Tag: atc

• Is it time to get rid of parking minimums?

  The cost of a parking spot in downtown Toronto has reached as high as $60,000 (per stall) in some new construction projects. If you convert that to a per square foot price (which is typically how people measure condo prices), you’re looking at over $350 per square foot for that parking stall. Is it worth it?

  Most cities around the world have what is called a parking minimum. This means that to build, say a new residential condo, developers need to provide a certain number of parking stalls. In Toronto, those minimums will depend on your unit mix. Bigger units have more stringent parking requirements. 

  In some cities, though it’s much rarer, they actually have parking maximums. Portland, for instance, has a maximum number of parking stalls that you’re allowed to build, which fluctuates based on the development’s proximity to transit.

  And finally, there are some cities, such as Berlin, with no parking minimums or maximums at all. In those cases, the market dictates the number of parking stalls that should be built. If people want a parking spot with their apartment and won’t buy or rent it without one, then the developer builds it.

  Though parking variances do happen in Toronto (for reasons such as proximity to transit), the city is generally skeptical of a market led approach to parking requirements. And there are a couple of reasons for that. They worry that investors might be buying the units (with no parking) and so the sales data may not be indicative of the end-user market.

  The city also worries that developers might actively discourage purchasers from buying parking spots, as it’s usually more profitable not to build them. Underground parking is costly and often subsidized by the sale of the condo units themselves. In fact, I’ve heard of instances where underground parking has cost upwards of $100,000 per stall because of buoyancy forces and other technical details.

  But I’m generally a free market guy. So I question if the market really isn’t capable of figuring out how much parking there truly needs to be. Undoubtedly, there will be families who demand 2 parking spots. I also bought a parking spot with my condo. But there may also be a number of people who would rather pay less for their home than subsidize a parking garage that they’ll rarely use.

  And as I wrote in a recent post called, Is traffic the right question?, we could be losing sight of the greater goal. If we truly want to build a sustainable and livable city, then we should be considering how our development activity encourages transit usage over driving, and how we can promote a more balanced modal split across the city.

  What are your thoughts? Would you buy a home without parking? Should we get rid of parking minimums, just as cities like Berlin have?

  2014.08.20

• Public consultation is broken

  Public consultation is broken. And by that, I mean that the way in which municipalities, developers, and other city builders solicit feedback from communities is fundamentally flawed.

  For new developments, the process works more or less like this: The developer makes an application to the city. The city reviews it and then agrees to move towards a public/community meeting (the goal of which is to solicit feedback on the proposal). Once a date is set, notices go out, and the developer secretly hopes that no one will show up. 

  Because what often ends up happening is that it’s only the people with the time or a bone to pick who actually go to these things. Rarely do people go simply to voice their support for a project. That’s why the benchmark for success is usually no community opposition – it’s rarely about support.

  But from writing Architect This City, I know that many of you care deeply about your community and about cities in general. The problem, is that I don’t think most of you get a chance to voice your opinions. How many of you have actually gone to a community meeting in order to show your support for a development project or city initiative? I’d be curious to know, but I suspect most of you haven’t.

  The result is a system whereby the voice of a few (often naysayers) have a disproportionate amount of weight. They set the tone. But that’s not how community input works best. It needs to be representative of a broad and diverse cross section of the population. It needs to be inclusive. Everyone in the community should have a say.

  So today I was thinking that there’s an opportunity for somebody out there to create an online platform for community feedback. Developers would post up their project and then everyone in the community, as well as in the larger city, would have an opportunity to vote on it and provide their feedback.

  To make it fair, you could assign higher weights to people the closer they live to the project. But the idea would be to make it as easy as possible for everyone to provide feedback – whether they’re on their smartphone or at the regular community meeting. 

  Obviously this would require greater openness, but I don’t think that pulling back is the answer to this problem. The solution isn’t to hide from the potential naysayers; it’s to galvanize the supporters. 

  If your community already has a platform like this, please share it in the comment section below. I’d love to see it.

  2014.08.19

• Chicago vs. Toronto: Which city has the best skyline?

