Tag: cities

• Archival street life footage

  Guy Jones is a videographer who specializes in archival footage, or at least that is what his YouTube account suggests. He edits old videos and makes them more watchable by doing things like adding sound and slowing them down to a natural rate. 

  (Older films often appear sped up because they were recorded at less than 24 frames per second and then later played at 24 or more frames per second.)

  I’ve blogged about one of his videos before. This one of New York City in 1911. But he has so many other fascinating films on his channel – including a frozen Ottawa from 1942 – that I figured I would share it in its entirety today. 

  For the city builders in the room, here are some street life videos of Paris in la Belle Époque (1896-1900), New York City in 1927, and London in 1967. Among other things, it is fascinating to see how quickly the car crept its way into our cities.

  The video of Paris is all horses and moving walkways. The video of New York City (1927) is all cars. And if you look at the other video of New York from 1911, you’ll see a city in the midst of that transition.

  2019.01.22

• Non-load-bearing curtain wall

  

  Liz Diller of Diller Scofidio + Renfro was recently asked by designboom about how her firm approached the design of Fifteen Hudson Yards (the first residential tower in New York’s Hudson Yards).

  The firm had never designed a high-rise before. So while their typical approach would be to analyze program, here they were heavily informed by the views – both in and out from the site – as you move up the tower.

  The 88 storey tower transitions between two footprints. The base matches the street grid of the city, but as you move up the tower it transforms into a cloverleaf – allowing panoramic views of the city.

  It is a somewhat similar approach to what has been proposed by Studio Gang for One Delisle. Except for the transformation here is to a multifaceted cylindrical shape (a hexadecagon is what has been drawn).

  From the late 19th century when Chicago began to pioneer the modern skyscraper, architects and engineers have been thinking about how you treat a tall building as you move from top to bottom.

  Chicago architect Louis Sullivan responded to this challenge with his tripartite approach to design. He believed that tall buildings should be characterized by three main divisions: a base (bottom), a shaft (middle), and a cap (top).

  The technological innovation that allowed this thinking to flourish was the non-load-bearing curtain wall. Once the exterior walls of a tower no longer supported the actual building, architects then had the freedom to really experiment.

  This remains true to this day, but we no longer need to confine ourselves to only three parts. New technologies now allow for more.

  Today we have parametric modeling and other design tools that allow us to create new geometries and transitions; forms that would have been pretty complex to draw up in the past. 

  In the case of Fifteen Hudson Yards, every floor plate from 20 something and up is slightly different. I wonder what Louis would think of this.

  Image: Timothy Schenck via designboom

  2019.01.20

• Laneway house on the market for $2,845,000

  I was looking at this laneway house for sale in Toronto today. It’s located near Queen and Bathurst. It has 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms and is about 2,331 square feet (that looks to include a basement). The lot appears to be just over 13′ wide. And the asking price is $2,845,000.

  Single family homes aren’t typically considered on a per square foot basis, but if you do the math here, it works out to be around $1,220 psf. The property previously sold in 2017 for $805,000, which was prior to it being redeveloped. So it likely traded based on land value.

  When Toronto first started considering modern laneway houses, some people thought that only individuals of questionable moral fiber would want to live in one. But today, there are countless examples of some pretty remarkable laneway houses. 

  And in some cases you might need about $3 million or so.

  2019.01.18

• Tallest buildings completed in 2018

  

  The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) recently published their annual study looking at all of the 200+ meter tall buildings completed over the last year.

  143 were completed around the world. The all-time record was 147, which was in 2017. Last year, 18 “supertalls” were also completed. A supertall building is generally defined as having a height of 300m or more.

  The tallest building completed in 2018 was China Zun in Beijing. Pictured above. It is 527.7m tall (to tip), but the occupied height is 513.5m. 

  It was designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates and looks like a Chinese finger trap. All iconic buildings deserve an endearing nickname, right?

  Below are a few interesting charts from the report. The first is the total number of tall buildings over 200m from 1920 to 2019. At whatever point they chose in the 1920s, there were only 2. Things sure changed starting in the 1980s.

  

  That exponential growth happens to coincide with tall building growth in Asia and in particular China. The next few charts show (1) the handover from North America to Asia; (2) completions per year (broken down by talls and supertalls); and (3) completions by China, I mean country, last year.

  

  The full 2018 year in review report can be found here.

  Image: CTBUH

  2019.01.17

• The disappearing urban advantage

  The New York Times has a recent article up talking about the disappearing “urban advantage” for low-skilled workers. It is based on the work of MIT economist David Autor.

  Here is a chart from the article plotting wages against population density from 1950 to 2015:

  

  The clear takeaway is that dense urban centers remain a place where wealth is created – but you probably need a college degree.

  The economic advantages of dense cities for those without one appears to be disappearing. The labor market has diverged.

  Interestingly enough, David’s research also suggests that college graduates may be starting to abstain from the suburbs – even when they have kids.

  And that’s because the returns to being in the city are so great.

  For the full NY Times article, click here. 

  2019.01.14

• The geography of gyms

  Richard Florida and Patrick Adler recently looked at the geography of gyms across the United States. They analyzed 17 different fitness chains, over 10,000 gyms, and nearly 5,000 zip codes. Full article over here at CityLab.

