground floor animation problem. You have empty storefronts. Though one argument might be that at least you’ve provisioned for a future where retail does eventually work. And if this does happen, then somebody was clairvoyant and you’re happy that you built it. But if the area doesn’t ever support good retail, well then you’re stuck with an underperforming ground floor.

  One alternative solution that can work on non-obvious retail streets is live/work. This way you build in some flexibility for the spaces to move toward retail (or other non-residential uses) if/when it becomes viable. But it’s not a perfect solution. It’s hard to make live/work suites entirely interchangeable. The ideal design parameters for retail are usually different than that of a home. Still, it can work reasonably well and provide needed flexibility.

  It’s all very tricky. But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the objective is to limit blank and non-active faces on our principal urban streets. How we do that is the question. And sometimes it’s more art than science.

  2023.10.06

• Should Toronto’s Kensington Market be mostly pedestrianized?

  

  I was in Toronto’s Kensington Market over the weekend and so naturally I decided to tweet out a glib remark about how the neighborhood should be mostly pedestrianized. This, as many of you know, has been an ongoing debate in this city for as long as I can remember. But there are, in fact, things happening. Watermain replacements are scheduled for the area in 2024 and 2025 and so the city is rightly using this as an opportunity to rethink the area’s streets. Here’s the official website for the project. Here’s the staff report that was adopted. And here’s what design changes are right now being proposed.

  One of the things that you’ll find in these documents are answers to the following question: “How supportive are you of the proposed design for the Pedestrian-only Zones?” And the results are pretty interesting. When the question was proposed to all respondents (the total number being 1,165), 90% were either very supportive or supportive of the Pedestrian-only Zones. And when narrowed to “visitors” of the area, the number appears to increase to 94% supportive. However, when this same question was asked to “people who live/work/own within the affected streets” the number drops to 55% supportive, with 28% being “very unsupportive” of the idea.

  One of the concerns with pedestrianization is that it could make it difficult for businesses to operate in the market. This is an understandable concern. But in my lay opinion, this is a problem that has already been solved in many other cities around the world. Delivery vehicles would still be allowed to load/deliver, and you control their flow through things like mechanical bollards. The other concerns raised by community seem to suggest something different. They seem to suggest that pedestrianization might make the area too desirable. More specifically, it might “accelerate gentrification” and cause “traffic and other issues in the neighborhood.” I’m assuming the traffic being referred to here is non-vehicular, because we are, after all, talking about pedestrianization.

  This dichotomy is an interesting one. On the one hand you have visitors and customers who overwhelmingly want the area to be pedestrianized or, at the very least, have pedestrian-only zones. But on the other hand, the businesses themselves seem to be concerned about their operations and the area becoming too successful. On some level, I guess, this makes sense, if your concern is displacement and/or the area becoming too corporate or whatever. But it’s also counterintuitive. Usually when you run a retail-oriented business you like things that (1) make your customers happy and (2) drive foot traffic.

  So how do we go about reconciling this city building divide? Well, like many/most urban initiatives these days, you run a pilot! And that’s exactly what the city plans to do. There will be more consultation sometime next year, and then construction is planned for 2024-2025. Once that wraps up, the plan is to test out the various pedestrian-only zones. So I reckon we could be 2026 before we truly know where this is landing. I remain optimistic. But until then, please continue to refer to my glib weekend tweets.

  2023.10.02

• Slamming the breaks on anti-motorist measures

  Last week the Prime Minister of the UK, Rishi Sunak, announced a number of initiatives designed to support drivers. The slogan is “slamming the brakes on anti-motorist measures” and you can find more information about it, over here.

  Naturally this is sparking the usual debate about driving vs. all the other forms of mobility. But it also seems to be part of some sort of broader political strategy intended to distance his party from things like environmental sustainability, net zero targets, and 15-minute city design.

