Tag: city planning

• Toward more multi-family housing

  This recent article by Brookings is a good reminder of the all too important link between land use policies/patterns and GHG emissions. Because electric vehicles are cool and all, but they’re still not as efficient as just walking around and/or taking transit.

  As has been argued before on this blog, we need to not only electrify our transport network, but we also need to change how we get around. And probably the best way to encourage a modal shift, is to plan and build our cities differently. Something that is simple, but not easy.

  It also turns out that people who live in multi-family buildings tend to consume less energy (on a per capita basis) than those in single-family houses. So there are numerous benefits to encouraging denser housing on top of transit and within mixed-used communities.

  With all of this in mind, here are some interesting charts from the above Brookings article.

  

  This first one shows new housing permits in the metro areas of Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington DC, according to their urban, suburban, or exurban status. Here, Chicago is an outlier, with the “urban core” (defined as Cook County) now making up about half of all new housing.

  If you look at the entire study period, the number is less. The urban core accounted for about one-third of new housing permits in Chicago, and only 15% of permits in Atlanta and DC. But in all cases, housing permits in the urban core have been increasing since the 2008 financial crisis.

  

  

  But here’s the other thing. Looking at these next two charts, there appears to be a clear trendline toward more urban housing typologies. The first of these next two is showing single-family housing permits as a percentage of all new housing. And the second is structure type over time.

  Atlanta is still building mostly single-family housing, but less of it. And based on these charts, Chicago has already passed its inflection point. DC is not far off. Every city region is of course going to be different, but it does look like there is some kind of broader housing shift underway.

  2022.01.07

• We should build more nice places to live

  Nice places to live — however you want to define that — tend to be expensive places to live. There are all sorts of reasons why this might be the case. Perhaps it’s on a body of water, next to a park, or it has some other redeeming qualities.

  Daniel Herriges of Strong Towns makes a cogent argument, here, that when it comes to nice and desirable places it usually comes down to one thing: scarcity. Demand > supply. But on top of this, he argues that in most cases, the supply constraint is artificial.

  Here’s an excerpt:

  In fact, our shortage of nice places is almost totally self-imposed. And it’s precisely because 98% of the North American built environment is so blah that the 2% of places that are really well-designed environments quickly get bid up by the rich and become inaccessible to the rest of us. The solution to this isn’t to stop creating such places, but to create vastly more of them.

  He goes on:

  The same story applies to the countless row house neighborhoods of the Northeast, Chicago, and San Francisco. In city after city, the mass-market, working-class housing of its time has acquired a distinctly bourgeois reputation today. In all cases, the reason lies in economics, not design. What’s abundant becomes culturally coded as middlebrow; what’s scarce becomes culturally coded as elite.

  We have talked before on the blog about how tastes change over time and how housing that was previously undesirable can sometimes/oftentimes become desirable given enough time.

  My sense is that there are a number of factors at play here and it’s perhaps a bit difficult to decode where new “cultural coding” truly starts. But I very much appreciate Daniel’s scarcity argument. Scarcity drives so much in markets (just look at the NFT art market right now and the fixation on rarity tables).

  But let me be the devil’s advocate. If we were to be successful at building no blah and all nice stuff, wouldn’t the rich just seek out a new 2% rarity? And if so, would the 98% still seem just as nice?

  Either way, more nice places to live should always be the ambition.

  2021.12.10

• Toronto is on the verge of finding the missing middle

  

  Toronto’s chief planner Gregg Lintern (who you can follow over here on Twitter) was recently in the Toronto Star talking about the city’s plans to allow more multi-unit dwellings in our low-rise single-family neighborhoods.

  I was careful to say “more” because they are already permissible in some areas. The challenge is that they’re not happening at any sort of meaningful scale, which is an obvious signal that some key ingredients are still missing.

  Or perhaps there are too many required ingredients. For example, right now the zoning by-law requires one car parking space for every dwelling in a multi-unit building. This is, of course, dumb and the requirement should be completely eliminated.

  Changes like this, as well as many others, are long overdue. Not just in Toronto, but in many other cities. And it is partially what I was getting at when I wrote about laneway housing this past weekend and hinted at the need for other solutions to increase housing supply.

  So when you have a few minutes, I would encourage you to complete the city’s survey on expanding permissions for multiplexes across the city. I just did it and voted to bring on the multiplexes.

