Brandon Donnelly

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.

Subscribe

Tag: boston

  • The accents of North America

    Yesterday I watched this three-part series on the accents of English-speaking North America:

    The videos are by dialect coach Erik Singer and, I must say, his ability to fluidly move through all of North America’s accents is incredibly impressive. As I was watching the videos, I kept thinking to myself, “I don’t know what this guy actually sounds like when he’s not putting on an accent.”

    The interesting thing about accents is that they really speak to settlement and migration patterns. In other words, who came in contact with who, and who didn’t come in contact with others? Geographic isolation also leads to unique accents.

    The other ingredient is time. The reason the UK, for example, has so any regional accents is that it had the time for them to develop. On the other hand, if you look to most of the southwestern United States, there is broadly a kind of generic American accent (with the exception of some California and Utah nuances according to Erik). This is because these settlements are relatively young compared to say the northeastern US.

    For Canada, the defining feature is “Canadian raising“. It is what leads to the stereotype of us saying things like “aboot” and “hoose”. It doesn’t sound exactly like this, but there is a way in which we tend to pronounce diphthongs (two adjacent vowel sounds) with open-vowel starting points.

    Open-vowels are sounds where our tongue is positioned as far as possible from the roof of our mouth. If you try saying “about” to yourself out loud right now you’ll notice that this is what happens. Your tongue drops. And it is these instances that lead to “Canadian raising”.

    The other thing that I find fascinating is how quickly language convergence can happen. I lived in Philadelphia for 3 years (for grad school) and when I would come home my parents used to tell me that I sounded fully American. I guess subconsciously we feel a need to assimilate.

    If you’re also fascinated by accents, I highly recommend you check out Erik’s videos.

  • Lyft might sell its bikeshare business

    So apparently Lyft is the largest bikeshare operator in North America. They operate around 68,000 bikes and scooters, which equaled some 52 million rides last year. Ridership also continues to grow. Since 2020, ridership has grown in cities like New York (+56%), Chicago (+79%), Boston (82%), and Denver (+170%).

    However, this part of Lyft’s business was in the news this week because the company announced that they are entertaining proposals to sell it, as well as “strategic partnerships.” The company has said that it remains committed to offering bikes through the Lyft app, but clearly it is trying to shore up its balance sheet.

    This raises some interesting questions. Can bikeshare be a profitable and sustainable for-profit business? Or do we now need to be thinking of it as an important public service that is deserving of subsidies — similar to how public transit and cars/roads work in most cities? My own view is that these networks are here to stay regardless of how profitable or unprofitable they might be.

    For additional stats on Lyft’s bikeshare business, click here. One of the figures that I found interesting, but not surprising, was that 71% of riders use bikeshare for “fun.” This is by far the most popular use case. The next most popular use is “errands” at 39%.

  • US public transit ridership since March 2020

    Consider the following stat: 65% of all transit trips across the US in 2019 came from just 6 metro areas: New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia. Not surprisingly, these are all places with dense and walkable urban centers. In other words, they have built environments that are conducive to the use of public transportation.

    While we know that more people working from home has been bad for transit and that agencies across the world are facing deep holes in their budget, I continue to come back to two things. One, we have not yet reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. We are still making our way back to the office. And two, the single most important thing when it comes to transit ridership is land use.

    If we want more people to take transit, then we need to build our cities accordingly. That means streets people actually want to walk on, and a lot more density.

  • Bad and good street networks

    Let’s add some historical context to yesterday’s post about autonomous vehicles. As the regular non-autonomous version of cars started to infiltrate our cities in the early 20th century, largely following the creation of the mass-produced Ford Model T, there was a general view that cars were dangerous and a menace to cities. Arguably, not much has changed.

    So in the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority decided to publish a pamphlet explaining what street networks it thought were suitable for this new emerging car world and which street networks were not. The exact terms that they used were “bad” and “good”, and here’s what that looked like (taken from this CNU article):

    The “bad” ones are largely how the US liked to design its cities before the arrival of the car. Some historic settlements, like Boston and Manhattan south of 14th street were based on different street logics, but as far back as the 1680s, William Penn had already started laying out a grid iron plan for Philadelphia. And in reality, this kind of street pattern goes all the way back to ancient cities.

    However, when the car arrived, these grid iron plans were thought to offer an inadequate amount of separation between people and machine. The solution was to optimize around the car and introduce a clear hierarchy of different streets. Big streets for moving cars quickly, and smaller streets, like cul-de-sacs, for people to live on.

    These “good” examples, of course, represent the modern suburb. But we now recognize that these types of street networks are unequivocally terrible for walkability, the environment, public health, social equity, and a whole host of other things. I mean, look at this extreme example of two suburban homes in Orlando whose backyards adjoin but are technically separated by 7 miles and a 20-minute drive!

    My point with all of this is that, for many/most at the time, this was progress. Cars were the future and there was optimism about the kind of freedoms and other benefits that they would bring to people. And this optimism is perhaps not all that different from what many people feel today, myself included, when it comes to autonomous vehicles.