  Before visiting Chicago for the first time, everybody told me that I was going to love the city. They would tell me that it’s similar to Toronto, except that it has better architecture and a better waterfront. Having now visited the city, I not surprisingly have a lot to say on this matter. But I need another day or so to formulate my thoughts.

  In the interim, I thought it would be fun to host a little competition. Given that both Chicago and Toronto are Great Lake cities of comparable size (and formally sister cities), I’d like to know: Which city, do you think, has the better skyline? Please respond in the comment section below and make sure to include your location (so we all know if you might have a hometown bias).

  To help you make your assessment, here are a few photos. Below is one that I took of the Chicago skyline from the architecture boat cruise we went on yesterday afternoon. The building directly in the center is the Trump Chicago.

  

  And here’s a photo of the Toronto skyline that I took from a water taxi earlier this summer.

  

  But since these photos only represent one particular vantage point (me on a boat), here’s a set panoramic photos that I found online (Chicago & Toronto). I want to be as fair as possible.

  

  

  I think this one could go either way. But I personally like the variety that the lit up CN Tower and Sky Dome (Rogers Centre) bring to Toronto’s skyline. Overall, it feels a lot more modern and exciting to me. So I pick Toronto. What about you?

  2014.08.17

• Is traffic the right question?

  

  Traffic is a big deal when it comes to real estate development. Residents are almost always concerned about the additional traffic that a development might bring to their community. And who can really blame them. They’re frustrated by traffic as it is in the city and so they naturally assume that more residents in their community will translate into more cars on the road.

  But as natural as this reaction might seem, I don’t believe that opposing intensification is the right long-term solution. In fact, I would argue that the question of traffic is a bit of a red herring. Because as Toronto’s Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat explains in this blog post, density can actually go a long way to reducing traffic congestion. And it does that by placing people closer to where they work, and by creating an environment that’s more conducive to other forms of mobility: walking, biking, and public transport.

  So instead of becoming fixated on traffic, I think there’s another, perhaps more relevant, question that we should be asking ourselves: Will this development, over the longer term, help to encourage a modal split that leads to more transit usage and less driving?

  Because if it doesn’t, well then we’re not doing anything to correct the problem we already have. In fact, if we don’t allow intensification to happen, it means we’re simply pushing demand outwards, horizontally. And the more you push people out of a city, the more likely they are to drive. In which case we’re only delaying the inevitable – which is more traffic.

  Image: Flickr

  2014.08.14

• Does the world need a Global Parliament for Mayors?

  Earlier this month a team consisting of Benjamin Barber (who is author of If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities), Richard Florida (who is Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute here at the University of Toronto), and Don Tapscott (who is a leading authority on innovation) released a research report advocating for a global network of cities that they’re calling a “Global Parliament for Mayors.”

  Here’s a snippet from the press release:

  “Nation-states work together through multi-lateral agreements and global institutions in an effort to solve global problems. But states have limitations, and their cooperative efforts in our new era of interdependence and globalization are increasingly insufficient and even ineffective and outmoded,” say the three prominent researchers. A Global Parliament of Mayors represents a new type of governance network – one with enormous potential.

  “Our proposed parliament would operate as a global urban network with a vibrant online community that collaborates on key issues 365 days a year,” they say. “Multi-stakeholder governance has come of age and is now fully independent from control by any government, or governmental organizations like the UN.”

  And if you dive into their report, you’ll find the following 5 reasons for why they believe a Global Parliament for Mayors (GPM) makes sense:

  1. Global migration to cities. Most people live in cities, so it makes sense to concentrate problem-solving capabilities there.
  2. Urban predisposition for problem-solving. Cities are entrepreneurial, close to the people and richly connected to a wide variety of stakeholders. They have a history of cooperation and pragmatic problem-solving. 
  3. A need for experimentation with new governance models. Traditional models of state-based global governance have struggled to advance effective solutions to many global problems, so there is an urgent need to experiment with new models. The GPM is the most promising. 
  4. Digital networks. Online collaboration technology makes it possible to operate a largely virtual parliament that would not only be more cost-effective, but more transparent, inclusive and productive.
  5. Digital citizens. There is a large, educated and motivated population of digital citizens that could be tapped to improve urban governance.

