Category: Urbanism

• Le Pen’s voter base: France’s poor rural drivers

  The presidential election that is underway right now in France is playing out exactly as one might imagine. The first round of votes took place on April 10, and the second and final round — which is now between Macron and Le Pen — will take place on April 24.

  How people voted in the first round can be mostly explained by geography. If you live in an urban center, an attractive tourist center, or have reasonably good rail connectivity to either of these two kinds of places, you likely voted for Macron.

  On the other hand, if you live in a poorer rural area, you were more likely to vote for Le Pen. Our spiky unequal world remains, even in France, where more wealth tends to be redistributed compared to places like the UK and the US.

  But there’s another potentially correlative factor that should interest readers of this blog (even if it is somewhat obvious). If you voted for Macron in the first round, you were also less likely to rely on a car to get to work. Here are two charts from the Financial Times:

  

  This point is perhaps obvious because geography and built form largely determine whether or not you want/need to drive. And the way to not drive is to live in a dense city. But I think it’s also a useful reminder that owning a car does not necessarily need to correlate with high economic status.

  In fact, when I look at these charts, not having to drive to work feels like a good thing.

  2022.04.15

• Three in four Americans believe it’s better for the environment if houses are built farther apart

  Living in a low-density place with lots of greenery and open space can feel like a pretty “green” way to live. Maybe you’ve even got a little garden where you grow delicious tomatoes. And indeed, a lot of people seem to think this is the case. According to this recent YouGov poll (which surveyed 1,000 Americans), 75% of US adult citizens believe that “it’s better for the environment if houses are built farther apart.” The number drops slightly to 68% for Democrats, but we’re still talking about a clear majority.

  

  Most experts will tell you that the opposite is, in fact, true. One of the best ways to be green is to live in a high-density urban setting and get as far away as you can from the natural environment so that you don’t screw it up. There are multiple reasons for this, but it generally comes down to the fact that cities use land and other resources far more efficiently on a per capita basis. Smaller living spaces, fewer cars, more things that are shared, and so on.

  The reason why this isn’t so obvious is that per capita thinking is perhaps harder to grasp. Living in the countryside certainly feels more green than living in the middle of New York City. But what if the 8.5 million or so people in New York City suddenly decided to sprawl outward into the countryside to consume more housing (that would then need to be heated and cooled), and then started driving everywhere (in lieu of taking transit, cycling, and walking)?

  This would be a less green outcome. It’s about the collective here, not what feels nice and green for any one individual.

  2022.04.14

• Forget infill development, why not just build entirely new cities?

  

  We talk a lot on this blog about how best to intensify and add housing to our existing cities. But here’s alternative approach: Why not just built entirely new cities? This way you don’t have to worry about fixing any of the things that are currently broken in our existing cities or worry about messy things like community engagement.

  Now, I disagree with many, or perhaps most, of the points that Nathan J. Robinson puts forward in the above Current Affairs article, but I think this is an interesting question to unpack. Robinson’s argument is that the main obstacle for building new cities in the US is ideological rather than technological. You need a bit more central government planning if you’re going to pull off a completely new urban center. And that’s not how things are generally done in the US.

  However, I think the real problem is that cities have powerful network effects that encourage centralization (even if some people are working from home). It’s easy to look at a large country like Canada and say to yourself, “but look at all that empty land. How could we possibly have a housing shortage?” The reality is that most of our land is empty and cheap because it has little value. The jobs are in our cities and that’s why Canada is a largely urban country.

  Indeed, this is how most cities have emerged historically. They start with some sort of economic purpose, be it an important trade route, access to resources, or some other driver of prosperity. It is for this reason that urbanists like Alain Bertaud will tell you that, typically, urban infrastructure follows the market, and not the other way around. Because who wants to live in a city with nice infrastructure but no jobs? More importantly, how long can a city without a strong economic purpose even last?

  Take for example Delhi. By 2030, Delhi is expected to be the largest city in the world. This has made it exceedingly difficult for the city to build enough new housing. So government there has been focusing on building new cities on the outskirts surrounding Delhi. These cities are referred to as “counter magnets”, and their purpose is to intercept and literally attract new migrants before they reach Delhi, thereby relieving some of the urban pressures on the capital.

  The fact that these cities are referred to as “counter magnets” speaks to exactly my point about centralization. It is recognition that Delhi is by far the biggest urban magnet. Because of this, these satellite cities haven’t been as successful as everyone had initially hoped. Migrants seem to still want Delhi. You can build new housing, but without jobs and economic opportunity, people will continue to flock to the biggest urban magnets.

  So sooner or later, you’ll need to fix what isn’t working.

