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.
In 2019, London implemented something known as an Ultra-Low Emission Zone (or ULEZ). The intent was to reduce the number of older and higher-polluting vehicles entering and driving around the city.
It works like this: If you have a vehicle that does not meet the ULEZ emission standards, you need to pay a daily charge of £12.50. This applies all day every day (except Christmas) and it is in addition to London’s congestion charge.
It’s also done entirely through license plate cameras. If you enter the zone, don’t have an approved plate, and don’t pay the charge within a few days, you get sent a fine. The result is that London’s ULEZ is now the largest clean air zone in the world (at least according to London).
It also achieved its intended purpose. In 2017, only 39% of cars entering London would have met the ULEZ emission standards. Today the number is over 95%. Meaning, most people don’t actually pay the charge.
At the same time, nitrogen dioxide levels in the zone have more than halved, improving overall health outcomes. It’s a perfect example of taxing the things you want less of. What’s also interesting is that there were positive second-order consequences.
Vehicle traffic as a whole declined by about 9% in the first year, with no evidence of displacement to other areas. And according to this research study, it actually encouraged more kids to walk and take other forms of “active transport” to and from school.
This is not a post about laneway housing. Okay, it sort of is. But there’s a broader point to discuss. Recently, a local Toronto newspaper ran this article talking about how a bunch of people are upset that their neighbor is building an as-of-right garden suite. Here’s an excerpt:
“The members of the community know that they can’t stop the building of this ‘garden suite’. However, they want to change the bylaw to ensure that future ‘garden suites’ can’t be built without community consultation and an environmental assessment,” said a news release from a number of residents in the area that was sent to Toronto media outlets including Beach Metro Community News last week.
This raises some interesting questions.
For one, what would be the purpose of this community consultation? Is it just a “Hey, I’m going to be building a garden suite” and then homeowners go do it exactly how they want anyway? Or, would it be an extensive community engagement process where homeowners would be expected to gather feedback, submit a report to the city, and consider design changes?
And, would this apply to all low-rise housing? In other words, would all homeowners need to consultant their neighbors and do an environmental assessment before pulling a building permit? What if someone just wants to build a small extension or a shed? Or, are we only talking about laneway and garden suites?
I’m not really sure what the exact intentions are here — besides delaying new housing — but I can tell you that it’s a terrible idea.
Laneway and garden suites should never require community consultation and/or an environmental assessment. I mean, this is the whole point of allowing them as-of-right. It’s so you don’t have to do these things and you can go straight to a building permit. This is way too small of a housing type to burden with obstacles.
In fact, the same is true of larger housing types. In my opinion, conventional mid-rise buildings should not have to go through a full rezoning and they should not have to consult with the community. We already know what these buildings look like. We know that they make for great homes. And yet they’re our most expensive housing type to build.
Removing barriers (and reducing project durations) is a sure-fire way to make them cheaper. Especially in a higher interest rate environment.
Google Earth has a feature called Timelapse that combines millions of different satellite images to show you how the world has changed over the last 37 years — sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. It’s a feature that’s been out for a few years, but they just made it available in 3D. Some of you may have also missed the feature if you don’t normally use Google Earth. So here’s an overly wondrous video (also embedded above) showing off the new feature, and here is a dedicated site that allows you to quickly try out Timelapse in 2D. Dubai’s “coastal expansion” is one of the places you can quickly land on and its growth over the last few decades is always mind boggling to see. But of course, there are also many other important Timelapses that should be viewed. A number of them speak to our environmental impacts on the world.
This past fall, Goldman Sachs published an important report about “making cities resilient to climate change.” In it, they remind us that the scientific consensus is that the world has already warmed from the pre-industrial era (and will likely continue to do so) and that a great many of us live near water (and will likely be impacted going forward).
About 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of a coast, and about 10% of the world’s population lives in a coastal settlement that is less than 10m above sea level. Above is a list of some of those cities, along with their average elevation in meters. The cities with single digit elevations include Bangkok, Miami, Alexandria, and Amsterdam.
