Tim Hortons is a popular coffee chain in Canada (and elsewhere in the world). And every year, similar to other coffee chains, they adopt special Christmas/holiday cups. In the early 2000s, the designs they used were from an illustrator by the name of Gary Alphonso. His work can be found, over here. Today, his cups and other packaging designs are considered vintage. And so if you search online, I'm sure you can find someone reselling them.
Here's what the cups look liked:
And here's what this illustration looks like unrolled:
It's a romantic notion of winter. There's kids making a snowman. People skiing and walking with snowboards. People drinking beverages (presumably from the nearby Tim Hortons) while being pulled on horse-drawn sleighs in a large public space. And in the background, there's a mixed-used main street with Tim Hortons naturally at the center of it. It's a kind of ideal winter moment. But to what extent is this a fantasy?
According to the 2021 Canadian Census, approximately 78.4% of the Canadian population living in our 11 largest CMAs (census metropolitan areas) lived in a suburb. Only about 21.6% lived in an urban core (either a downtown or an inner ring). So for the majority of Canadians, it is statistically probable that this an uncommon winter scene (never mind, for a second, the horses and stuff). A more likely scenario might be a suburban Tim Hortons with a drive-thru window.
I find this ironic. I find it ironic that the places we yearn to visit on vacation and the places we romanticize on coffee cups tend to be different than the ones that the majority of Canadians choose to live in. In fact, if you ask people across North America (this is a survey covering the US), the majority often say that they would prefer to live in a community where the houses are further apart and where you need to travel/drive to things.
Is it because we all just like fantasies on our coffee cups, or could it be that we've simply forgotten how to build walkable mixed-use communities?
Images by Gary Alphonso via i2i Art
We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.
At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it's to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.
Which is probably why there's a growing interest in building more of it. Here's a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here's a photo of Culdesac's new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn't look like the Arizona I know):
According to this recent report by Smart Growth America, which looked at "walkable urbanism" in the largest 35 metro areas in the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, built out in this way. Everything else needs to be driven.
But here's the thing. Humans seem to really enjoy walkable urbanism, and will usually pay more for it:
City dwellers will pay to live in a walkable location. Real estate in these areas averages a 34% price premium per square foot in for-sale housing and 41% for multifamily rental apartments.
It also, by definition, punches above its weight:
Walkable neighborhoods in just those 35 metro areas account for 19.1% of the total US real GDP and 6.8% of the total US population, by the researchers’ calculations.
That's how density works. You get to do more, with less.
At the same time, not every place should be Midtown Manhattan (which the report labels as the highest walkable urban place with a floor area ratio of 40). There are a wide range of densities that will work, including modest ones (FARs between 1-3).
Here in Toronto, many of our single-family home neighborhoods have densities that are zoned for a maximum FAR of 0.6, which is quite restrictive if you're hoping to build something like a multi-unit building.
This is, of course, the point. But imagine what all could be done here with even an incremental change.
Tim Hortons is a popular coffee chain in Canada (and elsewhere in the world). And every year, similar to other coffee chains, they adopt special Christmas/holiday cups. In the early 2000s, the designs they used were from an illustrator by the name of Gary Alphonso. His work can be found, over here. Today, his cups and other packaging designs are considered vintage. And so if you search online, I'm sure you can find someone reselling them.
Here's what the cups look liked:
And here's what this illustration looks like unrolled:
It's a romantic notion of winter. There's kids making a snowman. People skiing and walking with snowboards. People drinking beverages (presumably from the nearby Tim Hortons) while being pulled on horse-drawn sleighs in a large public space. And in the background, there's a mixed-used main street with Tim Hortons naturally at the center of it. It's a kind of ideal winter moment. But to what extent is this a fantasy?
According to the 2021 Canadian Census, approximately 78.4% of the Canadian population living in our 11 largest CMAs (census metropolitan areas) lived in a suburb. Only about 21.6% lived in an urban core (either a downtown or an inner ring). So for the majority of Canadians, it is statistically probable that this an uncommon winter scene (never mind, for a second, the horses and stuff). A more likely scenario might be a suburban Tim Hortons with a drive-thru window.
I find this ironic. I find it ironic that the places we yearn to visit on vacation and the places we romanticize on coffee cups tend to be different than the ones that the majority of Canadians choose to live in. In fact, if you ask people across North America (this is a survey covering the US), the majority often say that they would prefer to live in a community where the houses are further apart and where you need to travel/drive to things.
Is it because we all just like fantasies on our coffee cups, or could it be that we've simply forgotten how to build walkable mixed-use communities?
Images by Gary Alphonso via i2i Art
We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.
At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it's to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.
Which is probably why there's a growing interest in building more of it. Here's a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here's a photo of Culdesac's new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn't look like the Arizona I know):
According to this recent report by Smart Growth America, which looked at "walkable urbanism" in the largest 35 metro areas in the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, built out in this way. Everything else needs to be driven.
But here's the thing. Humans seem to really enjoy walkable urbanism, and will usually pay more for it:
City dwellers will pay to live in a walkable location. Real estate in these areas averages a 34% price premium per square foot in for-sale housing and 41% for multifamily rental apartments.
It also, by definition, punches above its weight:
Walkable neighborhoods in just those 35 metro areas account for 19.1% of the total US real GDP and 6.8% of the total US population, by the researchers’ calculations.
That's how density works. You get to do more, with less.
At the same time, not every place should be Midtown Manhattan (which the report labels as the highest walkable urban place with a floor area ratio of 40). There are a wide range of densities that will work, including modest ones (FARs between 1-3).
Here in Toronto, many of our single-family home neighborhoods have densities that are zoned for a maximum FAR of 0.6, which is quite restrictive if you're hoping to build something like a multi-unit building.
This is, of course, the point. But imagine what all could be done here with even an incremental change.
But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:
“Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”
This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.
I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.
However, it's going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating "walkable archipelagos" or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we'll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.
But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:
“Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”
This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.
I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.
However, it's going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating "walkable archipelagos" or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we'll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