  In principle, I agree with the direction. And I feel that way because of the two major shifts outlined above: More people are living in cities (a trend that all urbanists talk about ad nauseam) and digital networks are having a disruptive effect on the way we run companies and live our lives.

  I’ve talked before about how the internet is causing a decentralization of value creation (see Airbnb, YouTube, and so on) and so I think it only makes sense that our governance structures will inevitably go through a similar transformation.

  The governance models that we are living with today were put in place during a time when the world was a different place. At one point, nation-states were the de facto way to effectively organize ourselves on a global stage – probably because there wasn’t any other reasonable alternative.

  But today, we are connected and interdependent in entirely new ways. And so the opportunity in front of us is to create a governance structure that leverages the progress and innovation that’s happening in cities, everywhere.

  If cities are our most important economic unit, then mayors are arguably some of our most important leaders. So it behooves us to figure out how to give them the frameworks and forums to best do their job.

  2014.08.13

• Understanding the radius of demand for transit

  Last week The National Post published an article talking about Toronto’s Crosstown LRT and how it’s spurring a wave of development all along Eglinton Avenue. Below is a map, taken from that article, showcasing some of the developments that are currently in the pipeline and awaiting the Crosstown’s opening date of 2020.

  

  Not surprisingly, developers like transit investment. But more specifically, they like fixed track transit investment. Rarely do new bus routes elicit the same sort of response that you’re seeing above. And that’s because fixed track investment has permanence. If you’re going to go long on an area, you want certainty.

  As the Crosstown tunnel boring machines move across midtown Toronto, I thought it would be interesting to look at a transit concept that I first learned about through Jarrett Walker’s Human Transit blog. It’s called: the radius of demand. 

  One of things that transportation planners look at when designing and building a new line is the spacing of stops. Typically, as you move from buses all the way up to subways, the spacing between stops and stations increases. Spacing is always a bit of a trade off though, because more stops means easier access for riders, but it also means slower overall service. Somewhat famously, Paris designed its metro system so that you’re rarely more than 500 meters away from a station. 

  Once you have your station locations, it’s quite common to then draw a radius around each stop to simulate the catchment area. In other words: How much of the city can I service with this station and how far will people be willing to walk in order to get there? However, this distance, which is the radius of the circle, usually depends on the type of transit. Oftentimes people are willing to walk further in order to get to faster transit service.

  But what’s most interesting about this radius of demand is that it’s entirely dependent on the fabric of the city. Take for example, the following two maps from Seattle, which I have taken from Walker’s blog. On the left is a suburban setting and on the right is a downtown setting. In both cases, the red circle represents a 1 km radius.

  

  Now, if humans could fly over barriers, such as highways, and every Seattle resident was willing to fly exactly 1 km to a transit station, these two radiuses of demand would be perfectly accurate. But since that’s not the case, we instead need to look at what actually represents a 1 km walk – those are the blue lines in each image.

  Because once you do that, you realize that the cul-de-sacs and highways on the left make it impossible for most of that radius of demand to actually walk to the station in under 1 km. So the catchment area actually becomes much smaller. On the other hand, if you look at the image on the right, you’ll see that the tried and true city grid is actually remarkably efficient for walking. Almost all of the circle is serviced.

  So as the Eglinton Crosstown LRT makes its way through the center of Toronto, I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’ll be cutting through quite a few different kinds of street grids. Some of them will be highly conducive to transit usage and others not as much. And in many ways, this is one of the greatest challenges of transit investment. The track itself is only one part of the puzzle.

  That’s why the City of Toronto is also undertaking a planning exercise called Eglinton Connects. Its intent is to leverage the opportunities, as well as address the challenges, that will result from Metrolinx’s Crosstown LRT. If you’re interested in the future of Eglinton Avenue, you should consider getting involved. Oftentimes it’s only the critics that speak up. But that’s not the best way to build anything.

