Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
I just turned on my out of office. Neat B and I leave this evening for our honeymoon. Our first stop is Mallorca. Neither of us have been before and it has been on our list.
One of our goals for this trip is to be active. So among lots of other things, the plan is to get on some bikes at some point. We hear that Mallorca is a pretty good island for that.
As always, I’ll be continuing to write. I love writing when I’m on vacation and experiencing new things. The laser distance meter is also in my bag, so expect some of this and this.
Roncesvalles Avenue is a successful north-south main street in the west end of Toronto. I say successful, because it is truly a great street. It has transit, bike lanes, a fine-grained built form, and lots of interesting retail:
But it is somewhat unique in that a large section of it is a one-sided retail street. Meaning, it looks like this:
This obviously isn’t a fatal flaw. It remains a wonderful street. And there are lots of examples of thriving one-sided retail streets. Ocean Drive in Miami Beach immediately comes to mind (notwithstanding the fact that locals tend not to go to it).
But conventional retail wisdom does dictate that two sides are better than one. Consider this 2023 report by Cushman & Wakefield ranking the top global main streets across the world. All of the streets that I have been to before are two-sided:
5th Avenue in New York between 49th and 60th (above 60th is, incidentally, when the street converts to single-sided because of Central Park)
Montenapoleone in Milan
The main street of Tsim Sha Tsui in Hong Kong
New Bond Street in London
Avenues des Champs-Élysées in Paris
Grafton Street in in Dublin
Passeig de Gracia in Barcelona
Bloor Street in Toronto
These are all two-sided retail streets.
None of this is to say that the west side of Roncesvalles has nothing going on. It has a diverse mixture of uses, including churches, libraries, apartments, and many other things. But I think there is still an argument to be made that it has been hamstrung by restrictive zoning.
That said, Roncevalles is defined as a “major street” in Toronto’s Official Plan and so it does fall under the city’s new Major Street Study. Maybe that changes things.
One of the commitments that Paris made for this summer’s Olympics was ensure that every single competition venue was served and accessible by public transport. In fact, if you look on their website, it clearly says “no venues in the Paris region are accessible by motorized vehicles.”
L.A. mayor Karen Bass said Saturday the city is working on expanding its public transportation system to hold a “no-car Games” in four years, which means spectators will have to take public transportation to all Olympic venues. To accomplish this, she added that L.A. will need more than 3,000 buses and plans to borrow them from around the U.S.
Of course, the built environment of Los Angeles is slightly different than that of Paris’. One was built around the car, and the other was not. And I think the success of Paris 2024 shows how a robust public transport system is uniquely equipped to absorb significant demand shocks when needed.
Not only was the audacious gamble of organizing the first Olympic Games completely accessible by low-carbon public transport, on bicycle and on foot successful. Not only was transportation to the many competition venues scattered around Paris and its surrounding region fluid. But the transit network and its agents also proved their ability to ensure, thanks to planned initiatives and adapted resources, fast, reliable and even pleasant travel. What’s more, the Paris Olympics offered the pleasing spectacle of a large city mostly freed, for a time, from the clutches and nuisances of automobile traffic.
But regardless of built form, both of these examples represent one of the positive externalities associated with hosting the games. They force cities toward massive positive change, and that’s always a good thing.
Let’s continue with our theme of city blocks and talk about another city with a noteworthy street grid: Barcelona. Up until the middle of the 19th century, Barcelona was a tiny medieval city hemmed in by 6 km of walls and totalling just over 2 square kilometers. If you look at a map of the city today, it’s pretty easy to see where this was:
This was of course done for military purposes. Barcelona’s medieval walls helped the city resist siege after siege. But the result was also overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and a generally low life expectancy. So after much debate, it was eventually decided that the walls would need to come down and that the city would need to expand outward.
This then raised the question: how should it be done?
Enter a civil engineer named Ildefons Cerdà. Created in 1860, the Cerdá Plan for Barcelona was a continuous grid of blocks intended to guide the future growth of the city, similar to what the Commissioners’ Plan did for Manhattan. The blocks measured exactly 113.3 by 113.3 meters and each was to have a central open space of at least 800 square meters.
In his original plan, the streets were to be 35 meters wide. But supposedly these were narrowed to no more than 20 to 30 meters due to criticism from the public. Wide streets and more lanes were, I guess, not seen as a benefit in the second half of the 19th century. Either this, or landowners simply wanted bigger buildings.
The Cerdá Plan got approved in 1860 and, today, the city looks like this:
One particularly unique feature of this plan was that the blocks all had/have chamfered corners. This improved visibility at the intersections, as well as created opportunities for public spaces and other uses. For better or for worse, today, you’ll find parking for cars and scooters, bike share stations, ramps leading to underground garages, patios, and more.
