Tag: athiscity

• How to save 8 minutes on Toronto’s highways

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  Three months ago when Toronto City Council voted
  not to remove the Gardiner Expressway
  East (which in
  my view was a mistake), it did so with a commitment to look at tolling
  options for both the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway (which in
  my view is a positive thing).

  Last week a preliminary report was released
  discussing some of those tolling options. If reading dry city reports is your thing,
  you can do that here.

  The Coles Notes version (CliffNotes for you
  Americans) is that a $3 flat toll on both the Gardiner and the DVP – the same
  cost as riding transit in this city – would be expected to reduce vehicles on the highways by 9% and 12%, as well reduce end-to-end travel times by 3 minutes and 5
  minutes, respectively. There’s obviously a lot more in the report, but these
  figures stood out for me.

  Given how monumental the
  3 minute delay was in the Gardiner East debates, it will be interesting to
  see whether people treat a 3 minute time savings in a similar way. I suspect
  they won’t. The cost will be the larger issue.

  I’ve been a
  vocal supporter of tolls and road pricing on this blog. One of the main reasons
  for that is because I view the demand for highways as being largely inelastic
  and therefore a potentially great source of transit funding.

  The discouraging part of the above report is
  that its primary goal is to explore tolls for the purpose of “offsetting
  capital, operating, and maintenance costs.” The primary goal is not to come up
  with sustainable sources of transit funding.

  Having these costs paid for by user-fees as
  opposed to general taxes is still a good thing in my view. But an even better thing
  would be to help fund mobility solutions that we know will be far more
  effective at getting people around this region as millions more people move here
  in the coming decades.

  The other discouraging part of the report is
  that near the end it explains that while the City of Toronto Act of 2006 allows
  for toll highways, they cannot be implemented without the Province passing
  regulation.

  It’s a reminder that our governance structures do
  not reflect the current urban reality of this country.

  2015.09.15

• The crisis of success

  I’m back and it feels great. I missed blogging the past 2 days. Though, there was something nice about not touching a computer all weekend.

  This morning I got up extra early and listened to a brief conversation between Aaron M. Renn of The Urbanophile and urbanist Richard Florida. The topic is New York’s “Great Reset”, and the impetus was a recent report (of the same name) that was put out by New York University.

  The conversation starts by talking about the resilience of New York City and its ability to accept and then reinvent itself in the wake of “creative destruction.” Destruction such as the financial crisis of 2008/2009. 

  But they then go on to talk about the challenges that New York, as well as many other cities, are now facing. Challenges brought about, not by failure, but by their tremendous success. Challenges such as income inequality and the dwindling middle class.

  The overarching premise is that we are still in the early stages of a new urban and creative economy. And that there’s lots of work to be done in order to figure out how to make it an inclusive one.

  There’s even mention of former Toronto mayor, Rob Ford.

  You can listen to the talk below. If you can’t see the embedded play button, click here.

  [soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/221338706″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

  2015.09.14

• Resting my eyes

  Today I’m getting laser eye surgery. (If you’re reading this via email subscription, it already happened!)

  This is something I’ve been thinking about doing for many many years. My original plan was to get it done after I finished my MBA. But that time came and went, and so it was about time I took action.

  I’ve always been a bit nervous about doing it, which is why I’ve been procrastinating. I’m an early adopter when it comes to most things in life, but not when it comes to this. Not when it comes to my eyes.

  The major impetus for getting it done is sports. I love lifting weights. I love cycling. I love snowboarding. And I love swimming. All of these things are easier to do when you don’t have to fuss around with contacts. I’m quite nearsighted.

  In any case, I’m going to be taking the weekend off from blogging. I have never done that in the over 2 years that I’ve been writing Architect This City, but this time is different. I need to give my eyes a rest. Doctors orders.

  For this reason, yesterday’s post on affordable housing was a bit longer than usual. And if you’re looking for more to read, you can also check out this list of most popular posts.

  Regular scheduled programming will resume on Monday, which means that if you’re a daily email subscriber, you won’t receive another email from me until Tuesday morning at 6am Toronto time.

  I hope you have a great weekend. See you on Monday 🙂

  2015.09.11

• Affordable housing and the economics behind developing new rental apartments

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  In most big cities around the world, there is a pressing need for more affordable housing. We know that inclusive cities make for better cities. But from San Francisco to Hong Kong, you always hear people talking about how expensive housing is.

  So why is this such a difficult problem to solve?

  Part of the problem, I think, is that many people don’t understand the economics behind building a new building. Oftentimes I hear people say that because developers make so much money, they should just build more affordable housing. Done. Simple.

  But things are not that simple.

  To illustrate my point, let’s walk through the thought process for developing a new rental apartment building.

  In its simplest form, developers are concerned with: revenue – costs = profit. And since many of the costs associated with building a new building just are what they are, it all starts with revenue, which in our case would be rents.

