Category: Urbanism

• California has a plan for 2 million new homes

  On July 1 of this year, a new California bill, called the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022”, will go into effect. And the goal of this legislation is to significantly increase the supply of new homes in the state by allowing multi-family construction on lands that are currently zoned for commercial uses.

  On some level, it is of course curious that there even needs to be this bill. Because what we are effectively saying is, “hey, we should allow people to build a mix of uses on our main streets and with high enough densities that we might actually be able to support transit.” Why was this not always the case? (Rhetorical question.)

  In the words of architect and planner Peter Calthorpe, who was recently interviewed here in ArchDaily, this is a “landmark piece of legislation” that has “received very little attention.” So that’s why we’re talking about it today.

  Calthorpe was actively involved in crafting this legislation, and his work apparently started with different scenario land-use models. The first experiment looked at a 43-mile stretch of El Camino running from San Francisco to San Jose (pictured below). And what they found was that this one strip alone could accommodate somewhere around 250,000 new infill homes.

  

  To put this into context, the state of California is currently building about 140,000 new homes each year, through a roughly equal (1:1) split of multi-family and low-rise single-family. Already this represents a shift, as supply used to be slanted (3:1) toward low-rise. (I don’t know when exactly this was the case, but Calthorpe mentions the figure in his interview.)

  Moving on from El Camino, Calthorpe and his team then ran a similar exercise for the five-county inner Bay area. And here they found that some 700 miles of commercial land could produce up to 1.3 million multi-family homes at “reasonable densities.” This was then expanded to the entire state of California and the number increased to 10 million new homes.

  Of course, as we have talked about before on this blog, not all of this land might actually be feasible for development. Sometimes the math doesn’t work even at a zero land cost; you might need a negative land cost in order to pencil a new development. Meaning, you might need to be paid, perhaps through some sort of subsidy.

  So what Calthorpe and the team did was use MapCraft to quickly run development feasibilities on the above sites. They had it run 6 different pro formas using local rents, construction costs, city fees, and so on. And what they determined was that this 10 million number drops down to 2 million when you apply the economic realities of the world.

  As a disclaimer, I’m not at all familiar with MapCraft. But I’m going to take this number at face value and say that this is still a lot of new homes. And this is what people are hoping for come July 1 of this year.

  Image: HDR / Peter Calthorpe

  2023.04.08

• A national walk to work day alternative

  I just learned that the US has a “National Walk to Work Day.” And it happens to be today, Friday, April 7, 2023. It was started in 2004 by the federal government and the American Podiatric Medical Association — because, you know, walking is good for your feet — and the idea is that since so few Americans actually walk to work, we should encourage them to do it at least one day of the year. Back in 2019, the figure was that less than 3% of Americans do it on average.

  While I’m sure that there are some good intentions here, I’m guessing that the impact of this national day is probably somewhere between zero and “I guess I’ll park in a farther spot at the office park today.” The reality is that a day like this exists because we have spent the last 75 years, or even longer, making it exceedingly difficult to navigate our cities without a car. So it is equal to, “let me speak out of the other side of my mouth for a day.”

  But we also know that a real and meaningful solution is pretty simple to achieve (though clearly not easy). Build smaller streets and build more densely, especially next to transit. (Would you add anything to this?) So I think it’s time for a new kind of national day. Maybe it’s a day where every dense development proposal next to transit just gets automatically approved. It would be a national day for “this took too long, so here you go.”

  I don’t know, this probably needs some work. I’m open to other ideas here.

  2023.04.07

• A small subset of Parisians really don’t like shared electric scooters

  So Sunday came and went and Parisians voted overwhelmingly to ban shared electric scooters in the capital. Of those who voted, 89.03% were against them. And this, to be honest, is not all that surprising. Also not surprising is the low voter turnout (7.46% of 1.3 million registered voters).

  But I do think it raises important questions about this “democratic” process — and not just because I happen to like electric scooters. One problem is that there’s an inherent bias. And this same phenomenon can be found in community meetings for new developments.

