Tag: new york

• Crypto networks and top-down urban planning

  

  Taylor Pearson recently compared crypto networks to cities and argued that the best crypto networks, much like the best cities, are formed from the bottom up. 

  The example he gives is that of Paris (bottom-up) vs. Brasilia (top-down). Paris is the hugely successful city and Brasilia is the failure of high-modernism.

  I appreciate the argument he’s making and I do agree with him on the potential of decentralization, but I couldn’t help but dig into his city example a bit further.

  The Paris we all know and love today is the result of an enormous centrally planned urban renewal exercise. Baron Haussmann carved, among many other things, long straight boulevards through Paris’ medieval fabric in order to modernize and rationalize the city.

  What makes this top-down exercise different from that of Brasilia’s? Is it simply that Haussmann was constrained by Paris’ existing and decidedly urban fabric?

  Because then we could turn our attention to New York City’s gridiron plan of 1811, which laid out – before the island of Manhattan had even fully developed – a relentless and orthogonal street network from Houston Street all the way up to 155th Street.

  Is the difference that Brasilia was planned with suburban sensibilities in mind and Manhattan was not? Or was it the restrictive Euclidean zoning that did it in for Brasilia? 

  Whatever the case may be, history suggests that some top-down planning exercises may have worked out just fine. Though to be fair, each of them was not without their share of critics.

  Photo by Rafael Leão on Unsplash

  2018.03.20

• Road pricing for whom?

  

  New York City is considering a congestion charge for drivers entering Manhattan below 60th street. It is part of Governor Cuomo’s Fix NYC plan. But we all know how difficult these things are to implement.

  Last month, Felix Salmon wrote a piece in Wired where he argued that our cities are dying of traffic congestion and that the cause is ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft. The solution: A tax on ride-hailing services.

  The article elicited a few reactions, including this one by Charles Komanoff over at Streetblogs and this one by Joe Cortright over at City Observatory. Joe’s message: “The problem isn’t the ride-hailed vehicles, it’s the under-priced street.” 

  Precisely.

  Felix later followed-up with a post on his blog where he clarified that the reason he loves this idea – of taxing ride-hailing companies, not riders – is that it’s far more politically palatable than a blanket tax on all cars. I don’t disagree.

  Which is why I think my idea is something which is eminently politically possible, in contrast to congestion pricing, which has been implemented exactly nowhere in the USA.

  Americans love their cars, and they love the freedom that cars represent, and they hate the idea that they should be taxed for driving their cars. Tolls on roads and bridges are bad enough, but a fee just to drive in to a city?

  That said, I’m with Charles and Joe. 

  Last year, it was reported that roughly 25% of all Uber trips in New York City were UberPool trips. I’m not sure what the number is today, but these are people who are car pooling to get around. That’s generally considered to be a positive thing.

  Are these really the trips we want to be discouraging (and singling out) with a charge simply because we don’t have the moxie to do what is right and makes rational sense?

  Photo by Austin Scherbarth on Unsplash

  2018.03.06

• Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Cities: From 1800 to Present Day

  

  I just ordered a copy of Multi-Unit Housing in Urban Cities: From 1800 to Present Day by Katy Chey. I figured this was a book that we should have hanging around our office. I also like to support the Daniels Faculty.

  The book covers the following multi-unit housing typologies:

  • Back-to-backs in Birmingham
  • Tenements in London
  • Haussmann apartments in Paris
  • Tenements in New York
  • Tong lau in Hong Kong
  • Perimeter block, linear block and block-edge in Berlin
  • Perimeter block and solitaire in Amsterdam
  • Space-enclosing structures in Beijing
  • Kyosho jutaku in Tokyo
  • High-rises in Toronto

  In addition to each typology, the book analyzes the connection between the housing type and the city. Why did certain typologies flourish where they did and how have they helped to define their city?

  It reminds me of what I was trying to do with some of my recent posts about Hong Kong’s typical tower plan, albeit with far less rigor than what I am sure has been applied to this book.

  I am also curious to read what has been written about high-rises in Toronto. It goes to show you just how defining the current real estate cycle has been for this city. That’s our multi-unit housing typology.

  Image: Daniels Faculty. My multi-unit home made the book.

  2018.01.26

• Land use restrictions and upward mobility

  Throughout US history, economic growth has typically spurred an “enormous reallocation of population.” Here is a graph from a recent New York Times article called: What Happened to the American Boomtown?

