The distance between Chicago and Quebec City is roughly 1,000 miles (or 1,609 km). There are 6 major cities and a population of over 25 million people. You have the 4th and 5th largest cities in North America (Chicago and Toronto); the largest city in Canada; the capital of Canada; 2 different languages; 2 different countries; and 5 different states/provinces.

Now imagine if all of these 6 cities—Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City—were effortlessly connected through a high speed rail network, allowing you to travel from one end to the other in just over 5 hours. How would that impact the movement of people, goods and services across the region? How would it change our economies if you could wake up in Detroit and, without any lead time, travel 1 hour and 15 minutes to Toronto for a meeting?

This morning I was reading about an anti-development activist group in Vancouver that’s trying to fight the Bjarke Ingels designed Beach and Howe Tower.

Here’s a “rendering” of the project that the group is using to galvanize the community:

And here’s an official rendering of the project:

I’ve seen this tactic used before here in Toronto for the Minto Midtown towers at Yonge & Eglinton. These were highly controversial towers and someone in the community created a depiction showing 2 large monolithic black towers (meant to represent the TD Towers downtown).

Now, I’ll be the first to say that renderings are abused from both sides of the table. Developers obviously want to represent their projects in the best possible light and upset communities try and do the exact opposite. But where I do become concerned is when communities start to form opinions and make decisions based on rumours and rhetoric, rather than fact. 

We should be having intelligent conversations about the future of our neighbourhoods and communities. And I think the best way to do that—as well as to counteract potentially unnecessary NIBYMism—is to ensure that the correct information is out there and that it’s widely accessible. Transparency is king. This often scares developers, but I believe that the benefits of openness greatly outweigh the negatives. 

Full disclosure: I’m a big fan of architect Bjarke Ingels. I’m openly jealous that Vancouver could be getting one of his designs before Toronto does.

The distance between Chicago and Quebec City is roughly 1,000 miles (or 1,609 km). There are 6 major cities and a population of over 25 million people. You have the 4th and 5th largest cities in North America (Chicago and Toronto); the largest city in Canada; the capital of Canada; 2 different languages; 2 different countries; and 5 different states/provinces.

Now imagine if all of these 6 cities—Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City—were effortlessly connected through a high speed rail network, allowing you to travel from one end to the other in just over 5 hours. How would that impact the movement of people, goods and services across the region? How would it change our economies if you could wake up in Detroit and, without any lead time, travel 1 hour and 15 minutes to Toronto for a meeting?

This morning I was reading about an anti-development activist group in Vancouver that’s trying to fight the Bjarke Ingels designed Beach and Howe Tower.

Here’s a “rendering” of the project that the group is using to galvanize the community:

And here’s an official rendering of the project:

I’ve seen this tactic used before here in Toronto for the Minto Midtown towers at Yonge & Eglinton. These were highly controversial towers and someone in the community created a depiction showing 2 large monolithic black towers (meant to represent the TD Towers downtown).

Now, I’ll be the first to say that renderings are abused from both sides of the table. Developers obviously want to represent their projects in the best possible light and upset communities try and do the exact opposite. But where I do become concerned is when communities start to form opinions and make decisions based on rumours and rhetoric, rather than fact. 

We should be having intelligent conversations about the future of our neighbourhoods and communities. And I think the best way to do that—as well as to counteract potentially unnecessary NIBYMism—is to ensure that the correct information is out there and that it’s widely accessible. Transparency is king. This often scares developers, but I believe that the benefits of openness greatly outweigh the negatives. 

Full disclosure: I’m a big fan of architect Bjarke Ingels. I’m openly jealous that Vancouver could be getting one of his designs before Toronto does.