  If you’re upset about something (and you have the time), then you are probably more intrinsically motivated to participate. In other words, if you think that electric scooters are a horrible nuisance, then you’re more likely to take the time to say something about them. But if you think electric scooters are just, like, fine, then you’re probably less motivated to go out and vote.

  Maybe this doesn’t matter. Maybe the turnout percentage itself is the answer you’re looking for. Only 7.46% of registered voters cared enough about electric scooters to voice an opinion. So if the rest actually liked them, it’s their problem for not voting.

  But if you think that this percentage should be higher to be more representative, then one solution is to try and reduce the barriers to participation. And I think there’s an argument to be made that something as dumb as a Twitter poll, open only to Parisians, might have been more inclusive.

  2023.04.04

• The case for above-grade parking

  This is an oversimplification that won’t apply to all markets, but typically the decision tree for urban parking looks something like this:

  • Do I need to build parking?
  • If no, great. That’s ideal!
  • If yes, how many levels of below-grade will I need?
  • If below-grade parking doesn’t work because it’s either too expensive or because the soil is bad, try above-grade parking.
  • And if above grade, how can I “wrap it” with occupiable space or, at the very least, treat it in such a way that it doesn’t look ugly and the city doesn’t get mad at me?

  What I’m getting at with this is that above-grade parking is generally frowned upon. It is done in lots of places, like in Miami where you can’t go underground, but if you ask your average urbanist they will probably tell you that above-grade parking is ugly and that said ugliness should be mitigated to the fullest extent possible.

  

  But here’s a counter argument. Let’s assume that we believe any one of the following:

  • We should design new buildings to be adaptable (i.e. easily convertible to other uses in the future)
  • We should design and build in a way that reduces carbon to a minimum
  • Lower construction costs are good for end-users of space
  • In the future, people will be less, as opposed to more, reliant on privately owned cars

  In this case, the ideal solution is actually “unwrapped” above-grade parking. It’s less intensive to build, and both below-grade parking and wrapped above-grade parking result in large windowless spaces with very little utility other than for storing inanimate objects. Your options are parking, self-storage, and maybe a large gym for people who don’t like natural light.

  

  Judging by the above poll, which was still in progress at the time of writing this post, this is not how most people think about urban parking. But I think it’s time we start changing the discussion.

  2023.04.03

• US public transit ridership since March 2020

  

  Consider the following stat: 65% of all transit trips across the US in 2019 came from just 6 metro areas: New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia. Not surprisingly, these are all places with dense and walkable urban centers. In other words, they have built environments that are conducive to the use of public transportation.

  While we know that more people working from home has been bad for transit and that agencies across the world are facing deep holes in their budget, I continue to come back to two things. One, we have not yet reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. We are still making our way back to the office. And two, the single most important thing when it comes to transit ridership is land use.

  If we want more people to take transit, then we need to build our cities accordingly. That means streets people actually want to walk on, and a lot more density.

  2023.03.31

• Should Paris ban electric scooters?

  This Sunday, Paris will be hosting an important referendum that has nothing to do with France’s retirement age. The question is whether shared electric scooters should be banned citywide. And while there are concerns about whether this single-question referendum will draw many people out to vote, the city has said that, whatever the outcome, the results will be binding.

  To be clear, this would only apply to the three micromobility rental companies that operate in the capital: Lime, Dott, and Tier. It would not apply to privately-owned scooters, of which there are many. In fact, France might just be one of the scooter capitals of the world. Over 900,000 scooters were purchased across France in 2021, and last year the number was about 759,000.

  Mayor Anne Hidalgo has publicly said that she thinks these scooters should be banned. But does that really solve things given the number of private scooters in circulation? And are the current problems truly ones we can’t solve? As I have said many times before, I like scooters. I like them a lot. They’re convenient and fun to ride, and I see their value in helping to solve the last-mile problem.

  I also can’t help but think back to the early 1900s when cars were just starting to infiltrate our cities and there were absolutely no traffic regulations to think of. It was chaos, it was dangerous, and I’m sure it was similarly divisive at the time. So should we have banned them and stuck with horses? Hmm. Maybe.