Goldman’s prediction is that this need for “urban adaption” could lead to one of the largest infrastructure build-outs in history. And that cities all around the world should already be thinking about how they will finance and equitably execute on greater resilience (assuming they aren’t already).
Click here to download a full copy of the report. The diagrams showing the average change in global mean surface temperatures against the pre-industrial period are something you should all look at it. The 2015-2019 change is pictured above.
“According to Naomi Oreskes, a great number of climate change scientists (she interviewed most of the top 200 climate change scientists in the US) suffer from some sort of mood imbalance or mild or serious depression. It is easy to understand why: we see the climate change taking the planet apart right in front of our eyes. We also clearly see, right in front of us, what urgently needs to done to stave off global disaster on an unprecedented scale. We need carbon taxes and the reconversion of industry and energy towards zero CO2 emissions systems. This route is without any doubt technically and economically feasible, but politically it seems to be permanently locked. If we do not unlock it, the future looks bleak, not to say hopeless, for humankind.”
It’s clearly not a positive article. But it is an important read. We know we need to immediately and drastically reduce CO2 emissions (for all the reasons explained in the article), but we simply aren’t doing that.
Part of the problem, I think, is that it’s easy to lull ourselves into complacency. We read about it and we notice the erratic weather patterns, but for the most part the status quo isn’t all that bad for most of us. Life just goes on.
There’s evidence that revenue-neutral carbon pricing could actually increase productivity levels. It would force innovation. But it doesn’t yet appear to be 10x better than what we have today – which is often what you need to get people to accept change.
So instead we hold largely ineffectual climate change conferences, which allow us to tell ourselves that we are, in fact, doing something. But I don’t think we’re being bold enough. And that’s too bad.
I was looking through my photo archive this past week (which is all on an Apple Time Capsule) and I came across this photo:
I took this photo in the winter of 2011 on a snowboarding trip to Lake Tahoe. It’s of the San Francisco Federal Building, which was designed by Morphosis and completed in 2007.
The reason this photo stands out for me is because as my friends and I were taking photos of this building a man walked by us and said:
“Why are you taking photos of this shit?
…you guys must be architects.”
To me this was a frank reminder that the designs that my architecture friends and I obsess over (at least the contemporary stuff) often go completely unappreciated by a lot of other people – perhaps the majority of people.
This, of course, raises an interesting debate.
If the majority of the public think a building is shit, is it a failure? Should a building’s success be judged more by how its occupants feel about it? Or is it the “expert” opinion that really matters? (Expert is in quotations because I don’t like this term.)
While important, I don’t think it’s as simple as these questions. Architecture can take years, decades, or even longer to settle in and become fully appreciated. Think about the buildings that your city may have demolished in the past but now regrets. Tastes change.
With that, below is an excerpt from the architect’s own description of the Federal Building. Keep in mind that this project started construction in 2003 and so design would have started years before that. Hopefully it’s clear just how relevant the ambitions of this project remain some 15 or so years later.
The re–definition of circulation and vertical movement paths provides opportunities for chance encounters, a critical mass in circulation, and places for employees to gather across the typical confines of cubicles, departments, or floor plates. The democratic layout locates open work areas at the building perimeter and private offices and conference spaces at the central cores. As Gladwell’s article points out, “…one study after another has demonstrated [that] the best ideas in any workplace arise out of casual contact among different groups within the same company.” Skip stop elevators, sky gardens, tea salons, large open stairs, flexible floor plans, and the elimination of corner offices endow the tower with a Jacobsian “sidewalk life” of cross-sectional interactions.