  Photo by Tiago Rodrigues on Unsplash

  2021.11.23

• Toronto to eliminate parking minimums

  A parking review was just done by @CityPlanTO and the resulting staff recommendation is going to include the removal of most parking minimums across the city. This is good.

  — Brandon Donnelly (@donnelly_b) November 8, 2021

  For the last year or so the City of Toronto has been doing a review of parking requirements for new developments. This would include things like how much car and bike parking needs to be provided for each residential unit in a new building. More information on this work can be found here.

  City staff are now preparing to release their initial findings and, as I understand it, it is going to include the removal of most minimum parking standards across the city and the introduction of some maximum parking standards. What this should mean is that in most cases you can build as little parking as you want, but in some cases you’ll be stopped from building too much of it.

  There are lots of examples of other cities doing this. Buffalo is one example and I recently wrote (over here) about what happened to new developments once its minimums were eliminated. Among other things, it revealed where the previous parking requirements were overshooting what the market was actually demanding.

  Urban parking is heavily dilutive to new developments. It drives up the cost of new housing. It is also hypocritical to claim that we want to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating that we build a certain amount of car parking. Do we want people to drive or do we want people to do other things? Which is it?

  Some will bemoan this inevitable loss of parking (though it was already happening). But I think this is a great thing. It is Toronto growing up and continuing to realize that it’s pretty damn hard to build a big and well-functioning global city if everyone is driving around everywhere. Maybe one day we’ll even allow e-scooters.

  2021.11.08

• The real smart city is going to be a crypto city

  Vitalik Buterin — who is best known as the cofounder of Ethereum — recently penned this post on his blog where he argues that “crypto cities broadly are an idea whose time has come.” (Credit to Shamez Virani for sending the post to me this morning.) There has been a lot of discussion over the years about the rise of smart cities. I for one am not really sure what that means besides the fact that it sounds good and it likely involves a bunch of tech and data collection. But maybe crypto can help.

  What Vitalik argues in his post is that we are now at a point in time where blockchain technologies have the opportunity to do two things for cities. One, we can take existing systems and processes and use blockchains to make them more “trusted, transparent, and verifiable.” That would be a very good thing. But the more interesting one is number two. We have the opportunity to use blockchains to create radically new forms of asset ownership (land and other scarce assets) and municipal governance.

  One specific example is that of a “city coin”, which cities like Miami are already experimenting with. Supposedly they are one of the first, which of course aligns with Mayor Suarez’s vision to position Miami as a preeminent tech and crypto hub. Though as Vitalik points out in his post, it’s important to maintain some optionality, especially since we are still very much in the early innings of this new frontier. (This recent episode on the Tim Ferriss Show had a great analogy in saying that the anthem at the beginning of the game isn’t even over yet.)

  So how might a “city coin” living on a blockchain work?

  Well let’s imagine that there are incentives in place for all of us who live in Toronto to own the Toronto coin (there’s still time to come up with a better name). You need it to pay your property taxes, you need it to pay for parking, and you need it to vote in the next election, among many other things. So there’s an incentive to buy and hold it if you’re a resident of this great city, but there is far less incentive to hold it if you don’t live here. (Maybe you own a bit of it because you’re a frequent visitor and/or your relatives live here.)

  One of the interesting things about something like this is that it would immediately create economic alignment. Now all of a sudden, everyone who lives in Toronto and owns Toronto coin would have a vested interest in seeing Toronto thrive. At the very least they would want to see the coin hold its value and ideally they would hope to see it appreciate.

  At the same time, the Toronto coin could be used for all sorts of governance matters. Take for example, land use and zoning decisions. What if we set things up such that these decisions weren’t made by the people who show up to community meetings in the basement of their local church but that they were instead made by everyone who holds the Toronto coin? i.e. The entire city, all of whom are, in a way, equity holders.

  In theory we could do this kind of voting today. However, part of the problem is that the economic alignment isn’t there without something like a Toronto coin. Right now a big part of the economic incentive rests with homeownership. If I own a home and a new development is proposed next to me, I am incentivized to do whatever it takes to selfishly maximize my own individual outcomes. And if that means no development and no more homes for people, then so be it.

  But what if we all had part of our net worth tied up in the Toronto coin? And what if when housing supply did not meet housing demand, the value of our coins dropped because it meant fewer residents (less demand for Toronto coin) and more people voting with their feet and moving to other geographies (more demand for some other coin)? This is one of the things about the crypto space. It turns everyone into evangelists because there are now strong economic incentives to be that way.