    So on the one hand, you could point to the car and say, “look at all the damage that this thing did to our cities. Let’s not do that again. Autonomous vehicles must be stopped.” But that’s akin to wishing the car was never invented. Another option is to point to the negative externalities associated with the car and say, “look at what we’ve done. We can do better. Let’s make our cities better.”

    Positive change, no matter how late, is always a possibility.

  • Where the rich don’t drive — is density the new luxury?

    This data is from 2019, but I imagine that things would look pretty similar today and that it might even be a little more pronounced. The dataset from the above article looked at how many people have cars in a given area (a darker dot = fewer cars) and then plotted this against population density and income per capita.

    Here’s what that looks like for the regions of New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and Houston (data from 2013 to 2017):

    What is fascinating about these charts is that they show two different correlations. In dense and transit-rich cities such as New York and Boston, car usage is most closely linked with population density and not with income. The dark dots form a horizontal line near the top.

    However, in the case of Los Angeles and Houston, car usage is instead most closely linked with income and not with population density. The dark dots form a vertical line near the left — the lowest income per capita.

    So what does this tell us?

    It tells us that if you design a city to broadly require a car, then you are likely to sort people based on those that can afford a lot of car and those that cannot. On the other hand, if you design a city around transit, then you are likely to instead create a place where both the rich and poor get around in similar ways.

    There is also evidence that the latter is being increasingly viewed as more desirable. 2017 was the first year in the US where high-income young people (ages 26 to 33) drove less than low-income young people. Presumably these high-income people had choices, and so I tend to view this as a preference.

    As a whole, this is surely a good thing for our cities. But now I think we need to be careful not to allow density and walkability to become the new luxury that only the rich can afford.

  • The car versus transit job access multiple

    I haven’t seen this sort of data before and it’s an interesting way of looking at job access, transit connectivity, and overall built form:

    The above is a table from New Geography (using data from the University of Minnesota). And what it shows is how many more jobs, across the US, can be accessed within a 30-minute commute by car versus by transit. For example, what this data tells us is that, on average across the US, there are about 56x more jobs that can be quickly accessed by car versus by transit.

    But there is also huge variation across the 50 largest cities in the US. On the top end is Detroit, where there about 130x more jobs that can be accessed by car (again within 30 minutes). This isn’t at all surprising. Also not surprising is the fact that New York is on the lowest end with only 5.6x as many car-versus-transit jobs. This is one of the reasons why I spoke yesterday about NYC being such an ideal candidate for something like NYC 25×25.

    What a lower number tells us is that the city is far less reliant on personal vehicles and almost certainly has a higher urban density. That’s why you see cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago near the top of this list. And in my opinion, this is where you want to be. The goal should be to minimize this multiple.

    I haven’t seen a dataset like this before, but I’m now curious to see how it varies globally. It feels like something that more of us should be monitoring. Because we know that there are strong links between jobs access and the overall economic performance of a city.

  • Largest cities in the world — revisited

    Following my recent post about the largest cities in the world (from 100 to 2015 CE), a number of you rightly pointed out that the data looked questionable. Where, for example, is Shanghai in this latest list of largest cities? So I think it’s important that I do a follow-up post.

    There are a number of nuances to consider when trying to measure urban populations. Perhaps the two most obvious are the geographic extent of each city (i.e. what urban boundary do you use) and the number of people living in informal settlements.

    The UN recently estimated that there are some 1 billion people living in slums or informal settlements. That represents nearly a quarter of the world’s urban population, which is a staggering number and a pressing global need. We desperately need more housing.

    When it comes to measuring the size of an urban agglomeration, most of the studies that I have seen tend not to focus on municipal boundaries (“city propers”) or metropolitan areas. The former is often based on arbitrary political boundaries and the latter often contains undeveloped rural land.

    So for the purposes of this post, I’m going to go with Demographia’s definition of “built-up urban area.” They define this as being a continuously built-up area with one labor market and with no rural land. In their view, the world is either urban/built-up or rural. The built-up part is the lighted area that you would see on a nighttime satellite photo.

    Given this definition, there are a number of interesting fringe cases. For example, contiguous/adjacent urban areas with more than one labor market get split up into multiple ones. This is the case in the US with the northeastern “megalopolis” that runs from Boston to Washington.

    Conversely, if adjacent urban areas share a labor market and are linked together by similar commuting flows, then they get grouped into one urban area. This might be the case even if the area(s) straddle a national border. In this particular case, the free movement of people and goods would be another prerequisite.

    With these definitions out of the way, below is another stab at sharing an accurate list of the world’s largest megacities or built-up urban areas. This is one is by Demographia and there are a number of key changes compared to the last one I shared. Shanghai now features in the top 10. But Lagos drops down to number 20, which remains a bit of a question mark for me.

    For a copy of Demographia’s full report, click here. It looks at all urban areas with a population greater than 500,000 people (total is 985). Of course, if any of you have any other data sources that you think I should take a look at, feel free to share them in the comment section below.