The heights of the buildings on each block were also intended to be capped at a consistent height. But even with relatively few tall buildings, the Cerdà Plan led to one of the densest cities in Europe. Today, it is also viewed as a highly livable and desirable city. Hence why the city announced a total ban on short-term rentals. Too popular.
Now for a comparison. Last week we spoke about Salt Lake City’s large city blocks (here and here). And so for fun, here’s what these blocks would look like on top of Barcelona:
The most obvious takeaway is that Salt Lake City has larger city blocks than Barcelona, and that’s one reason why, objectively, Barcelona is more walkable and urban than SLC. But I think you could also view this graphic as a tremendous opportunity.
Barcelona is in the midst of rethinking its urban fabric around something called “superblocks.” The idea here is to cluster blocks together and then concentrate transit and vehicular traffic along its edges, creating a more pedestrian-focused center. For example, in its largest form, a superblock might be a 3 x 3 grid, creating a grouping of 9 city blocks.
But it doesn’t necessarily need to be a 3 x 3 grid. Other permutations are possible and the city plans to eventually introduce over 500 of them.
The first superblock was implemented in 2017 and, not surprisingly, it improved air quality, increased quietness, and led to a significant decrease in car usage (-92%). Interestingly enough, it only led to a moderate increase in car traffic on surrounding streets (+3%). Traffic can be a funny thing.
Creating superblocks out of smaller blocks is naturally easier than the opposite. You have an existing grid to work with. But there’s no reason that the opposite can’t also be done. And I think that’s one way to look at Salt Lake City’s street grid. It already has its superblocks. Now it’s just a question of creating all of its smaller blocks.
My friend Austin Kjorven convinced me that we should ride 70 km today so that I can try the beer and burgers at Badlands Brewing Company. Here’s the route we took:
I can now confirm that their smash burgers are as advertised. Great buns. I even had two of them just to make sure the first one wasn’t some sort of fluke.
My knees are, however, still giving me problems. I even tried KT tape and the brightest compression socks available in Austin’s closet.
Still, it was an awesome ride. If you happen to find yourself near Caledon, Ontario, definitely check out the Badlands Brewing Company.
Our growing desire — and ability — to live, work, and/or play in other places is, in my opinion, a powerful macro trend. We spoke about that here, here, and here. And one of the things that has obviously empowered this trend is the growth of short-term rentals.
But right now, the winds are not in favor of this model.
In September 2023, nearly a year ago, New York City enacted one of the strictest short-term rental laws to date, requiring hosts to be physically present while a dwelling is being rented. Yeah, that eliminates the majority of use cases.
Then in June of this year, Barcelona mayor Jaume Collboni announced a complete ban of short-term rentals starting November 2028. This is expected to return some 10,000 apartments to the long-term housing market.
Regardless of whether it will be effective, it is obvious why this is being done: housing unaffordability and too many annoying tourists. (We are flying to Barcelona next week and will endeavor to not be annoying.)
But at the end of the day, this is not going to extinguish our underlying desire to live, work, and play around the world. So I think these restrictions will create new opportunities to service this demand. It also strengthens the bull case for the tried-and-true formula of purpose-built hotels.
Sometimes on this blog, I like to write about things that I wish would happen. For example, back in 2014 I wrote this post calling Toronto’s Bloor-Danforth subway corridor a “land use crime scene.” And in it, I called the intersection of Bloor & Dundas West one of the best connected mobility hubs in the region. Then earlier this year, I quoted a post by Reece Martin where he referred to this same node as “the second-best transit node in the country” after Union Station.
I’m fairly confident that these posts did absolutely nothing. But today, I am happy to report that my friend and former colleague, Adrian Tarapacky (now VP of Development at Fairway Development Group), has submitted a rezoning application for a new tall building at 2475 Dundas Street West. The site is just north of Bloor Street West, at the intersection of Glenlake Avenue, and it’s exactly the kind of development I was wishing for when I wrote the above posts.
Here’s a rendering of the proposed podium:
And here’s the context:
Any developer will tell you that it’s not easy assembling this many parcels, which is likely one of the reasons why the street/area remains this underdeveloped. So great work, Adrian. I look forward to you bringing more vibrancy to my neighborhood and the second-best transit node in the country. I also know that you have impeccable taste in lunch sandwiches, so I look forward to seeing what happens with the ground floor retail spaces.
Conventional planning wisdom tells us that smaller city blocks are generally preferable to larger city blocks. They make for more interesting walks (which can change our perception of distance) and they improve overall connectivity. This is why you’ll often hear planners advocate for things like “mid-block connections.” It is a way of creating the feeling of smaller blocks.