  Who knows if this is the way that things will actually play out. But it is part of the promise of crypto and it is not some pipe dream. It is already starting to take hold around the world and in the US in places like Wyoming and Colorado. For more on this topic, make sure to check out Vitalik’s full blog post.

  2021.11.01

• Our Plan Toronto

  

  The City of Toronto is currently reviewing its Official Plan, which is a city planning document that acts as a kind of master guide for land user matters. It is a pretty important document in that it dictates, among other things, what kind of development should go where. One way that it is often explained is that our OP is the “vision”, whereas our zoning by-laws are the “precision.”

  This update will be completed by next summer. Why? Because the Province of Ontario said so. (That’s how things work around here. I think cities should have more power.)

  Toronto is expected to grow by more than 700,000 people and add some 450,000 jobs by 2051. Where these people and jobs will be accommodated is a big part of the exercise here.

  As part of this review, the City of Toronto published this Story Map. It is pretty neat. It looks at how the city has grown over the years (the above image is Toronto’s 1943 Master Plan). It explains a little bit about how planning works. And it has a bunch of stats on how people live and work in the city. I just used it to confirm my hunch that there are exactly zero single-family homes in my neighborhood.

  Looking at the above map from 1943, it is, of course, interesting to see how much the city has grown. But it also interesting to note that many of the neighborhoods that now form part of the city were just “New Residential Areas with Prospective Populations.” They were colors and numbers on a map in areas that had yet to be built out by developers.

  When I see this, I can’t help but wonder what the narrative was like at the time with respect to these new developments. Were people upset? Were people happy? Did people even notice what was happening on the edges of their city? Because sprawl, and that’s what this was, is quite different from intensification.

  Our focus today is on the latter. It is about building up as opposed to out. There’s no more room for yellow shaded areas with numbers. This means that we will end up using our land and other resources more efficiently, but it also presents a whole host of issues. Change is hard. Intensification is hard. Part of the job of this document is to navigate some of these challenges.

  If you’d like to get engaged with the city’s Official Plan review, head over here.

  2021.08.26

• A city split in half

  Here is a short video by Dave Amos (of the YouTube channel City Beautiful) about the splitting of Berlin into two. What a fascinating urban case study. I just recently discovered his channel, but he seems to cover some interesting topics, all of which are related to cities and city planning. When Dave is not making YouTube videos, he is a professor of city and regional planning at Cal Poly. He also graduated with a Master of Architecture at some point before getting his Ph.D., so presumably he knows a few things about buildings and cities. I guess that also makes him an imposter architect, like me.

  2021.08.17

• What if versus should be city planning

  Witold Rybczynski makes an interesting comparison between military and civilian (city) planning in a recent blog post called, “The Fog of Life.” Here’s an excerpt:

  Good military planning, as I understand it, is based on preparing for “what if,” that is, developing different scenarios. What if this happens, or that happens? City planning is different, more like advocacy, that is, what should happen. This advocacy is based on certainties: open space is good, density is good—or bad, depending. The problem is that what planners think should happen—separation of pedestrians and cars, superblocks, megastructures—often runs into trouble when it hits the fog of life.

  These are two very different perspectives. “What if” planning responses assume that a thing has already happened. You’re not working to affect a particular outcome, you’re responding to one that already exists. Does this necessarily make this approach more reactive than proactive?

  Either way, what should happen implies that the thing isn’t currently happening, but that it should — presumably because the thing is nice and desirable. It could also imply that the thing is sort of happening, but just isn’t happening quite enough.

  Let’s use the example of 3-bedroom condominiums and apartments, which is a topic of discussion that has been circling in Toronto for as long as I’ve been in the business. Developers here, are generally encouraged or mandated to build a certain number of larger family-sized suites in every new housing project. Oftentimes this number is 10% of the total unit count.

  The reasoning behind this is sound. Cities should be inclusive and they should work for the young, the old, the single, and for families, among others. The problem is that, for a variety of reasons, the market, when left to do its own thing, tends to build more small units than large units. At least that’s the case here in Toronto. (I’ve talked about some of the reasons why in previous posts.)

  There is a view that if only developers built more large units that more families would choose to live in apartments. It’s an issue of supply and availability, and also a question of design. You need to design for families too. This you could say is a “what if” approach. Families want to live in multi-family buildings; so let’s build more and better family-sized housing.