  • A few observations from Paris

    The last time I was in Paris was in 2006. That’s a long time ago and so it was great to be back in the city earlier this week. I don’t know the city as well as I do many other cities, but I speak enough French to be dangerous and we spent a good amount of time on this trip just exploring. On average, we clocked about 20,000 steps a day. So here’s a list of some of the things I was reminded of or learned of on this visit. If any of you are more familiar with the city, please feel free to speak up in the comment section below.

    • I love Paris.
    • The Parisian art of people watching is alive and well. One of my favorite things about Paris is how so much of the cafe seating faces out toward the street. That’s what you’re supposed to be watching: urban life.
    • Most cities have a clear message. In Los Angeles, it’s probably that you should be more famous. In Boston, it’s arguably that you should be smarter. And in New York, it is perhaps that you should be richer. In Paris, the message feels loud and clear: You should be more fashionable.
    • Compared to Toronto, the center of Paris feels far more static. Less construction. Less change. Less that is new. That’s not such a bad thing given how beautiful the city is. But in my view, cities are about balancing preservation and progress. From what I could tell, a lot of the new construction seemed to be happening in the suburbs and in the outskirts of the city.
    • That said, COVID feels much further along in Paris. The city was very open and everyone seemed to be back in the office. Locals said that the city was operating at maybe 80%. It felt busy.
    • Dress shoes are dead in Paris. Everyone wears cool sneakers no matter how young or old. Think business suits with Nike Air Maxes. My hypothesis is that it’s just far more practical given how much people walk in Paris. I plan to adopt this strategy immediately.
    • In addition to walking, everyone seemingly bikes and/or uses an electric scooter. Again, it didn’t seem to matter how young or old. Paris also seems to have solved the scooter clutter problem, as has many other cities. There are designated spots (painted lines next to on-street car parking) and that’s where you’ll find the scooters. Toronto needs to get on board.
    • Traveling at 300 km/h on a train is a highly civilized way to move between urban centers.
    • There’s nothing wrong with having a picnic and drinking a bottle of wine (or two) in a park. In fact, it is probably something that should be celebrated. Let people be grown-ups.
    • When you purchase a baguette, you should immediately take a bite out of it to see how fresh it is.
    • The Eiffel Tower, much like the CN Tower, looks far better when illuminated.
    • Balconies of any size can be wonderful. We had a small Juliet balcony off of our hotel room in Nice and we used it every day for croissant eating and to dry our bathing suits. In a more permanent situation, I am sure we would have started growing things on it.
    • Midrise buildings do indeed create nice urban street walls. But it’s important to keep in mind that Paris’ midrise blocks are also deep and dense and with lots of courtyard conditions. That’s how the city is able to house so many people at such low building heights.
    • Facing conditions between buildings is less of a concern when you employ less glass. Smaller punched windows allow you to better manage privacy. I would go so far as to argue that if Paris were an all-glass city, much of its current built form would be fairly unlivable.

    What did I miss in this list?

    Photo by Alexander Kagan on Unsplash

  • What is the premium for a home in a walkable community?

    According to this RedFin data from 2019 — which looked at normalized sale prices and Walk Scores above 50 — it is about 23.5% or $77,668 for 16 major US metro areas. Again, this is 2019 data and so things may have changed a bit, especially with the whole COVID thing.

    It also varies by metro area in this data set. The premium in Boston, for example, is almost 30%. Whereas the premium in Oakland is actually a slight discount (-1.3%). There are going to be local conditions that play a role.

    But as a whole there is an economic trend here that makes intuitive sense to me. Though it’s not just a question of how pricey your home is. You also need to consider your transportation costs, the value of your time, and the health benefits of living in an environment that promotes consistent and moderate activity.

    When you factor all of these things, maybe “premium” isn’t the right way to look at this.

  • China is building and megalopolises are now national policy

    Well here are some interesting figures (via MIT Technology Review):

    • In the past two decades, about 400 million people moved into China’s cities — so more than the entire population of the United States
    • By 2035, about 70% of China’s entire population is expected to be urban (up from 60% today and up from 30% two decades ago)
    • To accommodate this scale of growth, China’s national urban development approach has shifted to something that now revolves around city clusters, or megalopolises (term coined by French geographer Jean Gottmann back in the 1950s to describe the Boston-Washington corridor in the Northeastern US)
    • By 2035, there are expected to be five major city clusters (see above)
    • One of the reasons for this is to improve cooperation across the various clusters — less competition and less redundancy
    • But it’s also about creating smaller more manageable cities — is this what one needs to do after a certain scale, go polycentric?
    • To service these clusters, China is rolling out a network of 16 new high-speed rail lines
    • By 2035, China expects to have 200,000 kilometers of rail, with a third of it being high-speed — assuming this happens, China will be home to 60% of the world’s high-speed rail coverage
    • Current cost estimates for the construction of this network comes out to about US$150 million per kilometer
    • 1-2-3 Rule: The plan is that everyone should be able to get around a city within 1 hour; a city cluster within 2 hours; and travel between the country’s clusters inside of 3 hours

    China is building.