  2014.08.12

• Toronto’s “Instagram for doctors” raises $4 million

  

  Earlier this week it was announced that Fred Wilson and his firm Union Square Ventures have just led a $4M Series A round of venture funding in the Toronto-based startup Figure1. Figure1 is essentially “Instagram for doctors.” Here’s how it works (via WSJ):

  Today, more than 125,000 health-care professionals use Figure 1 to view or share free medical imagery, including photos of patients with personally identifiable details blurred out or excluded; x-rays; charts; and still images taken from MRI or CAT scans, for example.

  The app’s users include board-certified doctors, registered nurses, medical and nursing students, physicians’ assistants, and others who use the app and share images for teaching and studying purposes, or even to request community feedback about a possible diagnosis.

  With this round, USV is now up to 3 investments in the Toronto/Waterloo region (I think of us as one center). The other 2 are Kik (out of Waterloo) and Wattpad, which is actually headquartered here in the St. Lawrence Market.

  What’s exciting to me about all of this is that it’s further evidence of a growing and thriving Toronto/Waterloo startup ecosystem. And while to some it may not seem like a big deal for yet another mobile app to receive funding, it’s actually great news.

  Because as these companies grow and become successful, they’ll not only create new jobs in the region, but also create a tremendous amount of wealth and expertise. And when this wealth and expertise gets reinvested into future startups, you end up with a powerful snowball effect. That’s how startup ecosystems are built.

  It’s also great to see companies staying put, because the pull towards more established startup hubs can be significant. When my friend Evgeny raised a Series A round from Andreessen Horowitz last year, he told me that they asked him to move 500px down to California. As is the case with a lot of VCs, they like their portfolio companies to be nearby.

  But ultimately 500px decided to stay headquartered here in downtown Toronto. And they did that for a few reasons: There’s lots of great engineering talent here and it usually comes at a discount relative to California (5-15%). He also finds that employees here are more loyal. There’s less turnover. In California, everyone is looking for that next best startup to join. Here 500px gets to be that big fish in a small pond.

  Anyways, a big congratulations to the Figure1 team. I hope they continue crushing it and that they stay put in Toronto. If you’re a healthcare professional, you can click here to download the app.

  2014.08.10

• Why light rail isn’t a waste of money

  

  Last weekend a friend of mine sent me an article from The Economist talking about why trams, streetcars, and light rail are a waste of money. The argument is basically that steetcars are expensive, less efficient, and that – despite North America’s renewed interest in them – we should instead be spending our scarce public dollars on more buses.

  Here’s a snippet from the article:

  …but cash spent on streetcars displaces spending on other, more cost-effective forms of public transport like buses, which offer cheaper and more-efficient service but are considerably less sexy. The capital cost per mile of a streetcar is between $30m and $75m, while a rapid bus service costs anywhere between $3m and $30m, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

  Now, there’s no question that buse routes are initially cheaper to implement. You don’t have track to build. But I don’t agree that the cost structure is quite that simple if you consider the number of people you need to move in your city. I struggle to see buses as a more efficient service.

  The big difference between modern light rail and buses is capacity. Toronto’s new streetcars will move about 3 times as many people as your typical bus. So you’d need to triple the number of buses and triple the number of drivers – adding to your labor costs – if you want to have a chance at moving the same number of people. 

  Streetcars are also electric, which means they run on a renewable energy source. We’re in the process of making this switch with private transport, so why go backwards when it comes to public transport? You can certainly run electric buses as well, but then you’re building overhead power lines and bringing up your initial costs.

  I think the challenge is that when people think of light rail, they think of slow lumbering streetcars. I agree that many of these lines are inefficient and I’ve written about it. But there are a number of ways to implement light rail. And when done well it can efficiently move a lot of people for costs that are far less than a subway.

  Image: Aecom

  2014.08.09

• Learning from Melbourne

  Earlier this week my good friend Gabriel Fain emailed me a bunch of photos from his recent trip to Melbourne. Gabriel and I went to architecture school together here in Toronto and we often go back and forth on city building issues.

