Bloomberg is running a video series right now called Next Jobs. It is a look at the careers of the future. Episode four is about a vertical farmer named Katie Morich and a startup called Bowery Farming, which does this out of a nondescript building in New Jersey.
The video focuses more on Katie’s life and less on vertical farming. But it did introduce me to Bowery Farming, which I am intrigued by. So I thought I would share both the video and the company. It is a compelling pitch: local production; ideal conditions; no pesticides; and software that optimizes it all.
The big question hovering over this generational transition is all about city-building, and whether increasingly dense metropolitan regions such as Toronto and Vancouver can figure out how to turn all those newly sprouted forests of highrises into true communities that are both affordable and appealing to the wide range of people who call these cities home.
The reality seems to be that more people in this city – out of economic necessity and/or because of a lifestyle preference – are choosing to raise a family in multi-dwelling housing. I live in a condo and my neighbors are raising a child two doors down from me.
I am sure that we will continue to see more of this and I am sure that we will get better at designing for families. We are trying to do our part with the 2-storey homes that we have incorporated into our Junction House project.
I would, however, like to respond to the underlying tone in the article that but for developers being stubbornly resistant to larger 3-bedroom apartments in this city, we would have a myriad of new condominiums filled with families.
The reality is that there are market and structural forces (including cultural biases) that steer what gets built.
There are affordability considerations. Larger condos cost more money than smaller condos. And that prices out many families, particularly if there are cheaper alternatives available in the form of low-rise housing.
The reason we appear to be at an inflection point today is because the cheaper alternatives are disappearing. (This of course returns us to the broader question of overall housing affordability.)
Bloomberg is running a video series right now called Next Jobs. It is a look at the careers of the future. Episode four is about a vertical farmer named Katie Morich and a startup called Bowery Farming, which does this out of a nondescript building in New Jersey.
The video focuses more on Katie’s life and less on vertical farming. But it did introduce me to Bowery Farming, which I am intrigued by. So I thought I would share both the video and the company. It is a compelling pitch: local production; ideal conditions; no pesticides; and software that optimizes it all.
The big question hovering over this generational transition is all about city-building, and whether increasingly dense metropolitan regions such as Toronto and Vancouver can figure out how to turn all those newly sprouted forests of highrises into true communities that are both affordable and appealing to the wide range of people who call these cities home.
The reality seems to be that more people in this city – out of economic necessity and/or because of a lifestyle preference – are choosing to raise a family in multi-dwelling housing. I live in a condo and my neighbors are raising a child two doors down from me.
I am sure that we will continue to see more of this and I am sure that we will get better at designing for families. We are trying to do our part with the 2-storey homes that we have incorporated into our Junction House project.
I would, however, like to respond to the underlying tone in the article that but for developers being stubbornly resistant to larger 3-bedroom apartments in this city, we would have a myriad of new condominiums filled with families.
The reality is that there are market and structural forces (including cultural biases) that steer what gets built.
There are affordability considerations. Larger condos cost more money than smaller condos. And that prices out many families, particularly if there are cheaper alternatives available in the form of low-rise housing.
The reason we appear to be at an inflection point today is because the cheaper alternatives are disappearing. (This of course returns us to the broader question of overall housing affordability.)
There are also timing and financing considerations that likely create a supply-side bias. Most lenders require that a certain number of condo units be pre-sold before construction starts.
This means that, as a developer, you need people that can both afford what you’re selling and that are willing to buy three to five years out, and perhaps even longer. That can be difficult for many families.
Lastly for this post, there’s the GST/HST New Housing Rebate in Ontario, which I have argued before on the blog could be incentivizing smaller suite sizes and could use a refresh for today’s home prices.
All of this is not to say that we shouldn’t be designing for urban families and that we shouldn’t be focused on delivering more affordable housing to this and other cities. Those are two very important things.
It is simply to say: there’s a lot going on here that needs to be unpacked.
the new donut
.” The old donut, of course, is one that many of you will know well: poor downtown (hole in the donut) and wealthy suburbs (ring around the hole in the donut). This is a well documented phenomenon in many American cities.
The new donut reflects today’s return to city centers. It is the filling in – albeit only partially – of the middle of the donut. The reason I say only partially is because the data clearly suggests that, in many cases, there’s now a trough between the immediate core and the outer suburbs.
In 2015, the University of Virginia published a study called The Changing Shape of American Cities. It looked at things like educational attainment and per capita income in 1990 and then compared it to more recent 2012-2015 data. But most significantly, it plotted this data against “miles from city center.” (I discovered this study via City Observatory.)
Here are educational attainment and per capita income for the 50 largest metro areas in the US. The orange line is 1990 data. The brown line is 2012 data. And the blue line is 2015 data. The x-axis is “miles from city center.”
Compared to 1990, it is clear that there has been noticeable spike in education and income in city centers. For the above composite index, more than 50% of adults over 25 now have a bachelor’s degree. But it has also accentuated the trough that appears to sit, on average, about 5 miles out from the center.
In some metro areas, such as Charlotte (shown below), there has almost been a complete inversion. Education and income were highest 5 to 10 miles out from the center, but that has since flipped, along with a dramatic spike right in the center.
This is the new donut. If you’d like to see the graphs for all 66 American cities that form part of the study, you can do that here.
There are also timing and financing considerations that likely create a supply-side bias. Most lenders require that a certain number of condo units be pre-sold before construction starts.
This means that, as a developer, you need people that can both afford what you’re selling and that are willing to buy three to five years out, and perhaps even longer. That can be difficult for many families.
Lastly for this post, there’s the GST/HST New Housing Rebate in Ontario, which I have argued before on the blog could be incentivizing smaller suite sizes and could use a refresh for today’s home prices.
All of this is not to say that we shouldn’t be designing for urban families and that we shouldn’t be focused on delivering more affordable housing to this and other cities. Those are two very important things.
It is simply to say: there’s a lot going on here that needs to be unpacked.
the new donut
.” The old donut, of course, is one that many of you will know well: poor downtown (hole in the donut) and wealthy suburbs (ring around the hole in the donut). This is a well documented phenomenon in many American cities.
The new donut reflects today’s return to city centers. It is the filling in – albeit only partially – of the middle of the donut. The reason I say only partially is because the data clearly suggests that, in many cases, there’s now a trough between the immediate core and the outer suburbs.
In 2015, the University of Virginia published a study called The Changing Shape of American Cities. It looked at things like educational attainment and per capita income in 1990 and then compared it to more recent 2012-2015 data. But most significantly, it plotted this data against “miles from city center.” (I discovered this study via City Observatory.)
Here are educational attainment and per capita income for the 50 largest metro areas in the US. The orange line is 1990 data. The brown line is 2012 data. And the blue line is 2015 data. The x-axis is “miles from city center.”
Compared to 1990, it is clear that there has been noticeable spike in education and income in city centers. For the above composite index, more than 50% of adults over 25 now have a bachelor’s degree. But it has also accentuated the trough that appears to sit, on average, about 5 miles out from the center.
In some metro areas, such as Charlotte (shown below), there has almost been a complete inversion. Education and income were highest 5 to 10 miles out from the center, but that has since flipped, along with a dramatic spike right in the center.
This is the new donut. If you’d like to see the graphs for all 66 American cities that form part of the study, you can do that here.