  To build a new rental tower in Toronto, your rents typically need to be at least in the high $2′s per square foot per month. Otherwise the economics don’t work. But to make the math simple, let’s say you need $3 per square foot in rent. That means a 1,000 sf apartment would rent for $3,000 per month.

  That’s not cheap. There are only so many people who can afford these kinds of rents and only so many areas where you can command these kinds of rents, which means there are only so many areas in Toronto where new rental apartments will be built by the private sector.

  If the rents instead happen to be $2 psf – meaning that same 1,000 sf apartment now rents for $2,000 per month – then for-profit developers will not build (barring any unique deal circumstances). Even at $2.50 psf / $2,500 per month, it would be difficult to make the numbers work here.

  And by the numbers, I am talking about tight returns that really only start to make sense in our environment of record low interest rates. Which means that when interest rates start to rise (pushing cap rates up), it may not even make sense to build rental apartments when the rents are in the high $2′s per square foot. This is particularly true if you’re competing against condo developers to buy the land. They can afford to pay more. 

  In this scenario (of rising interest rates), many real estate firms might simply opt to buy existing assets instead of taking on the risk of building anything new. Now all of a sudden your supply of new market rate apartments (not to mention affordable apartments) has dried up. Remember, it’s been decades since Toronto built rental apartments at any sort of meaningful scale.

  It’s for reasons like this that Vancouver launched a program called Rental 100. In a nutshell, it helps to reduce the “costs” variable in the equation mentioned above so that developers are able to meet minimum project returns and build more rental buildings. They do that through things such as reduced parking requirements, additional density, development charge waivers, and so on.

  In some ways, these items are subsidies. The city is giving up revenue that it could have otherwise collected from a developer building, say, a condo. But in other ways, they are freebies. The city could be unlocking development sites that may have otherwise not been developed. In which case it’s not really forgone revenue.

  Vancouver’s Rental 100 program is a market rental housing policy. But there’s no reason that similar thinking couldn’t be applied to create an affordable rental housing policy. It has been done and is being done in many cities.

  2015.09.10

• Where will we live?

  

  This evening I participated in a roundtable discussion at WORKshop here in Toronto. It was part of an exhibition that they currently have on called, Toronto 2020: Where Will We Live? They are located in the concourse level of 80 Bloor Street West, so go check them out.

  The discussion this evening was all about the dramatic change in Toronto’s urban form over the last decade. In other words, the condo boom. We covered everything from the life cycle of buildings and urban design to demographics and policy. It was a lot of fun and I am certain the group could have continued talking all night.

  But one thing that I was reminded of this evening is how important it is for great city building to be cross-disciplinary.

  Take, for example, architects and (real estate) developers. 

  The stereotypical developer is greedy and only concerned with money. They don’t care about the impact that their buildings have on the built environment. On the other hand, the stereotypical architect is only concerned with design and not with the economic feasibility of projects. (I’m exaggerating here for effect.)

  The point is that neither of these participants in isolation could build a great city. A beautiful design doesn’t have much value if it can’t be financed and built. And a highly financeable project could end up contributing nothing to the city. In some cases it could actually detract from the built environment.

  So if we really want to build truly great cities, I believe it needs to be a collaborative effort. We need to bridge the divides in thinking and leverage each other’s strengths. 

  I have felt very strongly about this since I first started studying architecture as an undergraduate student, which is how I ended up taking business and real estate classes. I felt and continue to feel that the greatest opportunities exist at the intersection of different ways of thinking.

  2015.09.10

• Life after fishing on Fogo Island

  

  Fogo Island is a small remote island off the coast of Newfoundland in Canada. As of 2011, the population was roughly 2,400 people.

  For centuries the island was a thriving fishing community, particularly for cod. At its peak, Canadian fisherman alone were bringing in 266,000 tons of cod every year.

  But in 1992 the Canadian government put in place a moratorium on fishing North Atlantic cod. And it decimated the local economy. (Should we still be calling it a moratorium after all this time?)

  However, thanks to people like Zita Cobb and her Shorefast Foundation, Fogo Island is in the midst of an entrepreneurial and cultural renaissance. Take a look at the Fogo Island Inn. It’s on my list of places to visit.

  Back in 2013, Monocle Magazine published a two-part video series outlining what is happening on the island. You can watch part 1 of that series by clicking here and part 2 by clicking here. Each video is under 10 minutes long.

  2015.09.09

• The evolution of unions

  

  Today is Labo(u)r Day in Canada and the United States.

  It is the official end of summer for a lot of people, which is always a bit sad. (Unlike a lot of people I know, I’m not a huge fan of fall.) But primarily, today is a day to celebrate the labor union movement.