Salt Lake City, as we have talked about, is the opposite of this. Its blocks measure 660 feet x 660 feet (call it 200m x 200m for those of us more accustomed to using the international standard for measuring things). This means that if you were to walk only 2 blocks (inclusive of 2 streets), your walk would be close to 500m, which is a commonly used walking/transit radius.
Things get a bit tricker when you’re not walking in a straight line. For example, if you found yourself wanting to cross a street somewhere in the middle of a block — and you wanted to obey all traffic safety rules and not jaywalk — you would need to walk over 200m just to get to the opposite side. So basically a whole other block.
There are also instances where even this street grid gets interrupted. This past weekend, I spent an evening walking to and from dinner on Main Street. And at one point, I got caught trying to cross the convention center (which occupies 3 blocks). I guess I could have tried to cut through, but I walked around, which added 2 additional blocks (~600m in total).
Thankfully, SLC also has many instances of new mid-block streets/connections, road diets, internal laneways, and enhanced center medians, among many other things. I mean, here are some plans to turn Main Street into a pedestrian promenade. All of these interventions are an effort to soften the city’s underlying block structure, which we know tends to be indelible in cities.
In 1620, an Englishman by the name of Edmund Gunter invented a land surveying device known as Gunter’s chain. As the name suggests, it was an actual chain (see above). Each chain contained 100 links and, when fully extended, it measured 66 feet.
This was a monumental innovation as it greatly simplified land surveying and made it a lot easier to measure out acres — especially if you maybe weren’t great with math. So it is perhaps no surprise that this simple device forever changed our cities.
But first, here’s the only math you need to know:
Number of chains x number of chains / 10 = number of acres
For example:
A lot measuring 66 feet by 66 feet would mean it has an area of 4,356 square feet, or 0.1 acres (1 acre = 43,560 square feet). It would also mean that this lot measures 1 chain by 1 chain, or 1 square chain. Take 1 square chain and divide it by 10, and you arrive at the same 0.1 acres.
Similarly, a lot measuring 660 feet by 660 feet would mean it has an area of 435,600 square feet, or 10 acres. Using Gunter’s chain, this lot is 10 chains by 10 chains, which equals 100 square chains. Divide 100 square chains by 10 and you arrive at the same 10 acres.
Put differently, 1 acre equals 10 square chains in Gunter’s system.
Because of its simplicity and utility, the chain became a statutory unit of measurement in England by the 1670s. And as a result, it spread throughout the British Empire, meaning it started to influence how new cities were being planned and laid out.
Let’s look at the example of Salt Lake City.
We have spoken before about the city’s famously large blocks. They have the dubious distinction of being the largest in the US. But what you may not have noticed is that the typical SLC block measures exactly 660 feet x 660 feet. Its typical streets are also 132 feet wide.
This is because of Gunter’s chain. These are 10-chain x 10-chain blocks and 2-chain streets.
The same is true of other cities. Looking on the other end of the spectrum, Portland’s compact street grid is comprised of blocks that measure 198 feet x 198 feet. These are, in other words, 3-chain blocks. Its typical streets are also 33 feet wide. So half-chain streets.
Units of measurement have a lasting way of influencing how we plan and design things. This is true at small scales and it’s also true of our cities. In tomorrow’s post, we’ll look more closely at Salt Lake City’s street grid and what it does to walkability.
There is a simple tool to combat traffic congestion that has been proven to be effective. There are real-world examples of where it has been deployed to great and long-lasting success. It’s called road pricing. And we seem to be deathly afraid of it.
This is even if the benefits are real and measurable:
Jonas Eliasson, director of travel accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, has first-hand experience with the effects of the congestion charge implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Public polling showed two-thirds of voters were against the road-pricing plan before it was introduced in a pilot program. A local politician called it the “most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” But after it began, Stockholm traffic levels dropped by 25 per cent, more than double initial estimates. In a subsequent referendum, Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge permanently.
There are lots of reasons why road pricing is commonly opposed, but at the end of the day, it works, and we know all too well — especially here in Toronto — that the status quo sucks:
“Over the years, transportation economists and planners have pointed out that there really is no other solution to traffic congestion than more efficient pricing,” he said in an interview. “So every time somebody said ‘No, I don’t want road pricing or congestion pricing,’ they’re actually saying, ‘I want traffic congestion.’”
I’ve been writing about this topic for almost as long as I’ve been writing this blog. So at this point, I think we just need to run a pilot. No more studies and reports. No more protracted debates.
Let’s try it out and see how many people prefer (1) less traffic congestion and (2) more money for alternative modes of transport.