  But is this really the case or is there some advocacy going on here? All things being equal, does the market want low-rise or does it prefer higher density? It’s a fascinating set of questions, but unfortunately all things aren’t equal. It’s not just a question of availability and design, it’s also a question of economics. Large family-sized units cost money.

  I suppose this is the fog of life.

  2021.05.11

• The case for density transition zones (and why people will probably hate them)

  Toronto is known for its tall buildings and its contrasting low-rise neighborhoods. More recently, we have seen a proliferation of mid-rise buildings along the city’s “Avenues.” This is despite the many challenges and costs associated with this building typology.

  But I think it’s pretty clear that a further evolution is also underway. Laneway housing, which is now permitted “as-of-right,” is in the early stages of being adopted and built out all across the city. And eventually I think we’ll see many of Toronto’s laneways evolve into fully fledged residential streets; perhaps not all that dissimilar from what you might find in compact cities like Tokyo.

  This is very exciting to me and I think of it as the city gaining a third hierarchy of residential streets. We’d have our major arteries and avenues. We’d have our residential side streets. And then we’d have our compact laneways. Dare I say that maybe some of these laneways could even house non-residential uses such as small-scale offices.

  

  But along with this shift, I think it’s time we look at another infill opportunity — something that planners Blair Scorgie and Sean Hertel are calling “density transition zones.” What these zones hope to be is a new middle transition zone between low-rise neighborhoods (where laneway suites are already permitted) and mid-rise avenues. A place where “missing middle” type housing might be built in close proximity to major streets and existing transit. Let’s call it a 100-200m zone that sits right behind our avenues.

  In my mind this is immediately beneficial for two reasons. The first is obvious. It could be a place for frictionless missing middle housing. Housing that’s more dense than a single family home + laneway suite, but less dense than a typical mid-rise building.

  The second immediate benefit is that this transition zone could be used to help improve the overall feasibility of mid-rise avenue development. The reality is that there are many blocks along Toronto’s avenues where the lot depths are simply too shallow for proper mid-rise buildings. Density transition zones could help with this, which would be not that dissimilar from how “Enhancement Zones” were intended to work (they were never approved).

  If this were to happen, I think there would also be a strong case for softening some of the “requirements” in the mid-rise design guidelines. Requirements like the 45 degree angular plane that new buildings generally need to conform to. All of this would only help the overall feasibility of more European-scaled developments along Toronto’s avenues and, in my opinion, that would be a great thing.

  But for the same reasons that Enhancement Zones were highly contentious, I would expect a lot of grouchy people and a lot of pushback on this idea. There will be concerns about encroaching on our single-family neighborhoods, and there will be the usual objections that come up with any new development (density, traffic, dog poo, etc.) But if we’re serious about building more missing middle housing, we are going to need to find ways to remove the barriers to entry. This scale of housing is simply too small to support a great deal of friction.

  To learn more about how density transition zones might work, I would encourage you to check out the great site that Blair and Sean have put together, over here.

  Image: Density Transition Zones

  2020.12.19

• The art of the possible

  Architect Sheena Sharp, of Coolearth Architecture, tweeted something interesting out today:

  Development needs a tolerance for risk, and a skill set that is very different from planning.
  
  It’s the art of the possible in a high stakes, unforgiving marketplace. The expectations of municipal planners are mostly disconnected from the market.
  
  Improving this would be good.

  — Sheena Sharp (@sheenasharp) November 27, 2020

  Improving this would be good. And it is the same gripe that I had with architecture school when I was there. Why is it taboo to talk about money and the market? Why must design exist, in many instances, within a vacuum?

  I can appreciate the value in not always constraining yourself with the status quo. To innovate, you have to stretch. And sometimes, or perhaps oftentimes, the best ideas initially seem dumb. It’s important to have room to experiment and tinker.

  But eventually, reality does matter. Plans that look good on paper, may not be suitable for the market. Constraints are a big part of what makes the city building industry so rewarding. Planning is hard. Building is hard. Getting consensus is hard. It’s all incredibly difficult and you have to be creative.

  The really elegant solutions usually need to weave across and through many different objectives and stakeholders. And so in my view, the more you can empathize with those other constraints, the more elegant your solution will be. Knowing more is good.

  2020.11.27