  If you’re looking for a way to process the above announcement, this recent FT article by John Burn-Murdoch is an excellent place to start. Firstly, the UK (outside of London) is generally poorly served by public transport. This is an important thing to know. By the below measure — percentage of large cities that have trams, a metro, or urban light rail — it is even worse than the US:

  

  In fact, one way to think about and measure mobility in the UK is to think in terms of the following geographic categories: there’s US cities, European cities (including London), and then there’s the rest of the UK. In the case of US cities, they have very clearly optimized around road infrastructure. Meaning, the vast majority of people don’t take transit to work, but the area (km2) you can cover by car (in 30 mins) is high.

  Look at Houston and Dallas on the left side of this graph:

  

  On the other hand, European cities (again, including London) have optimized in the opposite direction. A lot more people walk, cycle, and take transit to work. In the case of cities like London, Paris, Barcelona, Bilbao, Prague, and others, the number is greater than 60%! However, they’re sucky places to drive, as I learned this past summer. The area you can cover by car within 30 mins, is relatively low (bottom right of the above graph).

  The challenge for British cities (excluding London), is that they seem to be right in the middle (burgundy dots above). Poor public transport (low percentage of trips to work). And poor road infrastructure (limited area accessible by car within 30 mins). So it is perhaps no surprise that Sunak is honing in on this issue. London is not representative of Britain. And based on the above data, the majority of people living in British cities are almost certainly mobility frustrated.

  Of course, to correct this issue you have two options. You can move toward the left (in the above chart) and optimize for road infrastructure. Or you can move to the right and optimize for public transport and other forms of mobility. Based on last week’s announcement, Sunak has chosen the left.

  Charts: FT

  2023.10.01

• The end of private car ownership

  

  Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order:

  I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.

  There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.

  But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention “people living in dense cities” (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?

  Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer, I couldn’t wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now, cycling.

  On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself, and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.

  So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it’s going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.

  Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash

  2023.09.29

• En province

  As many of you know, I am learning French, again.

  One of the small things that I found really interesting in this week’s class — besides, of course, figuring out how the hell to use le subjonctif — was the expression “en province.” In France, this effectively refers to any place in the country that isn’t Paris — the capital city/region. And it turns out that many other countries employ a similar kind of vocabulary.

  According to Wikipedia, people in Peru say “en provincias”, people in Mexico say “la provincia”, people in Poland say “prowincjonalny”, and people in Bulgaria say “в провинцията”, whatever that means. What is fascinating to me about this is that it implies a very capital and urban-centric mentality. You’re either in the capital city or you’re, well, in the provinces.

  It’s also not something that is used in either Canada or the US. In Toronto, you’ll hear people say that someone is “up north” and, in Philly, you’ll hear people say “down the shore” to indicate that they’re headed in the general vicinity of the east coast. But as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a specific term that is used to describe any and all lands that exist outside of our capital cities.

  Maybe it’s because Ottawa isn’t our biggest city and so it would be silly to designate everything outside of it as being some sort of provincial non-capital territory. But I wonder if part of it is because we don’t have the same urban-centric mentality. Could it be that we just don’t value and think about our principal cities in the same way?

  2023.09.28

• What’s real anymore?

  Generative AI has made it a lot easier to make things up using software like Photoshop. This, of course, isn’t a new thing. But it has gotten significantly easier for people like me who aren’t experts in photo editing.

  Here are two examples that I created this morning. The first is a photo of me from last summer in the Salt Flats of Utah:

  

  And here I am again after adding new clothes, a dog friend, a couple taking photos, a more impressive backdrop, and some sort of body of water in front of me:

  

  The second is a photo from Paris:

  

  Now here it is again with tall buildings in the background, glass storefronts, a few neon signs, string lights above the middle of the street, a bollard blocking car access, and a few more people:

  

  These aren’t entirely perfect if you’re really paying attention. But for the most part, I think they’re pretty convincing — especially the second one.

  Generated images are only going to get better going forward and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But we do have to start training ourselves to question whether something is real or doctored. It’s already hard to tell.

  2023.09.23