Next to the St. Lawrence Market (here in Toronto) is an appropriately named street called Market Street. It is a lovely street -- perhaps one of the nicest in the city. It's old and historic and it was completely redone several years ago (evidence here) with nice unit pavers, bollards, a curbless design, and seasonal restaurant patios.
In the winter months, the restaurant patios are packed up and additional parking is added to that side of the street. It was designed to be adaptable and in my experience it seems to be working quite well.
Right now the local Business Improvement Area is running a pilot project to see what this street might be like if it were to be pedestrianized. It was closed to vehicles this past weekend and the same will happen this upcoming weekend. Here's a photo of what that looked like on Saturday:
It's not perfect. A number of people commented on Twitter that the seating needs some shade. But hey, it's a pilot project. It is about giving people a taste of what the future could be.
I am a fan of pedestrianized streets in the right locations and when executed well. And I think this stretch of Market Street is a perfect candidate. It's already pedestrian-only to the north of Front Street and it has the right kind of "edges" to ensure that it can be properly animated.
If you feel the same way, I would encourage you to fill out this short survey that the St. Lawrence BIA has put out. I would also be curious to hear your thoughts on pedestrianized streets in general. Leave a comment below.
The North American rule of thumb is that young people -- specifically people in their 20s -- are the most likely to to live in an urban neighborhood. After that it's all down hill and, broadly speaking, the percentages decline. But at some point, much later in life, the data suggests that there is a reversal and people start to return to urban neighborhoods, albeit not to the same extent. Part of the explanation for this is that as people age they start to look to more walkable neighborhoods where they don't need to get a car to get around.
But in this recent NY Times article, Jed Kolko points out two interesting trends. One, the "urban boomer" appears to be on the decline in the US. In 1990, about 21.6% of Americans aged 54 to 72 lived in an urban neighborhood (categorized by density). As of 2018, this number had dropped to around 17.8%. And two, the age at which there is a reversal (and people start returning to denser neighborhoods) is also increasing. Perhaps because people are living longer.
Jed's conclusion: American boomers, today, are actually less urban than previous generations.
Graph: New York Times
Last night I was in CityPlace, West Palm Beach. Completed in 2000, CityPlace is a quintessential example of New Urbanism. (For those of you from Toronto, this is a different kind of a CityPlace.)
In case you’re unfamiliar with this movement, here’s a snippet from The Charter of New Urbanism (via Wikipedia):
“We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.”
At a high level, New Urbanism makes a lot of sense. American cities were sprawling uncontrollably and so advocates had decided that something had to change. The Congress for New Urbanism was founded in 1993.
But the New Urbanism movement has had its share of critics. Here’s how Witold Rybczynski – professor at the University of Pennsylvania – talked about it on his blog:
“What are the important ideas that have affected American cities in the last 20 years? The development of waterfronts. The renaissance in constructing urban parks. The move of genXers and retirees into downtowns. High-rise urban living and Vancouverism. The popularity of urban bicycling and bike-rental programs. Ditto for Zipcars. Urban farmers markets and community gardens. Urban charter schools. The dramatic expansion in attendance of urban cultural institutions, especially art museums. Urban tourism. Downtown trophy buildings. The emergence of influential big-city mayors. Have any of these been the result of the new urbanism movement?”
Frankly, I have never been a big follower of New Urbanism. It has always felt artificial to me. But I recognize the immense challenge in transforming car-oriented cities and communities into walkable ones. It’s one of the greatest challenges in city building. You’re asking people to change their habits.
If any of you are experts on New Urbanism (because I am certainly not), I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.
Next to the St. Lawrence Market (here in Toronto) is an appropriately named street called Market Street. It is a lovely street -- perhaps one of the nicest in the city. It's old and historic and it was completely redone several years ago (evidence here) with nice unit pavers, bollards, a curbless design, and seasonal restaurant patios.
In the winter months, the restaurant patios are packed up and additional parking is added to that side of the street. It was designed to be adaptable and in my experience it seems to be working quite well.
Right now the local Business Improvement Area is running a pilot project to see what this street might be like if it were to be pedestrianized. It was closed to vehicles this past weekend and the same will happen this upcoming weekend. Here's a photo of what that looked like on Saturday:
It's not perfect. A number of people commented on Twitter that the seating needs some shade. But hey, it's a pilot project. It is about giving people a taste of what the future could be.
I am a fan of pedestrianized streets in the right locations and when executed well. And I think this stretch of Market Street is a perfect candidate. It's already pedestrian-only to the north of Front Street and it has the right kind of "edges" to ensure that it can be properly animated.
If you feel the same way, I would encourage you to fill out this short survey that the St. Lawrence BIA has put out. I would also be curious to hear your thoughts on pedestrianized streets in general. Leave a comment below.
The North American rule of thumb is that young people -- specifically people in their 20s -- are the most likely to to live in an urban neighborhood. After that it's all down hill and, broadly speaking, the percentages decline. But at some point, much later in life, the data suggests that there is a reversal and people start to return to urban neighborhoods, albeit not to the same extent. Part of the explanation for this is that as people age they start to look to more walkable neighborhoods where they don't need to get a car to get around.
But in this recent NY Times article, Jed Kolko points out two interesting trends. One, the "urban boomer" appears to be on the decline in the US. In 1990, about 21.6% of Americans aged 54 to 72 lived in an urban neighborhood (categorized by density). As of 2018, this number had dropped to around 17.8%. And two, the age at which there is a reversal (and people start returning to denser neighborhoods) is also increasing. Perhaps because people are living longer.
Jed's conclusion: American boomers, today, are actually less urban than previous generations.
Graph: New York Times
Last night I was in CityPlace, West Palm Beach. Completed in 2000, CityPlace is a quintessential example of New Urbanism. (For those of you from Toronto, this is a different kind of a CityPlace.)
In case you’re unfamiliar with this movement, here’s a snippet from The Charter of New Urbanism (via Wikipedia):
“We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.”
At a high level, New Urbanism makes a lot of sense. American cities were sprawling uncontrollably and so advocates had decided that something had to change. The Congress for New Urbanism was founded in 1993.
But the New Urbanism movement has had its share of critics. Here’s how Witold Rybczynski – professor at the University of Pennsylvania – talked about it on his blog:
“What are the important ideas that have affected American cities in the last 20 years? The development of waterfronts. The renaissance in constructing urban parks. The move of genXers and retirees into downtowns. High-rise urban living and Vancouverism. The popularity of urban bicycling and bike-rental programs. Ditto for Zipcars. Urban farmers markets and community gardens. Urban charter schools. The dramatic expansion in attendance of urban cultural institutions, especially art museums. Urban tourism. Downtown trophy buildings. The emergence of influential big-city mayors. Have any of these been the result of the new urbanism movement?”
Frankly, I have never been a big follower of New Urbanism. It has always felt artificial to me. But I recognize the immense challenge in transforming car-oriented cities and communities into walkable ones. It’s one of the greatest challenges in city building. You’re asking people to change their habits.
If any of you are experts on New Urbanism (because I am certainly not), I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog