Tag: athiscity

• It’s voting day in Toronto

  Today is municipal election day in Toronto.

  About 8 months ago I publicly announced here on ATC who I would be supporting, and my position hasn’t changed. I was disappointed by the fact that he ended up backing away from his initial promise of a true downtown relief subway line (see blog post), but I nonetheless continue to support his candidacy.

  In the words of Mike “Pinball” Clemons, he’s “the right man at the right time.” Click here if you can’t see the video below.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouqv782giyw]

  But I’m not here to try and sway your vote. That is ultimately your decision. However, I am here to encourage you to get out and vote. Regardless of who you might be supporting, I think it’s important that you get out and take a position. So I hope you do that today.

  Happy Monday!

  2014.10.27

• Comparing taxis to ride sharing services

  This morning I woke up to a post from venture capitalist Fred Wilson talking about the cost of loyalty when it comes to local transportation markets. More simply, it was a cost comparison between regular city taxis and ride sharing services such as a UberX, Lyft, and Sidecar in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York.

  The data was sourced from whatsthefare.com and looks like this:

  

  The way to understand this chart is to think about it as the answer to this question (from whatsthefare.com): If I were to take 1,000 rides over my lifetime with one individual service, how much more would I pay than if I compared prices and always picked the cheapest option?

  What you should immediately see is that regular taxis are far more expensive in San Francisco and Los Angeles compared to all of the ride sharing services. In the words of Fred Wilson: “That is crazy. They are going to go out of business in those markets with that pricing.”

  In my words: They are fucked.

  I wonder where Toronto would place against these cities. My gut tells me that we would be closer to San Francisco than New York. And if that is the case, I think you can figure out what that means.

  I thought this would be an interesting post given yesterday’s point about our cities being multi-modal. We urbanites have many more options at our disposal than we did only a few years ago. And if they’re cheaper and more convenient, we’re going to use them. I think that’s a good thing.

  2014.10.26

• Riding the new streetcar

  

  This afternoon I rode Toronto’s new streetcar for the first time on my way home from Chinatown. I had been meaning to do it for weeks now, but this was my first opportunity.

  The experience was infinitely better than what you get today on our current streetcars. I felt like I was in a new city. The proof-of-payment system makes onboarding much faster and the 4 loading doors means you just get on the train where there’s the most room – instead of getting on at the front and fighting your way to the back.

  The other thing I liked is that they now have a map of our streetcar network within the train (see above image). Toronto never used to do this. For whatever reason, we didn’t like mixing subway lines with streetcar lines on the same map. 

  But why be so pedantic?

  For one thing, our subway map looks pathetic without these additional streetcar lines on it. So for the sake of Torontonian morale, please fill it up with what you can.

  But the other reason why I think it’s important to include them is that we shouldn’t be thinking about our cities just in terms of specific technologies (subway, streetcar, and so on). Our cities are now multi-modal. Which means we navigate them using many different means, from subways and streetcars to bikes and Uber cars. What people care about is getting from A to B in the most efficient and enjoyable way possible.

  This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it’s an important one. And maybe, just maybe, these new maps will serve as an important reminder to us that there’s a lot of fixed rail in this city and that it could be far better optimized if we just tried a little harder.

  2014.10.26

• How wise are crowds?

  Earlier this week I wrote a post about a new build home under construction at 37 Canerouth Drive in the west end of Toronto. As part of that post, I asked people what they thought the home would be valued at when it was completed. There were just under 10 responses (many thanks!) and I thought it was really fascinating to see the ranges.

  A lot of you responded in the comment section of the post, but a bunch of the other estimates came in via Facebook, Twitter, and email. It isn’t a huge data set, but I’ve nonetheless consolidated the ones I could remember I received:

  $2,375,000
  $2,750,000
  $1,800,000
  $3,000,000
  $8,500,000
  $2,600,000
  $3,500,000
  $1,750,000

  If you average these estimates, you come to a value of $3.3M. However, the clear outlier is the $8.5M. So let’s take that one out and see how the number changes. If you do that, you then get an average estimate of $2.5M. A pretty big swing.