Many of the same design decisions that create high quality workspace also maximize energy efficiency. The Federal Building is the first office tower in the U.S. to forgo air-conditioning in favor of natural ventilation. As a result of the tower’s narrow profile and strategic integration of structural, mechanical and electrical systems, the building provides natural ventilation to 70% of the work area in lieu of air conditioning, and affords natural light and operable windows to 90% of the workstations. A folded, perforated metal sunscreen shades the full-height glass window wall system and a mutable skin of computer–controlled panels adjusts to daily and seasonal climate fluctuations. With an energy performance that surpasses the GSA’s criteria by more than 50%, the project sets new standards for applications of passive climate control, while physically democratizing the workplace and enhancing employees’ health, comfort, and sense of control over their environment.
“We can’t address climate change without thinking about buildings.” -Bryn Davidson, Lanefab (Vancouver)
This is a line from a recent TEDx talk by Bryn Davidson, who is one of the founders of Lanefab out of Vancouver. Lanefab is a design and construction firm specializing in sustainable infill / laneway homes. Unlike Toronto, laneway houses are actually allowed in Vancouver.
If you have any interest in climate change, I would encourage you to watch his talk. It’s less than 20 minutes long and he addresses many of the misconceptions that I think people hold about what it means to build “green”. Click here if you can’t see it below.
While I think it’s great that the green agenda is much more front and center these days, I agree with Bryn in that we’re not yet on a sustainable path forward. For many people, being green means buying a LEED certified home, having a Tesla in the garage, and having a Nest thermostat on your wall. And certainly those things help.
But they’re not the whole story. Instead of just focusing on green and LEED buildings, Byrn argues that we need to take it a step further and start focusing on “Net Positive” buildings. In other words, ask yourself this: Will there be fewer green house gas emissions on the planet after your project is built?
More specifically, he outlines 3 criteria:
How good is your building?
Where is it located?
What does it replace?
The idea behind this framework is that the building itself (i.e. How good is your building?) is only one piece of the story. What also matters is its location and what it happens to be replacing. Is the building in a walkable area? Is it on a greenfield or infill site? Is it replacing an old energy inefficient building? Is it intensifying land use patterns?
All of these things matter when it comes to assessing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Let’s now apply this framework to three different building typologies: mid and high rise condominiums, and laneway houses. In the context of a Net Positive building, they all do quite well. In Toronto, we could certainly do a lot to improve the way many of our condo buildings are built, but they are usually in the right kinds of areas and they are the right kind of building typology.
Similarly, laneway houses as a whole are an incredibly sustainable building typology. In fact, I would argue that an energy efficient laneway house is easily one of the most sustainable homes you could build. They’re compact. They’re located on under-utilized and previously developed land. They often replace parking. And they increase population densities in established residential areas, which then makes transit more feasible.
But again, here in Toronto we’re not allowed to build them.
So whether you like it or not, if you’re involved in shaping the built environment, you’re also involved in climate change. This is a job for architects and developers, but also policy makers and communities. Laneway housing is a perfect example of that. Lots of people would build them — if only they could.
There are a lot of great architecture firms in Toronto, but one that I’ve been following for years is Solares Architecture. Founded by a husband and wife – Tom Knezic and Christine Lolley – the firm focuses on “environmentally integrated homes”, which is simply their title for incredibly sustainable and efficient homes.
I discovered the firm a few years ago when I was trying to get my laneway house off the ground, and they were unbelievably helpful. That laneway house is still a work in progress (more on that in the coming week), but I’ve followed the firm ever since. They have an awesome blog where they have meticulously profiled the renovation of their own environmentally integrated home. Their new home was also recently featured in the Globe and Mail.
As more and more people wake up to the importance of sustainability, I think that firms such as Solares Architecture are going to become even more important. This is not just about a LEED rating, it’s about a mission. And I think that’s also great for the profession of architecture because it expresses a clear value proposition: this is not just about stye (though that’s important); this is about measurable performance.
In keeping with the recent theme about cities, their brands, and the messages they send, I thought I would revisit an old essay (2008) written by Paul Graham (of Y-Combinator) called “Cities and Ambition.” In it, he talks about the various messages that cities send us, such as:
You should make more money (New York)
You should be better looking (Miami?)