  

  The argument, here, is that restrictions on development have made it so that the most prosperous cities are actually the slowest growing cities in terms of population. Here is a chart, from the same article, comparing population growth to average annual pay:

  

  And here is an excerpt:

  But these productive places aren’t growing as fast now as economists believe they should — and as they would if they didn’t impose so many obstacles on new development. Since the 1970s, land use restrictions have multiplied in coastal metros, making it harder to build in, say, San Jose, Calif., than in Phoenix. And the politics of development have become tense, too. In the Boston suburbs, the Bay Area, Brooklyn and Washington, people who already live there have balked at new housing for people who don’t.

  We often talk about the impact of land use restrictions on supply and overall housing affordability. But here is an argument that it could also be impacting upward mobility.

  2017.12.08

• The worst on-time performance of any major transit system in the world

  I was recently with some New Yorkers and we got on to the topic of their subway system. I made a comment about how extensive their network is and how their express trains work so well for traveling further distances. 

  They responded by basically saying: “Yeah, it’s great, when it works.” They then went on to tell me that most of the time they just use Uber to get around the city because the subway has become so unreliable.

  Admittedly, I don’t use the NYC subway system enough to comment on its declining performance. But this recent New York Times article describes it as an utterly failing system.

  Here is a diagram from the article that shows performance on every line (2007 to 2017), measured as a percentage of trains that reach their destinations on time (i.e. less than 5 minutes late):

  

  In 2007, more than 90% of trains reached their destinations on time. Today, the weekday average is around 65% and some of the lines are in the 30s. This is the worst it has been since the 1970s when NYC was almost bankrupt.

  Apparently this also awards NYC’s subway the title of the worst on-time performance out of the world’s top 20 biggest systems.

  I suppose one of the lessons here is that subway lines on a map will always be far sexier than the nuts and bolts of maintenance, performance, and ridership. But we can’t forget the nuts and bolts. Maybe those are the most important parts.

  2017.11.23

• Geography is no longer destiny

  

  The Q3 2017 Moneytree Report from PwC and CB Insights was recently released. It tracks venture capital trends in the US and globally. 

  Last quarter, US venture capital-backed companies saw $19 billion in total funding across 1,207 deals. Perhaps most notably for the US, funding in the NY metro area rose 57% to $4.227 billion and inched out the San Francisco Bay Area ($4.177 billion).

  But this was really because of two epic rounds to WeWork (NYC HQ) totalling around $2.5 billion. Also, Silicon Valley ($2.2 billion) is tracked separately to the San Francisco Bay Area in the report.

  Still, there’s a real sense that the New York tech ecosystem is on the rise and that it is probably furthest ahead in the US in terms of being able to catch up to California.

  Last week, MongoDB (NASDAQ: MDB) went public. Albert Wenger, who is an investor in the company, argued on his blog that this is an important milestone for technology companies based in New York. 

  It’s the first core technology company (instead of applied technology company) to go public in the city and it’s a big step forward in terms of demonstrating that “geography is no longer destiny.” 

  You don’t have to move to the Bay Area to win in tech.

  2017.10.28

• Amazon orange

  This week (Thursday) was the deadline to submit proposals for Amazon HQ2. About 100 cities across North America are thought to have a bid in. 

  New York lit up every single landmark in the city with “Amazon orange” in an “embarrassing attempt” to try and win this thing. That’s how bad cities want this.

  I already think that Toronto has won an incredible prize with Sidewalk Toronto. Arguably, it may turn out to be more impactful to this city than Amazon HQ2. It’s an opportunity to define the future of, not just this city, but all cities. It’s an opportunity to lead.

  At the same time, I continue to believe that there’s no better place for Amazon HQ2 than here in Toronto. Not surprisingly, our bid emphasized the point that I’ve been hammering home on this blog since Amazon first announced the RFP. Toronto’s key competitive advantage: talent. 

  Below is an excerpt from the submission cover letter. The entire letter emphasizes our ability to grow, attract, and retain top talent.

  Thirty-nine percent of the Toronto Region—and 51% of Toronto proper—are born outside of Canada. We welcome more new immigrants each year than New York, LA, and Chicago combined. We speak over 180 languages and dialects. Toronto is heralded as the most multicultural city in the world, and our labour force and economy benefit directly from our diversity and inclusivity. We build doors, not walls. And those doors open to highly-skilled economic immigrants and international students who can easily become permanent residents and citizens.