  Fred Wilson wrote an excellent post on his blog this morning about this topic. I agree with him and he put it far better than I could this morning. So here are a few snippets:

  When one looks back over the history of the development of the modern economy from the agricultural age, to the industrial age, to the information age, the development of a strong labor movement has to be one of the signature events. Capitalism, taken to its excesses, does not allocate economic value fairly to all participants in the economic system.
  

  I am a fan of the idea that labor needs a mechanism to obtain market power as a counterbalance to the excesses of markets and capitalism. I think we can look back and see all the good that has come from a strong labor movement in the US over the past 150 years.

  However, like all bureaucratic institutions, the “Union” mechanism appears anachronistic sitting here in the second decade of the 21st century. We are witnessing the sustained unwinding of 19th and 20th century institutions that were built at a time when transaction and communications costs were high and the overhead of bureaucracy and institutional inertia were costs that were unavoidable.

  Click here for the full post.

  On that note, I am in the market for new – ideally daily – blogs to read. Blogs such as this one, which generally focus on a particular topic but are written by one person and are a bit personal in nature. I find those are where the best online communities develop.

  If you know of any, please leave the link in the comment section below. A lot of readers have also asked me for similar recommendations, so I am sure they would appreciate the suggestions.

  Happy long weekend 🙂

  2015.09.07

• The life expectancy of buildings

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  We tend to think of buildings as being very permanent structures. After all, our cities are filled with buildings that are hundreds of years old. And in some cases, much older.

  But the reality is that buildings, just like everything else, depreciate over time. They have life cycles and they need to be regularly maintained and periodically renovated in order for them to survive.

  This morning I was reading the blog of Witold Rybczynski, who is an author and architecture professor at the University of Pennsylvania. A few months ago he wrote a post talking about the short life cycle of modernist buildings.

  According to a recent colloquium at the Getty Center, the average life span of a conventionally built building (masonry and wood) is about 120 years. But for modernist buildings (reinforced concrete and glass curtain wall) it’s half that: 60 years.

  And if you are to consider the typical big box retail store, the life expectancy is probably a third of that – if even that. Usually it is cheaper to just tear down the old box and build a new one when needs change. That’s part of the reason why the leases usually have clauses that try and prevent the retailer from just “going dark” and stopping operation.

  So we are literally not building them like we used to. And there’s a lot of debate in architecture and building circles about whether or not this poses a serious problem for cities. It is clear that Witold is unhappy about this shift.

  I am a strong believer in heritage preservation. I believe wholeheartedly that cities are far richer with layers upon layers of history. But I also acknowledge that in our world of 6 second Vine videos, we seem to be less worried about whether something will last 60 or 120 years.

  Perhaps that’s a problem. Or perhaps the times are just changing.

  2015.09.06

• How high are your ceilings?

  

  I’ve been having a lot of discussions lately about ceiling heights. The clear height from the top of the floor to the underside of the ceiling.

  In Toronto there has been a bit of an evolution in ceiling heights. Older apartment and condo buildings often have 8’ ceilings. Newer buildings today often have 9’ ceilings. And we’re now seeing 10’ ceilings creep into the market, though I wouldn’t say it’s close to becoming the standard. It’s more at the top end. Of course there are also loft buildings with even higher ceilings.

  I am personally big on ceiling height. But I would be very curious to hear from the Architect This City community on this one.

  How high are your ceilings? What do you consider ideal? Do you even care? And is there a ceiling height where it would become a deal breaker for you when it comes to buying/renting a new place? I also think your actual height might have an impact on preference, so it would be great to also hear how tall you are.

  I have 10’ ceilings in my place. Not because my place is all that special, but because my suite is on the same floor as the building amenities. So the higher ceiling height is carried through (the rest of the building is 9’). I think it makes a big difference, particularly since my place isn’t all that big. I’m 6’3".

  Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below. This is great market feedback that will certainly be taken to heart.

  2015.09.05

• The relationship between architecture and film

  

  There has always been a strong relationship between architecture and film. Next to actually being there, video is one of the best ways to experience architecture.

  And that’s because space is not static. A big part of how we experience space has to do with what it feels like as you move through it.

  For example, American architect Frank Lloyd Wright was notorious for his sprawling horizontal houses and low ceiling heights. In his Fallingwater House (which is stunning), I swear that my head was rubbing on the ceiling in certain rooms (I’m 6’3").

  But he did this to purposefully create a feeling of compression. Because then as you exited the room (in this case to go outside onto a terrace) the feeling of openness and expansion is all that more powerful. The contrast creates awareness.

  In honor of the cinematic nature of architecture, below is a magnificent video of the Casa del Acantilado (House on the Cliff) by Fran Silvestre Arquitectos. Pay attention to the sliding planes and framed views throughout.

  The image shown at the top of this post is from Architizer.

  [vimeo 52162380 w=500 h=281]

  Casa del Acantilado | House on the Cliff by Fran Silvestre Arquitectos from Fran Silvestre Arquitectos on Vimeo.

  2015.09.04