  

  The findings probably won’t surprise you, but it’s still interesting to see some of the data. Gyms and fitness studios tend to concentrate themselves in affluent neighborhoods with a high number of college graduates.

  The median household income of the average zip code with a gym or fitness studio is $72,720. This is compared to $56,694 for all zip codes. And when it comes to zip codes with an Equinox, SoulCycle, The Bar Method, or Town Sports Clubs, the median income jumps to over $100,000.

  Above is from the second post in the two part series they are doing on “the geography of fitness.” For the first one, click here.

  2019.01.12

• The next 15 megacities

  The Guardian is running a series right now called: The next 15 megacities. A megacity is typically (but loosely) defined as a city (or metropolitan area) with a population of at least 10 million people. 

  By 2035, another 15 cities are expected to become megacities according to the United Nations. Hence the above series. None of these new entrants will be in the Americas. And only one – London – is anticipated to be in the West.

  

  The first city in their series is Baghdad. The second is Dar es Salaam. And the third, and latest, is Tehran. They are such interesting reads.

  I have said this before on the blog, but the pace of growth in many of these cities is astounding. Dar es Salaam – one of the fastest growing cities in the world – is adding about half a million people ever year.

  For the full megacities series, click here.

  2019.01.11

• To invest or not invest

  We used Uber to get pretty much everywhere when we were in Rio de Janeiro. For reasons of convenience, cost, and safety, it just made the most sense. I can tell you that it felt a lot more valuable in place where you don’t speak the language and you’re acutely aware of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  And since Uber is going public later this year (along with Lyft), it got me thinking about whether or not it is a stock that I would want to own. Are they destined for monopoly profits? Do they have a defensible business model? How powerful are their network effects? Having first-mover advantage doesn’t guarantee anything.

  My initial thoughts are that the network effects for their core offering – single rides – don’t feel that strong. Sure you need a critical mass of drivers so you’re not waiting around too long, but at a certain point the response time is likely good enough. Rides are a commodity.

  This arguably changes as you get into services like Uber Pool and Uber Commute, because more users on the network in close proximity to you can mean lower costs and higher service levels. But is there any sort of lock-in effect?

  Many passengers and drivers seem to “multi-tenant.” In other words, many (or maybe most) people have multiple ridesharing apps installed on their phone and they will switch back and forth when it makes sense to do so. I do that when prices are surging. And drivers appear to be doing the same based on the Uber and Lyft emblems in their cars.

  For a long time, Uber was the only show in town here in Toronto. Hailo only lasted about two years or so. But as soon as Lyft entered the market, both companies moved to aggressively discount their rates, and that is still going on to this day. This suggests certain things to me.

  Among other things, it is a reminder that the demand for (commoditized) transportation services is highly elastic. We are price sensitive. We will use whatever is cheaper. So one way to win is to obviously create a cost structure advantage. Hence the current autonomous vehicles “arms race.” 

  Lyft is also trying to establish itself as a multimodal transportation solution. (When are scooters coming to Toronto?) Perhaps that will make them less of a commodity. But again, how defensible is that approach? I suppose the market will tell us what it thinks later this year.

  2019.01.09

• Director, Real Estate

  The University of Toronto is looking for a Director, Real Estate to manage their tri-campus portfolio of income producing real estate, as well as the development opportunities that they have on and adjacent to their three campuses. The downtown campus alone is over 120 buildings across 130 acres.

  A good friend of mine is helping with this search; I went to the University of Toronto (twice); and I believe that institutions, such as U of T, play an important city building function. So I’m sharing this opportunity with all of you today. For more on the University’s development strategy, click here.

  They are looking for someone with 10+ years of experience. The salary will be competitive and commensurate with this level of experience. And you would be reporting directly to the Chief of University Planning, Design & Construction. 

  If you’re interested, you can apply here. You have until January 25, 2019 to do that. I hope the position gets filled with a star. Also, sorry if this post isn’t relevant to you. Regularly scheduled programming will resume tomorrow.

  2019.01.04

• Maple Valley? No.

  At this time of year, I am always amazed by the number of mass emails that I receive from unknown people and companies. They have my email address, clearly, and yet I only receive one email a year from them – a happy holidays email. I am not opposed to holiday cheer. I love Christmas. But if you’re looking to build any sort of meaningful rapport with an audience, my sense is that you ought to send more than one email a year.

  In other news, the Economist published an article this past week talking about how Toronto is attracting disaffected (Indian) tech workers from the US and, more particularly, Silicon Valley. It is largely a story of immigration and diversity. But at the end of it, the Economist also reports that some people are now calling Toronto, Maple Valley. Toronto immediately reacted to this moniker – negatively.

  Nobody refers to Toronto as Maple Valley. And these sorts of names are stupid. In the 1990s, the Flatiron District in Manhattan started being called Silicon Alley (at least by some). That name was also stupid. New York is New York. And Toronto is Toronto. If you’re going to assign a nickname, it should not be derivative. And in the case of Toronto, you probably also want to avoid kitschy Canadian stereotypes.

  2018.12.22