  For the full Toronto region submission, click here. 

  Okay, enough about Sidewalk Labs and Amazon. Regular scheduled programming will resume on the blog starting tomorrow.

  2017.10.20

• The neighborhood of the future

  

  Daniel Doctoroff (chairman and CEO of Sidewalk Labs and former deputy mayor of New York City) and Eric Schmidt (executive chairman of Alphabet and former CEO of Google) recently contributed a piece to the Globe and Mail about “why Toronto is the ideal place to build a neighborhood of the future.” 

  It’s about the partnership they working on with Waterfront Toronto. I wrote about that announcement, here.

  Here is an excerpt from the Globe article:

  “The eastern waterfront will be a place where residents, companies, startups and local organizations can advance new ideas for improving city life. It’s where a self-driving test shuttle will take its first steps toward becoming a next-generation transit system that’s cheaper, safer and more convenient than private car-ownership. It’s where new insights into advanced construction methods will start to reveal a path toward more affordable housing development. It’s where explorations into renewable energy and sustainable building designs will show promise toward becoming a climate-positive blueprint for cities around the world.”

  These are some of the first details that I have heard about their vision for Toronto’s eastern waterfront. 

  Some of you are probably worried – after reading the above excerpt – that by focusing on self-driving vehicles, we are setting ourselves up to repeat our previous mistakes. But if self-driving vehicles are destined to become a reality (and it certainly feels that way), it is critical that we understand their impact and how they might best dovetail with the public transit systems we already have in place.

  I am thrilled that all of this will be happening right here on our doorstep.

  Photo by Brxxto on Unsplash

  2017.10.17

• Photoblog: 15 Union Square West

  

  I took the above photo this afternoon. The building on the left is 15 Union Square West in New York City. 

  It’s a re-cladding of a late 19th century building that was originally constructed for Tiffany & Company. The building’s original cast-iron arches were preserved and set behind new black framed, double insulated, laminated glass panels. 

  The arches aren’t that noticeable during the day, but at night they can really stand out. Click here for a few other photos and to see what that looks like.

  Front Inc. designed the framing systems. If you aren’t familiar with Front, you should check them out. They are a leading design and facade consultancy.

  2017.10.15

• Superstar or bubble?

  “The term “bubble” refers to a substantial and sustained mispricing of an asset, the existence of which cannot be proved unless it bursts.” – UBS

  Last week UBS released its 2017 Global Real Estate Bubble Index. At the top of the list was none other than Toronto, followed by Stockholm, Munich, Vancouver and Sydney. And at the bottom of the list was Chicago – a city that UBS feels is undervalued.

  Here is the full list of index scores:

  

  The UBS index is a weighted average of the following five sub-indices:

  1. Price-to-income
  2. Price-to-rent (fundamental valuation)
  3. Change in mortgage-to-GDP ratio
  4. Change in construction-to-GDP ratio (economic distortion)
  5. Relative price-city-to-country indicator

  If you look at their price-to-income benchmark in isolation, Toronto drops down to the middle of the pack along with Geneva and San Francisco. Hong Kong, London and Paris sit at the top with the most unaffordable housing. 

  Still, UBS credits “an overly loose monetary policy”, foreign demand, tight zoning, and rental market regulations for the eroding housing affordability in Toronto and Vancouver.

  One of the challenges, of course, is that the capital flowing into real estate is not all local – it’s also global. And many cities around the world are seeing high price-to-income multiples, perhaps because of that. 

  So exactly how much decoupling from local fundamentals should now be considered reasonable in our globalized world? And to what extent is this a result of “superstar economics?”

  Here’s an excerpt from the UBS report:

  The economics of Superstars explains why, in some professions, show business for instance, “small numbers of people earn enormous amounts of money and dominate the activities in which they engage.” By analogous reasoning, prices in the most attractive cities are expected to outperform average cities or rural areas in the long run. Hong Kong, London and San Francisco are exemplars of this theory.

  The intuition is that the national and global growth of high-wealth households creates continued excess demand for the best locations. So, as long as supply cannot increase rapidly, prices in the so-called “Superstar cities” are supposed to decouple from rents, incomes and the respective countrywide price level.

  I guess this is one of the reasons why bubbles are proven after the fact. If you would like to download a copy of the full UBS report, click here.

  2017.10.03