  Here are the photos he sent me of Bourke Street in Melbourne:

  

  

  The comparison he drew in his email was to that of Bloor Street in Toronto, except with a few major differences: Bourke Street is pedestrian only (except for a tram running down the middle of it). It has no curbs. There’s lots of inviting seating. And the connecting cross street laneways are fully activated. He then ended by saying that "Toronto is light years behind Melbourne and Sydney in the terms of the quality of the public space.“ 

  I replied and asked if I could turn his email into an ATC post. He responded by saying that he was hoping I would, and then sent me another photo – this time of one of the laneways:

  

  Melbourne’s laneways and arcades are celebrated around the world. What was once just residual space, became a catalyst for the revitalization of the city’s central business district in the 1990s and a major tourist destination. But all it really took was a change in thinking. It took somebody to believe that the space used for garbage collection, could also be used for a thriving culture of intimate al fresco dining.

  In Toronto, I think we’re headed in the right direction in terms of our thinking, but that we’re not yet being bold enough. The recent revitalization of Market Street in my neighborhood (St. Lawrence) is a wonderful example of putting pedestrians first and a wonderful street overall. Like Bourke Street, it also doesn’t have curbs (this is how you know pedestrians matter). But it was also a prime candidate for a pedestrian-only street. Especially given that Market Lane to the north is already one (though in desperate need of renewal). 

  For a number of reasons though, pedestrian-only streets are difficult to accept here in Toronto. I’ve been shot down many times in real estate meetings for arguing that we should have them in our city. Oftentimes people say it’s because of our harsh climate. But in my view, that’s all the more reason to have them. When the weather is nice, we should be enjoying our public spaces to the fullest. Why only build to the worst case scenario? Plus, they work in Scandinavia.

  We’ve also done it before. In the early 1970s (when I wasn’t around), a portion of Yonge Street was piloted as a pedestrian-only mall – a remarkably forward-thinking achievement for that era of city building. So I’m confident that it can be done and that we’ll one day do it again.

  2014.08.06

• Put your window to work and make $50 a month

  

  I’m convinced that city building – like probably every other industry – is going to get a lot more data driven. Yesterday I wrote about how driverless cars are collecting exact replicas of our cities as a result of the 3D scanning that they do. And today I learned about an interesting new startup called Placemeter.

  Basically it works like this: If you have a window (at home, at the office, or wherever) that faces onto a lively street, Placemeter will pay you to setup a smartphone in that window as a “meter.” The going rate is up to $50 per month and they’ll even provide you with the necessary suction cups.

  Through video, your phone will then start collecting anonymous data about that street’s activity levels: the number of people, cars, and so on. Below is a video of what that output looks like. Notice that it’s even collecting the number of people that go into each of the stores. Click here if you can’t see the video below.

  //player.vimeo.com/video/69091237

  To make money, Placemeter plans to sell (or is already selling) this data. And their goal is to “make your city better” by specifically improving the way that pedestrian spaces are designed. There are of course lots of other use cases for data like this (such as seeing how busy that bar is across town), but their primary goal appears to be around city building. At least that’s the case right now.

  Not surprisingly, there are concerns about privacy. But I’m sure they’ll be able to work around that. All of the data they collect is anonymous and they don’t save any of the footage that they receive from the meters. Their system just extracts the relevant data points and then automatically deletes the video. 

  What’s also interesting to me about this startup, though, is that it’s yet another example of decentralized value creation. Just like Airbnb empowered anyone with a spare room to run their own bed and breakfast and YouTube empowered anyone with some talent (or a funny cat) to create engaging content, Placemeter is allowing anyone with a window and a view to connect and contribute to a network of urban sensors.

  And it works because the marginal cost of adding a new meter to their network is relatively low. Especially if you compare it to what it might cost for a municipality to setup and manage a similar – albeit centralized – system. It’s a totally different cost structure. So when we talk about smart cities and data driven city building, we’re really talking about networks and an environment of decentralized inputs.

  It’s a pattern that keeps coming up as a result of the internet. If you start watching for it, I’m sure you’ll see it.

  Image: Flickr

  2014.08.05