  Now, I don’t know offhand how accurate that number really is, but I’m fascinated by this idea of “the crowd” determining value. Particularly for markets such as housing where supply can be completely heterogeneous and there isn’t a lot of transaction volume to refer back to (compared to other types of markets).

  Because my strong belief is that under the right circumstances and with enough data points, this number could end up being hugely accurate. And, it could also be more forward looking since it’s capturing current market sentiment as opposed to being based on historical transaction prices.

  If you have any thoughts on this, I’d love to hear from you 🙂

  2014.10.24

• Top 10 (US) cities for young smart people

  

  I’m always on the lookout for great websites and communities dedicated to cities. And today, thanks to a friend of mine, I found a new one called City Observatory. It’s my new favorite site for city geeks.

  They describe themselves as a “data-driven platform for sharing, analyzing and discussing the success of cities.” As soon as I read that, I immediately subscribed. I’m a big believer in using data to elevate the discussions happening around our cities and to cut through the bullshit.

  I’m looking forward to digging into more of their articles, but I did already take a look at the first report they published, which is called: “The Young and Restless and the Nation’s Cities”. Click here to download the PDF.

  What the report talks about is a demographic group that they refer to as “Young and Restless”, and which they define as being 25-34 years old and having a 4-year degree. And they focus on this group because they see it as critical to driving local economic development.

  They’re the next generation who are going to start those companies and drive growth and innovation. And since the data shows that as people age, they become less willing to relocate (which intuitively makes sense), cities today are quickly realizing that they need to capture this group of smart people while they’re still restless (i.e. mobile).

  So if this is important, which cities (in the US) are winning right now? Here are the top 10 cities via City Observatory:

  1. Washington D.C. 8.1%
  2. San Francisco 7.6%
  3. Boston/Cambridge 7.6%
  4. San Jose 7.5%
  5. Denver 7.5%
  6. Austin 7.0%
  7. New York 6.6%
  8. Minneapolis 6.6%
  9. Raleigh 6.5%
  10. Seattle 6.1%

  The percentage represents the portion of the population that’s 25-34 years old and has a 4-year degree. I’ve just listed the cities here, but in reality they reference the entire metro areas.

  Do any of the cities on this list surprise you? None are surprises for me. It’s more or less what I would have expected to see, except maybe for the absence of Chicago (it’s 12th according to this ranking).

  Is your city doing enough to capture this group?

  Image: Flickr

  2014.10.24

• The middle class myth — a conversation with Marc Andreessen

  New York Magazine recently published a really great conversation between Marc Andreessen and Kevin Rose. Marc cofounded Netscape way back when, and now runs a venture capital firm.

  In addition to technology, the conversation touches on a bunch of different topics such as why it’s beneficial to be an optimist and why change can be difficult for people to accept.

  But they also hit on a number of broader economic shifts, such as the replacement of labor by machines, and the rise and decline of industrial production in the US. Here’s a snippet on that latter point:

  You’ve described the middle class of the 20th century as a myth.

  There are two middle classes. There’s the historical middle class—which is the bourgeoisie—starting in the, like, 1600s. This was the businesspeople and the traders, the merchants, the butcher, the baker, the general-store manager, the guy who was going off to China to go get silk and bring it back. Businesspeople.

  But in the 1940s something really significant happened, which is we bombed the rest of the industrialized world. And so the industrial base of Germany was obliterated. Japan was reduced to rubble. The rest of Continental Europe was bombed. England was bombed. The industrial base of the world was bombed. The one major industrial country that wasn’t bombed was the United States. So the United States became the monopoly producer of industrial goods.

  The army bombed the American middle class into existence?

  It was an accident of history. We had a window of opportunity which we took full advantage of. We had this window from basically 1945 to 1966, 1968, in which we were basically running unopposed. In that window, all kinds of wonderful things happened. One of the things that happened was the rise of this new idea of the middle class, which there was no historical precedent for, which was college-level wages for high-school-level education. As long as there’s no competition, it’s all well and good. The minute the Japanese show up, the minute the Germans show up, it just all falls apart.