  2023.03.30

• How to spend city money

  This is an intriguing idea:

  Many cities around the world practice some form of participatory budgeting, but even among those that do, Cascais [Portugal] is an outlier. It spends prodigiously through the system: in Paris, five per cent of the city’s annual investment budget has been allocated to participatory projects in recent years, but in Cascais, more than fifteen per cent of the budget flows through the program, and the percentage can float higher if voter turnout rises. Cascais is surprising in another way: its mayor, Carlos Carreiras, is both a champion of participatory budgeting and a member of a center-right political party. Participatory budgeting is often considered a tool of the left, but its role in Cascais suggests that it could have a broader appeal; part of the theory behind it is that citizens can be better than officials at knowing how money should be spent.

  Of course, it won’t solve all of our problems:

  Even in the best of circumstances, participatory budgeting faces some structural limitations. Citizens can’t use it to raise the minimum wage, for instance, or to reconfigure affordable-housing policy, or to ban single-use plastics. As it stands, the approach “will never change the destiny of a poor neighborhood,” Giovanni Allegretti, a senior researcher at the Centre for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra, told me. Allegretti noted that participatory budgeting is mainly a competitive process involving limited resources with no long-term strategy; it doesn’t eliminate the need for other policy interventions. But when it functions effectively, participatory budgeting can give direct political power to those who might otherwise have very little of it.

  There is something very compelling about empowering people to come up with new ideas, compete with others for the best ones, and then participate in public decisions. It also strikes me as a possibly efficient way to force: “We only have this much money to spend. What should we spend it on? Spending on this means not spending on that. Time to make a decision.”

  And now it has me wondering: If we asked Toronto whether it wanted to spend over $1 billion to rebuild the Gardiner Expressway east or spend it on other things, what do you think it would say?

  For the rest of the above article, click here.

  2023.03.28

• Peaks and plains

  

  On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how “Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses” and how this has resulted in an “uneven city.” The second article, this opinion piece, is about the “many repercussions to replacing little bungalows.” And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.

  In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise — but also far denser on average than Toronto — we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you’ll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.

  All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.

  Photo by Jackson Case on Unsplash

  2023.03.26

• Population density map of the world

  

  I came across this interactive world population density map over the weekend and I immediately thought to myself, “this is going on the blog.” It uses data from the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL) produced by the European Commission and by CIESIN (super long name) at Columbia University. And it’s a fascinating way to explore how our world is urbanizing.

  

  What you will want to do is make sure that you head over to China and check out regions like the Yangtze River Delta (shown above). If you hover over a location, it will also bring up a graph and table showing you how that place has evolved from 1975 to 2015. Note: Shanghai’s peak population density in 2015 was 104,400 people per square kilometer!

  2023.03.20

• No sidewalks — feature or bug?

  

  I tweeted the above photo on Saturday morning with the following text: “No sidewalks. Towers in the distance. Welcome to the inner suburbs of Toronto.” What I, of course, wanted to highlight is the contrast between the rural-like street with no sidewalks in the foreground, and the high-density towers built on top of Kipling subway station in the background. It is a perfect example of the kind of Toronto we are building, by design, all across the city. And it also exemplifies one of our great philosophical divides.

  If you look at the responses on Twitter, you’ll see that there are a few opinions. Generally speaking, though, there are probably two main ways to think about this scene. One way is to look at the transit-oriented housing and think of it as urban progress. We are adding new housing and we are doing it in a way that hopefully results in more walkable communities. With this in mind, you might now see the three humans on the street (one of which is in a stroller) and think it’s a shame that they have been forced to walk on the road.

  The other main way to look at this is that not having sidewalks is actually a feature and not a bug (indeed, a lack of sidewalks can be a pretty good indicator for rich people/wealthy households). From this lens, not having sidewalks means uninterrupted driveways (more parking), less through foot traffic, and a more quaint small-town feel. Also with this lens might be a view that the rural-like street was there first, before the transit-oriented towers. And it was doing just fine before people like me drove through their neighborhood and pointed out the lack of sidewalks.

  How do you see this scene?

  2023.03.19