  Photo by Ravi Sharma on Unsplash

  2022.04.09

• The infamous 45-degree angular plane

  The Toronto mid-rise housing typology is known for architectural forms that often end up looking something like this:

  On what planet would a city want to build accordions around the neighbourhood? pic.twitter.com/LtWgTNKreM

  — Jeremiah Shamess | Toronto Land & Building Sales (@JShamess) March 9, 2022

  The reason for this is the infamous “45-degree angular plane” that gets applied when new developments abut low-rise residential neighborhoods. It is a way to transition down and mitigate some of the impacts associated with this kind of infill development — usually the concerns are overlook, privacy, and shadowing.

  These are, of course, legitimate concerns. But here’s the other side: Should we really be reducing the number of homes that we can build on our main streets by carving away area like this? Is overlook and shadowing more important than additional housing? Stepping buildings like this also makes constructing them more expensive and cumbersome. Are higher costs the goal?

  It is for reasons like these that some people have been paying attention to the new Danforth Avenue Planning Study that went to Toronto City Council this week. Among other things, the study recommended the relaxation of the 45-degree angular plane standard along a portion of the Danforth.

  This is certainly a step in the right direction. But in my humble opinion, it’s not nearly enough for an area that will ultimately sit at the intersection of two subway lines.

  2022.04.07

• [Video] Are NIMBYs selfish?

  Peter Baugh tweeted this out on Monday. Essentially, he attended a community meeting for a new housing project in his neighborhood. He spoke in favor of the proposed development. And was then accused of being a developer shill. His comments were subsequently no longer allowed at this “public” meeting. I mean, how could anyone possibly be in favor of new urban housing? Surely he must be a developer “plant.”

  This is wrong, disappointing, and a whole host of other unsightly things. So today I thought I would share a recent City Beautiful video that asks: “Are NIMBYs selfish?” I have shared Dave Amos’ videos before. He’s an assistant professor of city planning at Cal Poly and a well known YouTuber. And I think this video does a great job explaining some of the tensions and trade-offs at play when it comes to development, particularly infill development.

  But as Dave clearly explains in the video, he is not a neutral actor when it comes to this topic. His view is that, yes, NIMBYs are selfish.

  2022.04.05

• Destructive development?

  I have many words, none of them suitable here. pic.twitter.com/at6cVQq7jU

  — Sean Hertel (@Sean_Hertel) April 2, 2022

  Planner Sean Hertel shared this (embedded above) on Twitter over the weekend. It is a lawn sign from Toronto’s Junction neighborhood that is calling for a stop to demolishing family houses for high rises.

  From what I can tell, this law sign is trying to communicate a few key messages.

  One, high-rises are monstrous beings that enjoy praying on innocent low-rise houses and squashing them with their feet, and sometimes their asymmetric hands.

  Two, it is mostly impossible to conceive of a world in Toronto where families live in high-rises and don’t live in grade-related housing with a backyard.

  And three, there is little value in building more, rather than less, housing in order to help with affordability concerns. Perhaps the thinking is that it needs to be low-rise affordable housing, or nothing.

  With all of this said, let’s do a little thought exercise today on the blog.

  Let’s for a second assume that there aren’t any high-rises proposed in the Junction; only European-scaled mid-rise buildings that sit on the area’s main avenues and back onto low-rise single-family neighborhoods. Let’s also assume that these buildings will be sculpted in complete deference to their rear neighbors so that things like shadows are minimized.

  Let’s assume that more housing is better than less housing.

  Finally, let’s assume that, get this, noble families may actually be able to live in mid-rise and high-rise buildings. And that there are already many successful examples of this taking place in the city, such as over here in CityPlace.

  What key messages would this lawn sign be then communicating?

  2022.04.03

• Toronto breaks ground on new Ontario Line

  

  

  This past weekend it was announced that ground has been broken (i.e. construction has started) on the new Ontario subway line that will connect Exhibition / Ontario Place to the Science Centre by way of the light purple line labeled “C” on the above map. (The other image is a rendering of the proposed Exhibition station.)

  This transit line has gone through many permutations over the years and was previously called the Downtown Relief Line (but that was seen as too downtown-centric); the Yonge Relief Line (still too specific); the Relief Line (not Ontario-specific enough, I guess); and probably a bunch of other names corresponding to various lines on a map.

  So it is exceedingly easy to be cynical when you hear of an announcement like this. Is it really happening? Are we actually building new and much-needed transit? And as you might imagine, if you read through the chatter on Twitter, you will find an overabundance of this sort of cynicism, along with what appears to be a general dissatisfaction with the current state of everything.