You should be smarter (Cambridge)
You should be more powerful (Silicon Valley)
But the most interesting part of his argument is the belief that we are largely products of our environment. No matter how strong or formidable our personalities might be, the message a city sends us is hugely important. In fact, it might be impossible to escape it. Here’s how Paul puts it:
How much does it matter what message a city sends? Empirically, the answer seems to be: a lot. You might think that if you had enough strength of mind to do great things, you’d be able to transcend your environment. Where you live should make at most a couple percent difference.
But if you look at the historical evidence, it seems to matter more than that. Most people who did great things were clumped together in a few places where that sort of thing was done at the time.
You can see how powerful cities are from something I wrote about earlier: the case of the Milanese Leonardo. Practically every fifteenth century Italian painter you’ve heard of was from Florence, even though Milan was just as big. People in Florence weren’t genetically different, so you have to assume there was someone born in Milan with as much natural ability as Leonardo. What happened to him?
If even someone with the same natural ability as Leonardo couldn’t beat the force of environment, do you suppose you can?
I don’t. I’m fairly stubborn, but I wouldn’t try to fight this force. I’d rather use it. So I’ve thought a lot about where to live.
To some, this thought may depress you. I mean, if you happen to live in a city or place with the “wrong” message, you might feel as if you’re missing out. I know that thought certainly crossed my mind when I read his essay. But different messages resonate with different people, and so maybe the message your city is telling you is exactly the one you need to accomplish great things.
In Toronto, I’d say that the message is similar to that of New York: You should make more money. Oh, and also that you should buy more condos 😉
As an architecture and city lover, it’ll probably surprise you that I’ve never been to Chicago. I think it may have to do with the fact that it has always felt like a sister to Toronto–another Great Lakes city of comparable size. And when you travel, you often want something novel.
But that’s no excuse.
Thankfully I’m happy to report that last week I booked a trip to Chicago for this August. I’ll be there for an extended long weekend. But since it’s for a bachelor party, it remains to be seen how much archi-touring I’ll actually get a chance to do.
When most people think of skyscrapers they think of New York. But in actuality, if there’s one city that gave birth to the modern skyscraper I would argue that it was Chicago. And it was made possible by the steel industry.
Before the late 19th century, tall buildings were largely built with their exterior walls supporting most of the loads. This meant that the taller you went, the thicker the walls had to be near the bottom of the building. This is why older buildings often feel so heavy and permanent.
But when structural steel became widely available, a new building form was created. All of a sudden architects and builders could create relatively light weight structural steel frames to support the building. The skin, or outside of the building, was no longer carrying the weight.
That made images like this possible:
For most of us today, this building under construction looks fairly typical. First the structure goes up and then it gets clad with its window and exterior skin. But at the time, this sort of construction technique–with the 3rd and 4th floors still unenclosed and the upper floors finished–would have blown people’s minds. It was an entirely new way of building.
Steel framed buildings removed the technical limitations of building tall and also opened up entirely new possibilities for architectural expression–such as the all glass building. Today, there’s a lot of criticism around our glass buildings. But it’s interesting to note that it started as the futuristic dream of architects.
Freed from the technical limitations of load-bearing exterior walls, architects such as Mies van der Rohe began dreaming of transparent, all glass buildings. For them it represented modernity. It was the future. Above is an early charcoal sketch of that dream by Mies.
But our fixation with glass and transparency has never been because of environmental efficiency. It was about light, transparency and feelings of modernity. So as sustainability becomes increasingly critical, we should remember that there’s still lots of innovating left for us to do.
Art and architecture has always been a representation of the time and era in which it was created–which is one of the reasons I’m so interested in technology today. It’s our era. It’s our “structural steel”. And it’s going to impact our cities.
When posterity looks back on us and what we’ve done, I’m sure that will be clear.