  Click here for the full conversation. It’s an interesting read.

  2014.10.23

• Big cities have rebounded the fastest since 2008

  Josh Lehner of the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis published a study earlier this summer where he looked at employment growth according to city size across the US.

  What he found since the Great Recession of 2008-2010 is that larger metros – with populations greater than 1 million people – have rebounded the fastest. They are shown in the light blue line below:

  

  According to Josh:

  This is at least partially due to the fact that all those good economic things — agglomeration effects, knowledge spillovers, clustering, etc — happen in certain locations, which are usually bigger cities.

  However, if you go back to the 1980s, you find that this trend isn’t consistent. Large metros outperformed in the late 90s. But they were more or less on par with smaller metros during the housing boom of the early 2000s and actually under performed in the early 90s recession.

  

  One possible explanation for this – which Josh proposes – is that the recent housing boom acted as a sort of equalizer for smaller metros. It created stronger population growth outside of the bigger cities.

  I buy that.

  But then does that mean that going forward big cities will continue to outperform? Is this going to be more or less the new norm? Intuitively, I would think yes.

  You can find Josh’s blog post, here. Richard Florida also wrote one for CityLab, here.

  2014.10.21

• The will to try new things

  

  I’m a big fan of wine. But in particular, I like and I support Ontario wines. And last night I was in Niagara-on-the-Lake for the Stratus Vineyards annual harvest party. It happens every year and, as the name suggests, it kind of marks the end of the growing season for the vineyard. I say kind of because not all varietals have been harvested by this time.

  At one point during the evening, I was speaking with the winemaker, J-L (Jean-Laurent) Groux, who is a native of the Loire Valley in France and first learned how to make wine in Burgundy and Bordeaux. And I asked him: why Niagara? Why did you bring your talent to Niagara? (When he came, Niagara would have had a great reputation for crappy wines.)

  He first responded by saying that he had been traveling around the world to different wine regions, and Niagara just so happened to be where he was when he ran out of money. But he went on to say that he saw Niagara as a place of opportunity. It was a region on the rise and he knew that he would have the creative freedom to experiment and do whatever he wanted.

  And that just wasn’t the case in France where tradition dictated. Good for Niagara.

  But as he was telling me all of this, I couldn’t help but think that it’s the classic business story of incumbents and disruptors. I’m not saying that French winemaking will get disrupted. I’m just saying that in a world of established wineries, corporations and other groups, it would seem impossible for them to be threatened in any way by upstarts. They, the incumbents, have more money, more people, and more resources all around.

  But what they sometimes lose along the way, is the will to try new things.

  2014.10.19

• The story of two urban giants

  This morning I stumbled upon an interesting documentary (via The Urbanophile) about two New York skyscrapers that were built in the 1930s as telecommunications buildings: the Western Union Building and the AT&T Long Lines Building. It’s fascinating to see how they have evolved along with technological change. Click here if you can’t see the video below. It’s only 8 minutes long.

  //player.vimeo.com/video/97945495

  2014.10.18

• London garage to sell for £550,000

  

  The garage shown above (with the pseudo green roof) is located in the Chelsea neighborhood of London. It measures about 11’ x 7’ and it – along with the site it sits on – is about to go up for auction.

  It’s expected to go for more than £550,000 according to the DailyMail UK, which would make it the most expensive garage ever sold in the UK. The site area is 535 square foot – about the size of an average 1 bedroom condo in Toronto.

  Below is an aerial view of the site. It basically looks to be residual land.

  

  But as awkward as this site might appear, the expected value is being driven by the fact that planning permissions were granted to turn it into this:

  

  It’s a 2 bedroom house that feels a lot like a laneway house. It certainly fits the description of “a house behind a house”, which is often how laneway housing gets described here in Toronto.

  I wanted to share it because it supports my belief that, sooner or later, Toronto will come around to laneway housing. As property prices rise and affordability continues to erode, people will – quite justifiably – start looking in all sorts of new places for a decent urban home.

  Many thanks to my friend Adrian for sending me the link.

  2014.10.17