  But in my simple view, I reckon that it is far better to be starting construction on an important new transit line than not starting construction on an important new transit line. So this is exciting! Let’s go! If you’d like to learn more, I also tweeted out the initial renderings for the 14 stations that are planned for the Ontario Line.

  Images: Province of Ontario

  2022.03.27

• Toronto should light the underside of the elevated Gardiner Expressway

  Back when Toronto was debating the future of the eastern portion of the elevated Gardiner Expressway, I was an annoying and vocal supporter of tearing it down and replacing it with an at-grade boulevard. I was blogging about it ad nauseam. I participated in Jane’s Walks where I spoke about the merits of removal. And I even created a petition that went to City Council the day the decision was being made.

  But throughout all of this, I felt like I was in the minority. Most people said I was crazy (though former mayor John Sewell agreed with me). How will people and services get to downtown Toronto? This is critical infrastructure, they said. And indeed, Toronto voted not to remove it.

  Whatever you feel was the right decision at the time, that ship has sailed. We tore down a leg of the Gardiner east of the Don River, at that was positive; but the rest of it is either staying intact or being relocated. In both cases, it will be elevated.

  But I believe in looking forward, not backwards. And so with that, I think we should be doing everything we can urbanistically to make the Gardiner as nice as it can be. It is for this reason that I think The Bentway is an extraordinarily important project. And it is for this reason that I wish we would light the underside of the Gardiner so that when you’re driving on Lake Shore it makes you feel happy.

  We should light the underside of the Gardiner so that when you’re on Lake Shore it’s less depressing. pic.twitter.com/qT6xVUOw2q

  — Brandon Donnelly (@donnelly_b) March 19, 2022

  A good example of this in action is the Yan’an Elevated Highway in Shanghai (greenery, of course, also helps):

  View this post on Instagram

  A post shared by Luca Fugazza (@lucafugazza)

  https://www.instagram.com/p/BzvTmo3nN2J/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

  Relevant scene from Skyfall (James Bond):

  But let me be clear before my inbox lights on fire: I am not suggesting that this is an approach to urbanism that is in any way desirable or worth emulating. I am not advocating for elevated highways running through the middle of dense downtowns and walkable city centers. All I am saying is that if we are stuck with something as dreary and as utilitarian as the Gardiner Expressway, the least we can do is make it kind of cool. And lighting can be a relatively cost effective way of doing that.

  2022.03.19

• High-rise urban families in Toronto’s CityPlace

  The narrative in this fairly recent FastCompany article about Toronto’s CityPlace neighborhood is that the area was initially planned and built for young professionals who wanted to be close to work and party. But that it has since evolved to become a more mixed residential community. Over time, the young professionals started having children and now the area is filled with a surprising number of urban families. “Hundreds” according to FastCompany. In response to this shifting demographic, the Canoe Landing Campus was recently completed, containing a community center, two public schools, a public park, and childcare facilities. And apparently it was long overdue.

  This is interesting for a few reasons. CityPlace has long been criticized for its planning. Local Toronto lore has been that the area was destined to become a slum. But is that actually playing out? Anecdotally, it would seem that families are sticking around (and being attracted to the area) and that it’s settling in nicely as an urban residential community. In fact, I wonder if CityPlace might be emerging as one of the areas in the city with the highest concentration of high-rise urban families. I quickly tried to find some data on this but couldn’t.

  Something else worth pointing out: One of the objections that you’ll often here when it comes to new development is that there isn’t the infrastructure in place to support it. Where are the schools? Where are the community centers? And where are the hipster coffee shops? Because without these invaluable things, development should be stopped immediately. Now I’m not suggesting that these things aren’t important. But the CityPlace example is yet another reminder that cities and neighborhoods evolve — often in fortuitous ways. The best city building is nimble and entrepreneurial.

  2022.03.16

• Where US students want to live after college

  

  Axios and Generation Lab have something new called the Next Cities Index. The goal is to track US work and culture trends through people’s geographic preferences. For their first cities index, they asked over 2,100 students in the US, on two separate occasions, the following question: “Considering all factors that matter to you, where would you most like to live after college?”

  The aggregate answer to this question is shown above. But they also collected people’s incomes (anticipated since they’re students?), political affiliations, and gender. The list of cities changes slightly when you sort based on these different factors, but not by much. Seattle, New York, and Los Angeles remain top cities — at least in people’s minds.

  It is, however, interesting to note that about 45% of respondents had different answers to where they want to live and where they think they will live. For a number of reasons, the city of people’s dreams isn’t often a practical or realistic choice it would seem. Still, wanting a particular place still tells you certain things I suppose.

  Given all the chatter over this pandemic, I would have thought that Miami would have appeared higher up on this want list.

  Chart: Axios/Generation Lab

  2022.03.14