A couple of months ago I had coffee with an urban planner who had recently relocated from the Bay Area back to Toronto. One of the interesting things that came up during our conversation - that I hadn’t really given a lot of thought to before - was how corporate shuttle buses (from the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook and so on) could be impacting cities.

On the surface, they seem fairly benign. Most of the big tech companies are located outside of San Francisco, but young smart people today like living in cities. So let’s run shuttles buses that take people back and forth. Employees get to live the life they want and employers get broader access to human capital. It seems like a win-win.

But in reality, some argue that these shuttles buses reinforce a powerful trend already plaguing the region: The alienation of non-tech people. George Packer of the New Yorker called the buses "a vivid emblem of the tech boom’s stratifying effect in the Bay Area."

What I wonder though is to what extent these buses are not just an emblem, but an actual driver of stratification and other negative outcomes. The first concern that comes to my mind is the possibility for this to lead to infrastructure disinvestment. Already there seems to be a philosophical divide around transit (see BART strike).

Wired just published an interesting set of maps that try and map “Silicon Valley’s gentrification problem through corporate shuttle routes." They’re worth checking out. It’s also interesting to see how they collected the data; it was a fairly messy process.

We need to stop fixating so much on building height. I think some people believe that there’s a perfect correlation between building height and offensiveness. But in fact, I’ve been offended many a times by fairly squat buildings.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand that height is an important part of urban design. But I’m starting to feel like we’re over emphasizing the importance of height and under estimating the myriad of other factors that constitute great architecture and city building.

Massing is one. And the ground floor is another. Buildings that give nothing back to the street can be a real drain on a city, which is why if you’re trying to build a livable and exciting place where people want to be, you need to get the ground floor right.

It’s important because as a pedestrian, it almost doesn’t matter what the building looks like 500 feet up in the air (unless of course you’re completely bathed in shadow). What matters is what you see right in front of you. The stuff happening on the street.

What I worry about is not all the tall buildings we’re building in Toronto, it’s what we’re doing, or not doing, for our main streets. In some cases, a new development can be a welcome addition to a neighbourhood because it fills in what was previously a void (either physical or psychological).

But in other cases it can be harmful, particularly if we’re destroying small scale retail and replacing it with something that sucks, or worse - nothing at all. So I would encourage you all - real estate folk and citizens - to think more about the ground floor the next time you evaluate a project. It’s an important one.

What does the term “inner city" mean to you?

It’s a loaded term. But probably more so for North Americans than Europeans. For a long time, calling a neighbourhood inner city, was simply a nice way of saying poor. They were the neighbourhoods that people of means left behind when they fled to the suburbs with their cars.

But in today’s world it’s a stale term. So I think it’s about time that we officially retire it from our lexicon. All across North America inner city neighbourhoods - with their historic housing stocks and walkable main streets - have become some of the most desirable places to live. 

Author Alan Ehrenhalt calls this The Great Inversion (title of his book):

"What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place."

A couple of months ago I had coffee with an urban planner who had recently relocated from the Bay Area back to Toronto. One of the interesting things that came up during our conversation - that I hadn’t really given a lot of thought to before - was how corporate shuttle buses (from the likes of Apple, Google, Facebook and so on) could be impacting cities.

On the surface, they seem fairly benign. Most of the big tech companies are located outside of San Francisco, but young smart people today like living in cities. So let’s run shuttles buses that take people back and forth. Employees get to live the life they want and employers get broader access to human capital. It seems like a win-win.

But in reality, some argue that these shuttles buses reinforce a powerful trend already plaguing the region: The alienation of non-tech people. George Packer of the New Yorker called the buses "a vivid emblem of the tech boom’s stratifying effect in the Bay Area."

What I wonder though is to what extent these buses are not just an emblem, but an actual driver of stratification and other negative outcomes. The first concern that comes to my mind is the possibility for this to lead to infrastructure disinvestment. Already there seems to be a philosophical divide around transit (see BART strike).

Wired just published an interesting set of maps that try and map “Silicon Valley’s gentrification problem through corporate shuttle routes." They’re worth checking out. It’s also interesting to see how they collected the data; it was a fairly messy process.

We need to stop fixating so much on building height. I think some people believe that there’s a perfect correlation between building height and offensiveness. But in fact, I’ve been offended many a times by fairly squat buildings.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand that height is an important part of urban design. But I’m starting to feel like we’re over emphasizing the importance of height and under estimating the myriad of other factors that constitute great architecture and city building.

Massing is one. And the ground floor is another. Buildings that give nothing back to the street can be a real drain on a city, which is why if you’re trying to build a livable and exciting place where people want to be, you need to get the ground floor right.

It’s important because as a pedestrian, it almost doesn’t matter what the building looks like 500 feet up in the air (unless of course you’re completely bathed in shadow). What matters is what you see right in front of you. The stuff happening on the street.

What I worry about is not all the tall buildings we’re building in Toronto, it’s what we’re doing, or not doing, for our main streets. In some cases, a new development can be a welcome addition to a neighbourhood because it fills in what was previously a void (either physical or psychological).

But in other cases it can be harmful, particularly if we’re destroying small scale retail and replacing it with something that sucks, or worse - nothing at all. So I would encourage you all - real estate folk and citizens - to think more about the ground floor the next time you evaluate a project. It’s an important one.

What does the term “inner city" mean to you?

It’s a loaded term. But probably more so for North Americans than Europeans. For a long time, calling a neighbourhood inner city, was simply a nice way of saying poor. They were the neighbourhoods that people of means left behind when they fled to the suburbs with their cars.

But in today’s world it’s a stale term. So I think it’s about time that we officially retire it from our lexicon. All across North America inner city neighbourhoods - with their historic housing stocks and walkable main streets - have become some of the most desirable places to live. 

Author Alan Ehrenhalt calls this The Great Inversion (title of his book):

"What we are seeing is a reversal in which the words “inner city,” which a generation ago connoted poverty and slums, [are going to mean] the home of wealthier people and people who have a choice about where they live, and the suburbs are going to be the home of immigrants and poorer people. And Census figures show that that’s taking place."